Religious Freedom’s Roe v Wade?

Make the Case for Liberty

By John Stonestreet Published on August 1, 2017

We’ll be talking a lot on BreakPoint about the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips. Why? Because religious freedom hangs in the balance.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The stakes could not be higher. In fact, as Ed Stetzer and I said recently on “BreakPoint This Week,” this may be the religious freedom equivalent of Roe v Wade.

What the media and LGBT activists are telling the world is that this case is about a baker who uses his religious beliefs as a cover to discriminate against people. But that, my friends, is baloney.

Here are the facts. For 23 years, Jack Phillips, a Christian and owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, gladly served all people — young and old, black and white, gay and straight. But in 2012, two men entered the shop and asked Phillips to make a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. Phillips declined, because his faith would not allow him to send the message through his art that he approved of same-sex “weddings.” So he offered the men any pre-made cake in the shop or even any other baked good in his shop.

But the men got angry and left.

Soon Jack was receiving hate mail and threatening phone calls. He was hauled before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and fined. Taking a page out of the Chinese Communist playbook, the commission “ordered Jack and his staff to design cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a ‘re-education’ program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly ‘compliance’ reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.”

And so in the fall, the Supreme Court will hear the case. It will either find a balance between the rights of religious believers and the public-accommodation rights of gays, or, heaven forbid, it will rule that the price of citizenship is the forfeiture of faith.

Now all of this sounds apocalyptic, but note this. Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the swing vote in this case. While he has ruled on the side of religious institutions recently, for nearly 30 years now, he has ruled that anti-sodomy laws, anti-discrimination laws that exclude gays, denying gays the right to marry — all of these things amount to “animus” against homosexuals and deprive them of dignity.

So, in other words, if you disapprove of gay marriage, that means you aren’t voicing a neutral opinion — you’re being hostile to gay people. You, then, to use the left’s favorite label, are a hater.

So what can we do now that it’s in the hands of the Supreme Court? Can we actually do anything to influence the outcome of this case? Here’s what Chuck Colson had to say about this back in 2012:

The textbook answer, of course, is no: The Court consists of judges who’ve been appointed for life, who are not subject to public opinion; their supreme obligation is to the Constitution of the United States.

That’s the way it is supposed to be. In practice, it doesn’t work that way. The Supreme Court justices do read the newspapers; they know what the public will and won’t accept.

What this means is that you and I have to be heard. Hit Facebook, get your pastor to speak out about the Jack Phillips case. Get the facts out there.

Here’s Chuck Colson again, referring to yet another case years ago before the Court, with another suggestion:

Will you join in a fast and prayer about this issue? Will you pray for the members of the Court? And will you also let your voices be heard? Letters to the editor and to congressmen can create a public debate that does make a difference. We need to raise a groundswell of protest that will sweep across this country and will be felt right here — in the court chambers in Washington, D.C.

Amen. Please join us at BreakPoint. We’ll keep talking about the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, because it’s really that important.



Originally published on BreakPoint Commentaries. Republished with permission of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    Yes it is an important case but not nearly as landmark worthy as Roe. Even if the baker wins I’m sure the writings will work to restrain its scope. The result of Roe is green lighting abortion ..period.. not just some abortions but all. Here I doubt religious liberty will go unchecked against public accommodation and anti discrimination points of view. At its best I doubt it will be a ruling that acknowledges the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion ..period.. not just at church or at home but at work and in the marketplace as well, unrestrained by anti discrimination and public accommodation laws. Now that would be a landmark.

    • Actually, Paul, this might be MORE important than Roe.

      The immediate implication of this case is that dissent, itself, is illegal and immoral. As such, this entire area of endeavor is a life or death threat to our very Constitution—and the Declaration of Independence. If this case goes against that very first guarantee of the Bill of Rights, then the Declaration of Independence becomes nothing more than overblown opprobrium, and the whole Constitution falls to pieces, is illegitimate, and takes our form of government with it. It is that important.

      • Paul

        It’s a sad state of affairs when SCOTUS affirming what is plainly written in the Constitution is deemed a landmark. The Constitution is already being ignored in regards to the 2A, perhaps if Christians seriously cared about that all along we wouldn’t be in this situation today. But in reality most don’t care about 2A liberties and prefer its infringement. Those chickens may be coming home to roost.

  • DCM7

    “…the commission ‘ordered Jack and his staff to design cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a ‘re-education’ program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly ‘compliance’ reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.'”

    The anti-Christian thought police have arrived in America. Many of us knew, back in the early 1980s or even earlier, that they’d be coming here someday.

    True oppression is always anti-Christian (including where there are anti-Christian actions being falsely done “in the name of God”). The only way not to see this is not to want to.

  • Andrew Mason

    Something probably overlooked is that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission also ruled that when a Christian (Bill Jack) walked into a bakery and his order was declined, the refusal of service was legal. If you attempt to order an item with an offensive Christian message – and frankly much of what Jesus taught was offensive to some of His listeners, then businesses (at least in Colorado) have the right to refuse service. A clear double standard is appearing around the world where the offensive nature of speech and acts is deemed grounds for its prohibition, but the offensiveness of such things depends on the class of individual or group which is offended. Sadly both Regressive judges and ISIS share the same low opinion of the rights of Christians.

  • Paul

    I’m not familiar with the full details of this particular case and how it is being argued, but the current state of affairs means that artists can be compelled by the govt to create art of a particular subject matter or else they be fined. Now that should terrify everyone.

    • DR84

      If applied consistently, yes, but more likely this will only apply to those that hold traditional or conservative views. The gay baker will be free to say no to making a wedding cake for two straight men “marrying” each other.

  • Patmos

    It’s the same thing with the woman in Washington: She served the people for years before they asked her to bake a wedding cake for them. If it were true discrimination she wouldn’t have served them at all. That she only refused in this one instance proves she was acting out of belief and not discrimination.

    • DR84

      The case in Washington involved a florist. Regardless, both Jack and her would also have declined to help two straight men celebrate “marrying” each other. Their reason to decline had nothing to do with sexual orientation in the first place.

      • Patmos

        That’s right my mistake, it was a florist. She also referred the two people to another shop that could help them, but the utterly blind rage and foolishness of LGBT activism had to press on with their selfish ways.

  • meamsane

    The Supreme Court upholding and defending the Constitution is already a blatantly obvious pretense. The ONLY THING that would surprise me here at all is the SC actually ruling in favor of the First Amendment, rather than some “nebulous right” for two men to “marry” each other!

  • Kevin Quillen

    it will soon be time for Christian businesses to become “clubs” like Sam”s. Pay a membership fee that goes to anti-queer causes to make a purchase.

Walking in God’s Wisdom: Psalm 5:8
The Stream
More from The Stream
Connect with Us