Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.
Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.
It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.
Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.
Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.
This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.
The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.
What’s so scary about it? Shooting someone because you hate the way they look is a different scenario than shooting someone because the spirit animal of Jodie Foster told you to do it in a dream. Refusing to serve someone because they’re black (or gay) is different than refusing to serve someone because they once wronged you personally somehow.