The conservative religious right has embarked on a mission to erode civil rights, using distorted facts and dubious history to fuel their efforts. A recent case, 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, reached the US Supreme Court, in which the court ruled that a website design business owned by an evangelical Christian could discriminate against same-sex couples. This decision exemplifies the court’s pivot towards the doctrine of “originalism” and raises concerns about the separation of church and state.
The US Supreme Court’s conservative majority, predominantly comprising Catholic justices, has adopted a novel standard to evaluate constitutional rights – one rooted in “history and tradition.” This reinterpretation allows for a convenient manipulation of historical context, making any form of history seemingly suitable. This approach, labeled as “religious autonomy,” becomes a means to limit rights, leveraging distorted scholarship, “impact” litigation, and misleading history to establish power through illogic.
Underlying this shift is a disregard for established history. Since its inception, the Supreme Court upheld the protection of belief while regulating speech and conduct. However, recent decisions undermine this principle. The conservative majority’s decision in 303 Creative conflates expressive conduct with “pure speech,” granting certain religious beliefs a higher status and circumventing historical context to justify this elevation.
The justices rely on organizations like the Becket Fund and the Catholic League, which present fraudulent histories, seeking to mandate religious exemptions from the law. These histories, however, lack scholarly credibility and were debunked long ago. In contrast to their claims, the founders believed in the importance of law and order for true liberty. Religious freedom was not intended to override laws that protect individuals and society from harm.
Moreover, these conservative groups strive to amplify a subset of religious speech, exalting it above all other speech forms. This approach distorts historical context, falsely attributing views to the framers that align with their argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in the case furthers this distortion by redefining commercial expressive conduct as “pure speech,” a departure from established legal criteria.
These dangerous shifts by the court threaten to prioritize biased religious speech and conduct over fundamental rights. The motivations behind this shift seem tied to the continued resentment from the Obergefell decision, which legalized gay marriage. This decision reflects a broader trend of manipulating the First Amendment to align with specific religious perspectives. In this process, the court disregards established history and undermines the principles that once formed the bedrock of American democracy.