Accuracy in Media

It’s rather ironic that the liberal media, which claims to be the gatekeepers of democracy, have forgotten about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s warnings in the wake of the Obergefell ruling. In his dissent, Alito warned of accusations of bigotry being tossed at those who support traditional marriage. The ruling opened the door for legalization of gay/same-sex/homosexual marriage, and a plethora of other issues, such as religious liberty and religious discrimination complaints.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke to an audience at an event hosted by a Catholic lawyers group, and reminded them of his warning in his dissent in the Obergefell case. Alito correctly deducted that his warning had become true since the court ruling. We went and dug up Alito’s dissent and italicized his words of warning:

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. . . . . We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

You may ask, how is Justice Alito correct in his assessment of his dissent’s prediction and warning? Religious liberty is a contentious topic today in the courts and in the court of public opinion, as the following examples demonstrate:

  • Sweet Cakes by Melissa: The Klein family closed their bakery after citing their Christian religion in not baking a cake for a gay couple, and paid a fine of $135,000.
  • Arlene’s Flowers: Owner Barronelle Stutzman is facing a fine from the state of Washington for declining to make a flower arrangement for a gay customer, citing her Christian beliefs.
  • Memories Pizza: The Indiana pizza shop was criticized when the owner was asked, by a visiting reporter, about a hypothetical situation of serving gay customers. The owner said due to Christian beliefs, they would hypothetically decline. As a result, they received death threats and closed shop until they could re-open (receiving crowdfunding to do so).

Photo by Cknight70





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Pollos Hermanos

    None of the cases mentioned above have anything to do with the Obergefell decision.

    They’re all based on long standing non-discrimination laws.

  • mioahu

    But everything else that is happening in the country has… you are labelled as a bigot if you believe in traditional marriage, and people have been fired and intimidated.

  • Pollos Hermanos

    You’re labelled as a bigot when you do harm to others while hiding behind your religious belief.

  • mioahu

    they were done no harm, they could have shopped at the store next door. Should a black person be forced to bake a KKK cake ? how about a jew forced to attend a nazi event ? You leftists always want to use the law to force people , if they disagree with you, and label them, and that’s why you lost the election, because you had nothing to offer other than insulting the other side

  • Pollos Hermanos

    Are the KKK or Nazis protected under non-discrimination laws?

    Yes or no.

  • john robel

    Who is harmed if a florist refuses a homosexual wedding? There are PLENTY of homosexual florists. We refuse the right to refuse service to ANYONE WE DONT LIKE. THIS IS MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WE’LL DO AS WE PLEASE. DONT THINK SO? TRY ME.

  • john robel

    There is a huge double standard in the disgraced situation our nation is in due to liberal assholes. The answer is HELL YES, blacks should bake KKK cakes and Jews tolerate NAZI’S, if Little Sisters of The Poor have to provide birth control and the 1st amendment means nothing. But the TRUTH IS — RACISM IS TOLERATED, AND ENCOURAGED IF YOU ARE A MINORITY. Try and start a white answer to BET (black entertainment television), or how about the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CAUCASIAN PEOPLE. How about the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND? The Boy Scouts of America, A PRIVATE ORGINIZATION, has had HOMOSEXUALS RAMMED UP ITS ASS.

  • john robel

    THEY SHOULD BE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. ABSOLUTELY

  • john robel

    YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY DEAD WRONG. Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.[4] This legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, and its possessions and territories. The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of DISCRIMINATION AND INEQUALITY that has developed greatly since Baker

  • Pollos Hermanos

    You’re kind of stupid aren’t you. No, they aren’t covered.

  • Pollos Hermanos

    Enjoy the fines!

  • Pollos Hermanos

    Some of those cases started prior to Obergefell and are based on state non-discrimination laws.

    I realize you’re a bit slow but you should probably read things before you weigh in.

  • Pollos Hermanos

    You poor victim.

    Hey John! Can you see all the way to the Vatican from that cross you’ve nailed yourself to?

  • mioahu

    ahahhahah,CHICKEN BOY, really, that’s your argument ? So if there is no specific law that you can’t discriminate against a group then it’s ok to do so ? That’s a stupid leftist argument devoid of any logic, like all leftist arguments are, selfcontradictory and illogical. Just make it up case by case, no need for consistency or thinking … way to go CHICKEN BOY

  • Pollos Hermanos

    The law is the law.

    The question still stands. Are your strawman examples protected under non-discrimination laws or not?