Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Supreme Court Now In Session--Religious Freedom On Docket

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

With the nation's attention turned toward the tragedy in Las Vegas, many may have missed the fact that the United States Supreme Court is back in session.

However, the impact of their rulings will not be missed. Among what the press is calling "hot button" issues are several that include the First Amendment---religious freedom.

A bakers right to decline a so-called "same-sex marriage" and a city council's or state legislature's right to pray are included in the "hot button" issues. Birth control is also on the docket.


Monday was the first day on the benches for the justices since June when they issued rulings that essentially redefined marriage.

You will recall that Jack Phillips, a biblical Christian who believes in biblical marriage, declined to create a "wedding cake" for a same-sex couple, who then sued Phillips. The case has progressed through the courts, and will now be heard by the Supreme Court.

With the addition of President Trump's appointee, Justice Gorsuch, to the Court, the secular Left activists are concerned about how the Court will now rule on this case.

The far Left Daily Beast published this:

It’s not clear how important Masterpiece Cakeshop is from a judicial standpoint, but as a flashpoint in the culture war, it’s probably the most recognizable case on the fall docket.
The facts are simple: conservative Christian owns a cakeshop, refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the conflict is complicated. If the baker wins, that’s like putting a “No Gays Allowed” sign on the storefront window. How can that be OK? But if the baker loses, the government is basically forcing an artist to compromise his religious beliefs. Indeed, if this particular baker is to be believed, it’ll put him out of business, since he’s said he’d rather quit than violate his religious beliefs.
Of course, it’s not just about cake. If a baker can turn away a gay couple, why not a government employee, a hotelier, or a doctor? Are the constitutional rights of a gay person less equal than those of, say, a black person? The question is not rhetorical; it was only a few decades ago that segregationists claimed a religious justification for not seating whites and blacks together. They lost, but Leonard Leo, the right-wing ideologue directing Trump’s judicial picks, has said that such cases should be overturned. Today’s anti-gay baker is tomorrow’s (or yesterday’s) anti-black restaurateur.
In other words, it’s about a lot more than cake.

This article reflects the homosexual activist talking points and will likely reflect the case made against Phillips to the Supreme Court.

The case will include claiming ethnicity and sexual behavior are equal.

Ken Klukowski, writing for Breitbart News, says many of the issues the Court will rule on will "impact the nation for many years to come."

He lists these 5 cases among the most important to Christians and conservatives:


  1. Perhaps the most talked-about case for the term at the moment is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the Supreme Court will consider whether the government’s forcing a Christian baker to customize the design of a wedding cake to celebrate same-sex marriage violates that Christian’s rights under either the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
  2. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court will determine whether forcing government employees to pay union fees that go to collective-bargaining arrangements violates their free-speech rights under the First Amendment. If the Court sides with the employees (as is expected), this will be a major blow to unions and overrule a major 1977 pro-union case. This case has significant implications for unions’ ability to fund left-wing political activities as well.
  3. In Carpenter v. United States, the justices will decide whether taking without a search warrant the cell phone tower data that records the movements of individual cell phone users violates the Fourth Amendment. This could be a seminal case in determining what the Constitution requires in terms of personal privacy in light of newer technologies.
  4. In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court will examine at what point politics play such a large role — when lawmakers make political calculations in drawing legislative redistricting plans after each census — that the plan is a “political gerrymander” that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Another issue in that case is whether such claims are never justifiable in court because it is impossible to effectively remove politics from politicians’ decision-making.
  5. In Collins v. Virginia, the justices will determine whether the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to approach a vehicle parked next to a house on private property without a search warrant. The Court has previously held that there is an “automobile exception” to the Constitution’s usual warrant requirement because it would be impractical to get a judge to issue a search warrant every time a police officer approaches a car. The question here is whether that exception applies when the car is actually next to a home that would clearly be protected by the Fourth Amendment.


I would add the case involving the cabinet making company Conestoga.

The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to consider the birth control mandate. The company owners say the policy requires them to violate their Mennonite faith.

Much hangs in the balance. Pray that our justices will make decisions consistent with the Constitution, and with God's Laws.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.


3 comments:

  1. If they don't get this right, I hope for some impeaching.

    ReplyDelete

  2. The word "law" means laid down, like sediment in water, no more churning and stirring. It settles out and is at peace

    Which is what the law gives, peace, so that the only time force can be used is to prevent the breaking of the peace

    To use force to force another to your will is to violate the peace

    This is the problem with ALL anti discrimination laws they are anti-law. It is the belief the law can not be at peace and can still be law.

    But once we think it is good to use force, to force another to our will, there is really no end to it

    You cannot break the law and still have it, at any time

    It is a logical impossibility and why the courts are ask to set boundaries on when we are allowed to act irrationally and when we cannot.

    Which just makes the law a whim and how they could just declare there is such a thing as a union between two individuals of the same sex, in the first place

    They just make it up as they go along

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anyone over 50 should remember seeing signs in retail stores or restaurants saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

    Rarely did this sign attempt to justify racism, but rather the private citizen entrepreneurs right to deny working for or serving someone for their own practical reasons. Certainly a loud, obnoxious person can be refused service...right? NO.. Not if he/she is black, homosexual, transgender, etc., because the vendor is by assumption automatically guilty of a violation of the “special rights’ the government has promised them.

    Our "laws" have created "subclasses" of Americans who are privileged above other "subclasses" of Americans. When a woman "feels' she is being treated wrongly she can charge "sexual harassment", or "Chauvinism", or "Anti-women's rights" as a violation. When a homosexual is criticized, insulted, or treated with anger he/she can charge the crime of "intolerance" or "homophobia", expecting the "violator" to be punished. Muslims cannot be criticized and the Koran must be treated with honor by all,… but NOT SO for Christians, the bible, conservatives, or white men. Those are four subclasses that have no political or legal rights to regress against bigoted or prejudicial treatment and/or slander.

    It should not be the job of government to protect one or more classes of persons against insult, or other non-violent forms of “unfair” or “prejucicial” treatement. People who cannot handle criticism or unfair treatment and expect the government to redress their unhappiness suffer from a psychosis, one with the contemporary label of “snowflakes’. Those with a political agenda should not be allowed by government to do harm via government power to those who do not agree or will nor conform to their agenda.

    Mom had the cure for this psychosis early in life….”Son…sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you".

    When people are unrighteously prejudiced in words and actions the majority of citizens will shun them. Those who do not like Christians should be free to avoid doing business with businesses owned by Christians, and those who do not wish to serve other groups should have the freedom not to serve them as well.

    Respect should be a two-way social covenant, not a one-way-only rule enforced for "favored subclasses" by punishment under the law against "un-favored subclasses".

    If 'fairness' is truly the standard, why should a bigot be free to choose not to do business with the target of his/her bigotry? Is he/she not by doing so causing financial harm to the person(s) to whom he/she is prejudiced? Political correctness is taking us quickly to a world where ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ adjudged to be violations will be punished.

    In a fair and open society/marketplace those who choose to serve (sell to) others should have the same rights as those who choose to buy from others. That it... if "fairness" is truly the goal.

    Government has no business sticking their prejudicial nose into the mix. Freedom and Liberty are the watchwords of the American Constitution. Let us pray that our Supremes will recognized this and decide moving forward to take seriously their oaths of office and follow that Constitution instead of re-interpreting it suit political correct social movements.

    Truth is a lonely warrior...
    G>T>

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.