Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Religious Liberty In America Weighed In The Balances...

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

After 5 years of enduring homosexual activists' attempts--- using the power of the government--- to strip Jack Phillips of his religious liberty---his freedom---it came down to one and half hours before the highest Court in the land.

Yesterday, Jack made his case for freedom before the most powerful justices in America based on a document that is housed about a mile from the Supreme Court building.

The question?

Does the United States government have the authority under the Constitution to punish a citizen because of his deeply held religious beliefs? Can the state force citizens to act in violation of their conscience?

Jack Phillips and those who represent him spent an hour and a half yesterday before the highest court in the land---the most powerful justices in America.

America's Constitution is housed barely a mile from where they stood.

Ironically, the Christian baker, who came before the Court as a symbol of tens of thousands of people of faith, wasn't demanding anything his adversaries, and all progressives don't already enjoy.

He was simply asking for the same tolerance to live and work according to his beliefs.

Much will be written about this case---now and for years to come, because so much hangs in the balance.

Our Founding Fathers birthed this nation on the Truth that God, not government, is the author of freedom.

Jack Phillips lost that freedom when his conscience clashed with so-called "same-sex marriage."

When he declined to create a "wedding" cake for 2 men, 5 years ago, his life forever changed.

Family Research Council says, "The Colorado Civil Rights Commission swooped in and hauled Jack to court. Surrendering his beliefs, Jack was told, is the price of doing business. Liberals, meanwhile, went to work destroying his shop, Masterpiece Cakes, launching a fierce social media campaign in an attempt to siphon off customers. Phillips eventually stopped creating any wedding cakes as the case made its way through the courts---a decision that cost his family 40% of its income."

FRC said, "Outside the Supreme Court, Jack explained, 'Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don't create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience... I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith's core teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion.' It's hard to believe, he went on, 'that the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and employees and violating my relationship with God. That is not freedom. That is not tolerance'."

He's right. Homosexual activists have weaponized the US government for their own purposes and agenda.

So what happened inside the courtroom?

Inside, the justices grilled Jack's attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom's Kristen Waggnor, a Christian attorney and friend of mine from Seattle. Far Left progressive Justice Elana Kagan---an Obama appointee--- about what exactly constitutes an "artist." "What about a florist, a chef, or a make-up artist?" she asked.

Kristen also represents Barronnel Stutzman, and others faced with similar challenges. Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Obviously we want a distinction that will not undermine every single civil rights law."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also an Obama appointee, was openly hostile to Jack's position, arguing that protecting him would result in a gay couple being "left on the side of the highway."

Most people are watching Justice Anthony Kennedy because most feel he will be the swing vote in this case.

A few years ago, Kennedy tilted the Court in its decisions on so-called "same-sex marriage" facilitating the legal redefinition of marriage under Obama.

However, his words and demeanor yesterday indicated he is not buying the homosexual's case. We'll see.

When the Colorado Solicitor General insisted that what Jack had done was "despicable," Kennedy reacted.

He said, "Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when its mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillip's religious beliefs."

"There are," he said, "other shops."

Justice Samuel Alito then asked why Colorado would let other bakers off the hook for declining other messages, but punished Jack---"especially when same-sex marriage was still unlawful in the state at the time."

How will the Court rule?

The ruling is expected in late July.

Based on the demeanor, the questions and the comments by the Court today, I believe there's reason to be cautiously encouraged.

Think Progress, a far Left activist organization, seems to share that view. Yesterday they lamented in an article published after the hearing, "The LGBTQ Rights just had a horrible day in the Supreme Court."

Here is the concern: The Supreme Court could quite narrow, invalidating this particular ruling because of say, poorly worded statements by one or two state commissioners, but leave intact Colorado and other states' ability to enforce their civil rights laws as long as they watch their tongues.

On the other hand, the Court's decision could be sweeping in regard to religious freedom.

FRC said, "As Americans, consensus on religious freedom has historically recognized our God-given right to live all aspects of our lives according to our faith. That hasn't changed. Attempting to confine religious conviction to the four walls of a church isn't freedom, it's tyranny."

About 68% of Americans agree with Jack Phillips.

Yesterday, America was weighed in the balances. Most likely in July, we will find out if our country has been found wanting---or if we will reaffirm the Judeo-Christian beliefs upon which our country was founded.

There is a reason our Founding Fathers chose to inscribe, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all inhabitants thereof" (Leviticus 25:10).

Pray that the Supreme Court will rule to affirm the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and of a large majority in our country today. And religious liberty will be proclaimed throughout all the land.

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


  1. The call to prayer is most wise and appreciated.

  2. "Can the state force citizens to act in violation of their conscience?"

    Who is the state?


    The baker is a person so why would he force himself to do something against his conscience?

    He wouldn't

    So that means it is SOME people wanting to force him to their will and since no person has that right and the state is only people it cannot have any rights that are not the people's

    Frédéric Bastiat made this argument in his book "The Law"

    The state is an imaginary entity.

    When ever we imagine it has powers beyond mere mortals we have made it an idol

    It is why the Supreme Court would think they have some power to make homosexual sex, a union, called marriage

    They think they are above the law so issue edits

    And when we live outside the law there is only violence

    So forcing someone to your will is a good thing when they are doing it, but since it is really about power and control, which results in ONE ceasing the reigns of power and since control requires the expenditure of energy those who want something different than one size fits all are rounded up and shot

    Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it

    Homosexuals are viewed as troublemakers in the totalitarian world they work to bring about

    It is the law which offers them protection but when they use the law as a club, they have lost it

    These things always care the seeds of their own destruction.

  3. While i agree whole heartedly that business people should be able to sell to whom they wish and fully support Christian business people who decide not to support the LGBT lifestyle because of their faith. However my biggest concern is if the Supreme Court finds in favor of Jack, what will keep Islamics from defending honor killings or female castration as simply part of their deeply held religeous convictions?

    1. Yes, I see your concern. Hopefully we will have judges who can tell the difference between not forcing someone to give another, a particular kind of cake, knowing what they intend to do with it, and being murdered. The one is a constitutionally protected right, and the other is an obvious violation of our constitution.

    2. If the Supreme court doesn't get this right, they are for Sharia.


    3. "what will keep Islamics from defending honor killings or female castration as simply part of their deeply held religious convictions?"

      Easy, don't make it a religious liberty issue but an issue of fundamental liberty, where we all have the right to be left alone, free from coercion to be brought to the will of another.

      Just because someone wants something does not give them the right to force another to do it and if a business cannot say no for any reason they are not in business but agents of the state, and we are not citizens but subjects

      The fundamental right is with the person, given to them by the grace of God and no one has more rights than any other. This is how and why we are ruled by laws rather than men

      Honor killings and female castration are in direct conflict with the rule of law because they are taking the law into their own hands

      So those who continue to make religious arguments need to understand it only makes their religions the equal of all others

  4. When judges start asking the people who come to court looking for justice, questions that the judges are supposed to answer, well that is a sure sign they have lost their minds. Hope they return to sanity way before July. What we want are judges who hold to the matter at hand and stop worrying about the future, and can at least see that He who knows all things, whose understanding is infinite, can be prayed to at that time. God lives in the now. Wish some judges did too. Unless they do, I think they are lost. See Psalm 147:5. I will be praying according to the very next verse. Some of these judges need to be body slammed.


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