Anti-Gay Conservatives Complain That Sotomayor Ruled In Their Favor, But Not For The Reason They Wanted
Anti-Gay Conservatives Complain That Sotomayor Ruled In Their Favor, But Not For The Reason They Wanted
Refusing even to take “yes” for an answer, several anti-gay groups are attacking Judge Sotomayor for her decision in a case brought by an anti-gay pastor — even though Sotomayor ruled in the pastor’s favor.
In 2000, a right-wing pastor named Kristopher Okwedy paid to display this anti-gay billboard in a gay-friendly Staten Island neighborhood:
A few days after the billboard went up, Staten Island’s Borough President faxed a letter to the billboard company stating that “[a]s Borough President of Staten Island I want to inform you that this message conveys an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome in our Borough.” The company took the billboard down almost immediately, and Okwedy promptly sued the Borough President, claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated.
Although a trial judge tossed the case out at the earliest stage of litigation, Sotomayor joined an opinion reinstating the case because she believed that the Borough President’s letter may have violated Okwedy’s free speech rights. Sotomayor recognized that even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Instead of praising Sotomayor for ruling in their favor, however, anti-gay groups are now whining because she didn’t rule in their favor in exactly the way they would have liked best:
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council (FRC), slammed the appeals court’s opinion.
“The case raises troubling issues,” he said in a statement. “[T]he church was posting a purely religious message with no statements regarding public policy. The opinion suggests that Sotomayor may view the First Amendment through the lenses of political correctness.”
“Would a billboard proclaiming ‘gay pride month,’ which is offensive to many Christians, have been similarly treated?” Perkins said. “Sotomayor should be asked.”
Perkins is complaining that Sotomayor did not agree with Okwedy that his First Amendment rights were violated because the Borough President’s letter “demonstrates the City’s ‘official position of hostility toward the biblical viewpoint of homosexual practice and Okwedy’s religious beliefs.’” Essentially, Okwedy claimed that the city cannot enact a policy which is contrary to his own religious beliefs.
But nothing in the Constitution says that people don’t have to comply with the law simply because they have a religious disagreement with it. Indeed, if Sotomayor’s court had adopted Okwedy’s theory of religious liberty, it would be unconstitutional to prosecute murders who kill out of a religious belief that God wants them to.
Tony Perkins should learn to take his court victories and enjoy them, rather than throwing a tantrum whenever judges refuse to write his own personal religious beliefs into the law.
5 Responses to “Anti-Gay Conservatives Complain That Sotomayor Ruled In Their Favor, But Not For The Reason They Wanted”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Tony Perkins should give us all a break and jump off the Brooklyn Bridge – maybe holding hands with Randall Terry in the process and on the way down.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:20 amI’m not sure I agree with Sotomayor on this one. How did Molinari’s letter violate the First Amendment?
It wasn’t an order to remove the signs. It wasn’t a prior restraint. It wasn’t even a threat. It was simply a letter expressing displeasure with the content of the signs, which prompted the company to remove the signs voluntarily.
Isn’t the Borough of Staten Island also entitled to free expression? Isn’t the company entitled to decide which advertisements to place on their own billboards?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:45 amI’m not sure I agree with Sotomayor on this one. How did Molinari’s letter violate the First Amendment?
The law in the Second Circuit is that a government official can violate the First Amendment if they intimidate a person into not speaking. Judge Sotomayor’s opinion did not resolve the ultimate question of whether or not the Borough President violated the Constitution; it remanded the case to allow a jury to determine whether or not the letter could have been intimidating.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:09 amIan M. Says:
The law in the Second Circuit is that a government official can violate the First Amendment if they intimidate a person into not speaking.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
___________
Ahh, I see – thank you for the clarification. Do you know how the case was ultimately resolved?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:29 amIf the billboard read, “women belong in the kitchen and bedroom not in the work place, not allowed to vote or buy property without a males consent,” would this be tolerated? If it read, “African Americans belong sitting at the back of the bus,” would this be acceptable/desirable? First Amendment aside, where is it gays must tolerate such hate/ignorance ‘in the name of God” (not the God I know) and free speech? Would other groups tolerate such blatant ignorance? One must draw a line some place, yes? Isn’t that what really took place here? The borough President didn’t dictate the billboard was to be removed. He pointed out it was simply in poor taste. Where do we, as a society, draw the line between the First Amendment and free speech and poor taste? ‘Believe’ what you like but there ought to be no room for the spreading of hate/ignorance/bigotry except, perhaps, to teach us how not to treat others. The highest, Godliest choice, ironically, is to respect others. It’s not for you – okay. No one is saying it has to be. Live n’ let live.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm