“Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

— Justice Clarence “Pubic Hair” Thomas, in his sad, bitter, clueless dissent against same-sex marriage

Set aside Thomas’ desperate attempts to avoid comparisons of LGBT rights and African American rights. (At least he didn’t take Jindal’s equally laughable approach: outrage.) Set aside the fact that Thomas refuses to see the overwhelming similarities between Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges. Of all the arguments against the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of marriage equality, this is the most telling.

Thomas & Co. say that they’re worried about the decision’s effect on “religious liberty”, which makes it sound like a very noble concern. Only, no one is threatening to curb religious speech. What Thomas and his ilk really mean by all that fearmongering is that they’re worried they won’t be able to discriminate against us anymore under the mildly palatable guise of religion.

But of course they can — and they will. Obergefell doesn’t end homophobia any more than Brown v. Board of Education ended racism. You can be a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole all you want, and the bible has plenty of passages to support your views. But don’t expect people to laugh at your jokes or donate to your church.