Skeptical over Truth and Consequences

We received this comment from a reader today over the Truth and Consequences posting. It argues the opposite point of my little rant, and it is well grounded in the case law. It is worth reproducing in its entirety.

Frankly, I'm a little skeptical that the SC would strike down the antipolygamy law on the grounds of religious freedom. Its "jurisprudence" (I use the term lightly) on religious freedoms cases has tended to preserve the "group rights" of established religious groups while narrowing the grounds on which they can discriminate against Charter minorities within those groups. For instance, Trinity Western University was allowed to keep its code of sexual ethics, not on principle, but because no discrimination was found. However, the SC never defined what constitutes discrimination. It would have been interesting to see how they would have dealt with the case of a sincere but politically incorrect attempt by someone at TWU to counsel someone to avoid homosexual activity.

The other case is an Ontario provincial decision where the Roman Catholic school board was required to permit a male student to take his boyfriend to the prom, on the dubious grounds that proms are inessential to Catholic identity while essential to a high school student's sexual identity. Even so, I'd be surprised if the courts forced the RC Church to ordain female priests.

The trend of these cases (and others) is to narrow the ability of religious groups to define their doctrines and practices. Religious groups may preserve their beliefs, but the sphere in which they may act upon them is shrinking. Moreover, these two cases also involve 2 mainline churches. Minority religious groups - JWs come to mind - haven't been so successful, and I highly doubt the LDS polygamists in Bountiful, BC, would find a sympathetic judge. I also doubt Clayton Ruby or any other high-priced "human rights" lawyer would take up their cause. No polygamists allowed in the Court Party, as the rights of postmaterialists outweigh those of those who lag behind in the course of progressive history.