,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
So this is precisely the issue we raised in our SCOTUS amicus brief in #MasterpieceCakeshop & that we litigated & won in 1968 in Newman v Piggie Park. The owner of Piggie Park didn’t want to serve Black ppl he said, b/c he believed that “race mixing is against the will of God.”
You can read our brief here. naacpldf.org/files/about-us… Many ppl seemed to have forgotten that religious belief was the leading rationale offered by segregationists.
Here, for example, is the trial judge in Loving v Virginia, before the SCOTUS struck down Va’s anti-miscegenation law. 
Resistance to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial discrimination in public acccomodation, also attempted to make religious exemption arguments of just the sort likely relied on by this MS couple. Here’s the late Robert Byrd:
In Newman v Piggie Park, the SCOTUS made clear that religious justifications for racial discrimination in service do not overcome the Civil Rights Act requirement of equality. The case was argued & won by @NAACP_LDF ‘s 2nd Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg.
Our brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop warned that religious exemptions for LGBTQ discrimination must be understood in the context of Piggie Park. This woman epitomizes our precise argument against discrimination in the name of religious belief works in public accommodations & svcs.
She is not a clergy person and her business is not a church. It is a commercial enterprise open to the public just like the Piggie Park barbecue restaurant. And no, she’s not an artist.
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in Masterpiece Cakeshop reaffirmed Piggy Park. casetext.com/case/masterpie…
The conduct in this video is illegal. A reminder that battles won long ago are being reignited. And when we have judges who are unwilling to affirm that Brown v Bd was correctly decided, these refusals of service & assaults on dignity must be met head on.
