Elena Kagan, Not so Gay-Friendly Supreme Court Nominee

In effect, Kagan’s past position suggests that she would support the “religious freedom” of a landlord to deny housing to a gay tenant based on religious belief–even if there were laws against such discrimination.

It is likely that the Senate Judiciary Committee will question Kagan about this issue.

It is also very apparent from Kagan’s opinion on the California housing case and her broad reading of “religious freedom” (a reading that actually circumvents the intent of the First Amendment) that Kagan is most certainly not an ally for the gay and lesbian community.

President Obama’s campaign pledges to the gay and lesbian community are in conflict with his nomination of Elena Kagan based on her statements of the past. I hope that the Senate confirmation hearings clarify her position on “religious freedom” when it conflicts with “public law.”

http://blogs.outandaboutnewspaper.com/samjones/?p=567

the right of gays to discriminate against straights.

Oh, but the heads will explode, because RWers can dish it out, but they can't take it.

not sure why but...

it was an argument with the Court's reasoning, not necessarily with its conclusion. See here.

I haven't read it yet so I don't know what I think, but actually religious-based exemptions to public laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court before (with respect to the Amish, for instance), and it is not so obvious that there is not a good argument for doing so. (Anti-discrimination laws, however, absolutely should not have conscience exemptions.)

Edit: It appears actually to have been a statutory argument, not a constitutional one, with respect to the Religious Freedom Promotion Act (which passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities), and one that focused almost exclusively on the California Supreme Court's test, not on its conclusion.

So:

"The brief notes that the groups disagree among themselves as to whether the state has a compelling interest in application of its anti-discrimination provision, which would justify imposing a substantial burden on Smith's religious practice."

the reasoning should have been, if one were going to rule in favor of the petitioner in that case, that the landlord was being discriminatory and did not have the protection of the 1st Amendment to do so, not that, well, she could just move to another state.

This article/argument is a severe stretch to come up with a pretty wide-sweeping conclusion about Kagan.

The mainstream press is usually not very good when it comes to legal reporting. Law blogs, somewhat awkwardly, are often better (SCOTUSblog, for instance, is invaluable.)

open-mindedness. There is already too much of this type of BS going around. Supposedly this country is about equality, often a joke. Bigots and zealots in the American masses abound, many people need legal protection. My religion says I can't rent to bigots and zealots, can I refuse to rent to them too?