I am citing these cases to show how America has handled its recent cases, not to either endorse or demean them. My intention is to show, how mainstream religious beliefs are legalized in the west contrary to what many in India, especially Kerala think. Another reason which prompted me is that in the Sabarimala verdict, Justice Deepak Mishra was quoting Susan B Anthony and Henry Ward (a Christian Reformer), while Justice Chandrachud referred to “Pursuit of Happiness”.

1) Masterpiece Cakeshop Vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission

A bakery owner, Jack Philips refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, as he considered their union was against his Christian beliefs. The gay couple with the help of Colorado civil rights commission went to court against him. In court, he cited his beliefs as a Christian, and won the case. In July 2018, the US Supreme court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs.

Religious Tolerance vs Hostility

Three years ago, in 2015, same-sex marriage was legalized in the US. That opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. But in the baker’s case, the same justice wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, and pointed out that the Civil rights commission had mistreated Philips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns. Justice Kennedy wrote, “At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market” Kennedy said.

Comparison to Kerala situation



While writing this, I couldn’t help think that, no one with a tiny bit of empathy and human emotion left in them, can deny the huge hostility displayed and encouraged by the local government under the pretext of obeying court (towards something millions hold as a sacred and harmless tradition in one specific Temple of a beloved pilgrimage, which doesn’t affect anyone’s social life, which was misrepresented by the government itself in the court as a case of gender equality, and a case which is still in court) misusing all of Kerala government machinery and funds, to trample and mock religious liberty.

Further, with the “wall” they really sought to build in minds, some simpletons and some really, really righteous people may have been able to be convinced that this is about gender equality, but surely there can be no denial that they provided an open platform/wall for many people to exhibit their religious hate and bigotry under a liberal garb. I don’t think that is what the Indian Supreme Court ordered.

To further contextualize, in America, even though same-sex marriage is legalized and no one should be discriminatory to them in social life, the government cannot force a church or any religious organization/person to officiate the marriage, or not even force a bakery to bake a cake for them.

Global Catholic Network Vs Obamacare

Obamacare required employers to cover a wide range of contraceptives, in their employee health care plans. They exempted churches and religious orders; but NGOs like “Little Sisters of the Poor”, run by nuns & EWTN Global Catholic Network went to court against it. They said, “Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion is no secret, so it should have come as no surprise that we rejected the mandate.” In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters and asked the government to work out schemes to leave such organizations out of the process. In November 2018, EWTN won in a separate federal appeals court.

Comparison to Kerala Situation



US government and US media treated the case with religious sensitivity. I don’t think anyone in the government or media thought they were responsible for “reforming” Catholics or bringing in a new “renaissance” by “rewriting” Catholic beliefs, unlike what the Kerala government did to the Hindu temple. Never did I hear any defamatory statement from government or media regarding nun’s habits or such NGO’s interests/biblical beliefs in contraception/reproduction, much different from the treatment given to Sabarimala temple officials/believers.

I don’t think the US cases are even comparable to the Sabarimala temple issue in that, they do affect tons of people’s active social lives, while the Sabarimala pilgrimage does not. None of the US cases even involved churches which were already completely exempted. No western government or court is interfering in any church sect’s freedom in deciding which other Christian sect people they will/won’t give communion to. No liberal or government is comparing this to the racial segregation which existed in churches. No court or government will examine or insist on biblical or other religion’s verses to be removed to bring gender equality on central tenets, or why women cover their heads in churches or otherwise. Western media had reported that Meghan Markle, a renowned feminist, was required to be baptized into Church of England before the Royal wedding, as she was probably baptized in a different sect & wasn’t eligible to receive Church of England’s communion. I feel that in a world, where all of this is totally normalized, a harmless tradition and temple which affects no social lives, worshipped by millions, is denigrated so much through state machinery & words in 2018 is unbelievable. For a Hindu, a temple and its beliefs are as sacred as a bible to a Christian.

Justice Kurien Joseph’s opinion

I am hoping that on Jan 22, Indian Supreme Court would really consider the utter religious insensitivity and hostility towards the Hindu temple, that was displayed in Kerala under the garb of implementing their verdict. I am also hoping that this verdict would go through the judicial methods suggested by Justice Kurien Joseph, namely “Review petitions, and if required, Curative petitions and a government ordinance”. He said, ”This is a case still in court.” “Court always has an open attitude. If things are presented the correct way, courts will always consider it with an open attitude.” He adds, “Judges who decide such cases should have at least an inkling of India’s wide diversity.” Also says “There have been many verdicts which were not implemented”.

When asked if his stand is contradictory as he is the architect of Triple Talaq verdict, he replied that TT verdict was a very safe one as it was done by completely respecting Koran and Shariat. (What he implies is that, only INSTANT TT/Talaq-e-Biddat (which could even be done on phone or WhatsApp) which is disapproved in the scripture is banned by the verdict. Talaq-e-Hasan through which triple talaq can be done in 2 months (end of 3 menstrual cycles) remains untouched in India. Also, Talaq-e- Ahsan involving 3 months is untouched. No alimony need to be paid either). I have no locus standing on this and Court would throw me out if I express the opinion, but ‘wall makers’ seem content with this, while continuing to be worried about equal trekking rights !!

When questioned as to whether his stand is because he is a known believer in God, he replies, “More than that, it is because I am completely aware of the constitutional protection and complete freedom that my own religion enjoys in India and in its constitution. Such a constitution which provides such open freedom of all religions is very rare in the world.”

It can be safely surmised that had he been retained in the bench, he would have voted same as Justice Indu Malhotra. He even says, “I had expressed my views strongly when I was involved in the case.”

We know that Article 25 and 26 provide all freedom and respect to India’s minority religions and sects. I hope this will ring true for native religion and sacred temples also on Jan 22nd.



Here is my analysis on Justice Indu Malhotra’s verdict which I had previously put on FB