The Supreme Court’s New Religion: A License to Discriminate

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo has sent shockwaves through the country, fundamentally altering the way the judiciary approaches lawsuits seeking religious exemptions from state laws. This shift appears to be a victory for conservative Christians who have long felt marginalized by government attempts to limit their freedom of worship. However, scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find a more insidious trend: the Court’s new majority is using the guise of “religious liberty” to justify a license to discriminate against those with whom they disagree.

The decision itself marked a stark departure from the Court’s previous approach. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices had shown a willingness to defer to state governments in matters of public health and safety. However, with Amy Coney Barrett on board, the Court has taken a sharp turn to the right. In Roman Catholic Diocese, the justices effectively declared that churches must be treated as if they were secular businesses, subject only to the least restrictive rules applicable to any venue – regardless of whether those rules make sense in the context of worship.

This new approach has real-world implications. It sets a precedent for other religious institutions to challenge state laws on grounds they are being treated unfairly. More broadly, it reflects a deeper trend within the Court: an increasing willingness to use its power to advance policy goals popular among conservatives but unpopular among liberals.

This is not a new phenomenon; we’ve seen it play out in cases involving voting rights, abortion, and racial justice. In each of these areas, the Republican justices on the Court have shown a remarkable ability to ignore or overturn long-standing precedents in order to advance their ideological agenda. Despite this clear pattern of behavior, many Americans continue to treat the Supreme Court as if it were some kind of neutral arbiter – as if the justices are simply applying the law without regard for their own partisan leanings.

But they’re not. They’re using the power of the Court to shape public policy in ways that benefit their allies and harm their opponents. This willingness to politicize the judiciary should be most concerning to Americans who value democracy.

One argument in favor of the Supreme Court’s new approach is that it reflects a more “originalist” understanding of the Constitution – one that prioritizes the Founders’ intentions above all else. However, this argument relies on a rather… creative interpretation of history.

The Origins of the Problem

Many Americans assume that the First Amendment was designed to protect the free exercise of faith from government interference. And in some ways, it is – particularly when it comes to prohibiting the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. However, the founders were not naive to the fact that conflicts between religious and secular visions of America would inevitably arise.

In fact, they anticipated this very problem when drafting the Constitution. The internal tension between the two provisions governing religion was a deliberate design feature – one meant to prevent the government from favoring any particular faith or creed. Over time, as the country has grown more diverse and complex, these tensions have only intensified.

Today, we’re seeing a renewed push for “religious liberty” that is, in many cases, little more than a euphemism for “license to discriminate.” This is precisely what’s at stake with the Supreme Court’s new approach: by elevating the claims of religious conservatives above those of others, it threatens to undermine some of our most fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Consequences

This shift has serious implications for public schools, which may soon find themselves facing lawsuits over their curricula and policies. It also raises questions about anti-discrimination laws, which could be undermined by the Court’s willingness to treat churches as if they were secular businesses.

Furthermore, this trend has a long-term impact on our democracy. By politicizing the judiciary in this way, we’re eroding one of the key institutions that is meant to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

A License to Discriminate

In the end, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo represents a profound shift in our country’s values and priorities. By elevating the claims of religious conservatives above those of others, it threatens to undermine some of our most fundamental rights and freedoms – including the right to marry whomever we choose or use birth control without interference from the government.

As Americans, we need to wake up to this reality and start asking ourselves whether we really want a Supreme Court that uses its power to advance a partisan agenda. The answer is no. We deserve better – a judiciary that stands above the fray and protects our rights and freedoms without regard for party or ideology.

But it’s not just about the Supreme Court; it’s also about us as individuals. We need to start recognizing the ways in which our own biases and prejudices are influencing our views on issues like religious liberty and freedom of expression. And we need to start working towards a more inclusive, compassionate society – one where everyone is treated with dignity and respect.

Because when we fail to do so, we risk creating a country that is fundamentally at odds with its own values and principles. A country where the strong are free to discriminate against the weak, and where the rights of some are held above those of others. That’s not the America I want to live in – and it shouldn’t be the one you do either.