I’m certainly aware of the Court’s opinion in Dale. Though he joined it, he did not author the opinion.
But the main point is that nothing in the opinion suggests that there are no such thing as gays/homosexuals, so I don’t know where you get that from. The opinion does say that the Boy Scouts have a right to decide their membership and leadership. And two justices in the Dale majority, O’Connor and Kennedy, clearly do think that gays exist as a class (though whether it’ll be a protected class on the same level as race is something we’ll have to wait for a future case to know), so again, reading Dale as some major statement against ‘gay rights’ is a bit implausible.
Dale was about the 1st Amendment which is why it managed to get five votes. It tells us little about the Justices’ views on equal protection for homosexuals or substantive due process. And it certainly tells us nothing about their PRIVATE views, which is what I was really responding to when you asked about Justice Scalia and gays. Again, he may think it’s Constitutional for the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals, but he may not agree with that policy. We simply do not know. That’s the beauty of an originalist justice.
“Again, he may think it’s Constitutional for the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals,”
This part should read:
Again, he may think that the Boy Scouts have a Constitutional right to ban homosexuals,
“But the main point is that nothing in the opinion suggests that there are no such thing as gays/homosexuals, so I don’t know where you get that from”
I lean on REALITY -show any scientific test that objectively identifies homosexual beings... There is no test hence there are none objectively...
When it comes to those claiming the existence of homosexual beings it is simply a matter of faith
By analogy -what about Vegetarians OR Golfers do they have special rights?