Why were SCOTUS Justices Alito and Kavanaugh meeting with anti-LGBTQ activist Brian Brown?

What in the world were SCOTUS Justices Alito and Kavanaugh doing meeting with anti-LGBTQ activist Brian Brown? Presently, SCOTUS is mulling over three cases having to do with anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

Something happened last week which raises a question about the possible bias of some SCOTUS justices when it comes to ruling on LGBTQ issues. But hardly anyone is talking about it.

From Quartz:

On Oct. 29, Brian S. Brown, president of the conservative advocacy group National Organization for Marriage (NOMA), tweeted a photo of himself with justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito and boasting about a “great day” at the US Supreme Court. The tweet raised alarm bells for court critics. 

NOMA regularly files amicus briefs with the court, as it already has this term in some of the most controversial cases before the justices. Brown’s organization, as a “friend of the court,” submitted a filing opposing a finding that Title VII, an anti-employment-discrimination statute, protects gay and transgender people.
The court is considering the issue in three cases and heard arguments on Oct. 8. Less than three weeks later, while justices were still mulling the matters, two of the bench’s conservatives had a friendly meeting with an activist who has made it abundantly clear how he feels they should rule. 

While the justices might not necessarily be swayed by anything Brown said when they all hung out, and they probably didn’t discuss their upcoming decision, the mere fact of the meeting casts doubt on their impartiality. And the appearance of fairness, the sense that litigants have a fair chance in court, is key to public confidence in the legal system. That’s why US Code Section 455 provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 

In response to the revelation of the meeting on social media, Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization advocating for judicial transparency, sent a letter to the chief justice’s counsel asking that the court either withdraw NOMA’s brief or explain why the justices may continue to sit on the cases given the standard in federal law. The organization’s executive director, Gabe Roth, told Quartz that as of Nov. 1 it had not received a response.

Quartz pointed out how situations like this are non-partisan because of another Justice, Elena Kagan

 . . . a week before Alito and Kavanaugh had their unseemly meeting, liberal justice Elena Kagan spoke at at University of Colorado Law School, which signed an amicus brief (pdf) in another extremely controversial matter before the court, supporting the continuation of the DACA program that defers immigration action for some children of undocumented immigrants who are students, serve in the military, or work for American businesses.

Still, seeing that Brown has a long history of campaigning against LGBTQ rights (even fundraising on the notion that SCOTUS justices picked by Trump will help overturn marriage equality) and Justice Alito has made comments seemingly favoring anti-LGBTQ discrimination (Slate magazine once said he was "positioning himself as an anti-gay culture warrior"), there should be more attention focused on just what this meeting was about.