Wednesday, June 06, 2018

Justice Clarence Thomas: Now That The Cake Shop Case Is Settled...Here's What's Next

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

In his dissenting opinion in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case where the Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage is a "right," Thomas predicted that ruling would ultimately lead to conflict between that so-called "right" and religious liberty.

In his concurring opinion in the Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruling this week, Justice Thomas concludes: "This case proves that the conflict has already emerged."

What's next?


The Obergefell v. Hodges case was decided by a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in 2015 during the Obama administration.

In their decision the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment creates a right for people of the same sex to marry one another.

Justice Thomas warned the Court that they were ruling "against" the Constitution.

Why the Supreme Court got it wrong in 2015.


When the definition of marriage is bent, twisted or revised to mean anything other than what it has meant for 5000 years of recorded human history, the redefinition faces strong cultural and social headwinds.

When the redefinition defies the God who created mankind and instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the sustainability of the human race, it faces ultimate and absolute failure because it is written, "God is not mocked..."

It also collides with the Constitution of the United States, because that Constitution was written with great sensitivity to protecting "God-given" rights and liberties---not made up rights that align with the current cultural behavior of a few outspoken activists, but are in stark conflict with the God who gave them.

Justice Clarence Thomas has a profound grasp on Truth.


In his dissent of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, Thomas wrote, "The Court's decision today is at odds with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty."

Thomas said, "Yet the majority [of the Justices 5-4 decision] invokes our Constitution in the name of 'liberty' that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

He said, "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

Justice Thomas Warned the Court and the public.


Thomas wrote: "In our society, marriage is not simply a government institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

He said, "The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph..." and he wrote, " Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice."

The Supreme Court ruling this week has brought us to the threshold of that which Justice Thomas warned of.

What is the real effect of this case for Christians?


Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in this week's ruling on the Cake Shop that the Court's decision was narrowly focused and turned on the Court's determination that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not been "neutral" toward the baker's particular religious beliefs when it decided it could force him to bake a cake for a same-sex "wedding."

Under the Court's precedents, Kennedy pointed out, a business owner could, in fact, be forced to act against his religion but not because of state "hostility" toward his religion.

Kennedy made the point that the ruling was about the "hostility" and lack of "neutrality" toward Phillips and his religious beliefs that turned the Court to make the decision in favor of Phillips.

Alert homosexual activists, in and out of government, will undoubtedly now address their lawsuits and punishments with a smile and say something to the effect of, "I love the Christian, but hate their intolerance---I have no hostility---I'm only concerned with upholding the Constitution---and pursuing my chosen lifestyle."

Homosexual activists and a complicit press are repeatedly reporting that this was a very narrow ruling and has no bearing on future Court decisions.

That's a lie. This case will have a significant bearing on future cases, particularly on those that are already in motion. The same kind of "hostility" displayed toward Phillips, has already been displayed toward florist Barronel Stutzman and bakers Aron and Melissa Klein here in the northwest. And most likely others across the nation.

But Christians must be informed.

What's next?


The Stutzman and Klein case will move forward. I think it will be difficult for any court to hear of the hostility that has been directed at these Christians and rule other than in their favor---as the Supreme Court has done in the case of Jack Phillips.

Future cases where the homosexual activists "make nice" with a revised attack will be another battle for our God-given, Constitution recognized religious freedom.

Justice Thomas wrote in regard to this current case, "This case proves that the conflict has already emerged."

In this case, Thomas also referred to what he wrote in the 2015 case,

"I told you so," in polite terms.

Justice Thomas says in future cases "the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing Obergefell from being used to stamp out every vestige of dissent" and "vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy."

But, he says, "Because the Court's decision vindicates Phillips' right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day."

Indeed it has.

And speaking of living to "fight another day" for faith and freedom and liberty:

Thomas Jefferson reminded us that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Patrick Henry asked his fellow Christians and countrymen, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

This is a good time for all Christians to ask the same---of themselves...including pastors.

Then he answered for himself: "Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Informed. Be Faithful. Be Prayerful. Be Free.


No comments:

Post a Comment

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