Masterpiece Decision: Supreme Court Pushes Back Against the Rising Tide of Anti-Religious Animus

By Michael Brown Published on June 4, 2018

The Supreme Court today pushed back against the rising tide of anti-religious sentiments in America, ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips.

Baker Jack Phillips Wins

In a 7-2 decision, the court specifically rebuked the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had ruled against Phillips when he refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage.” As expressed in the majority opinion of Anthony Kennedy, “The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

Although the court did not issue a ruling on the wider questions regarding the conflict between religious freedoms and LGBT rights, the ruling was a major step in the right direction. May the pushback against LGBT extremism (and anti-Christian animus) continue!

Alliance Defending Freedom Ad

Ironically, the case was argued by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which the SPLC brazenly labeled a hate group because of its conservative Christian views. As noted earlier today on Forbes.com (unrelated to the SCOTUS ruling), “Alliance Defending Freedom are currently classed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.” Yes, an extremist hate group!

Adding to the irony is that, in the story covered by Forbes, the ADF came under fire this past weekend when one of its ads appeared on some LGBT YouTube channels, provoking a torrent of protest against the internet giant. (I wrote about this as well, since one of my ads also appeared on these channels, adding to the LGBT outrage. Forbes and others have reported on our video as well.)

The ADF ad in question told the story of Christian florist Barronnelle Stutzman, who has been unfairly (and harshly) punished by the courts for declining to make a floral arrangement for a same-sex “wedding.” Yet her case is almost an exact parallel to the case of Jack Phillips.

Both are Christian conservatives. Both have a history of serving the LGBT community. And both declined to be coerced by the state into using their artistic gifts in a direct violation of their religion and conscience. (In the words of Phillips, “It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience.”)

LGBT Activism

Today, the Supreme Court took an important step in recognizing that the First Amendment remains in force. It also confirmed what I have said for years, namely, that LGBT activism is the principle threat to freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience in America. May the pushback against this extremism continue.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

It would take many books to document the rise of anti-religious (specifically, anti-Christian) sentiments in America today. Suffice it to say that much of the anti-Christian bigotry comes from LGBT activists and their allies. They have successfully demonized Christian conservatives who hold to traditional (= biblical values). (For extensive documentation through 2011, see here. And 2011 was a long time ago.)

That’s why, within the last 24 hours, I was associated with ISIS and the KKK simply for producing a video which explains what the Bible says about homosexuality.

That’s why, the ADF, which in recent years, has argued and won more cases before the Supreme Court than almost any other legal organization, can be labeled an extremist hate group. (In reality, as I have often argued, the SPLC is the truly dangerous hate group.)

Enough is Enough

And that’s why I continue to expect a pushback against this left-leaning, increasingly-secular, oppressive and tyrannical attack on our freedoms of conscience, freedom and religion. Enough is really enough. In fact, it’s been more than enough for many years now.

The time to push back is not merely upon us. It has almost passed us by.

If we don’t speak and act and do what is right today, we’ll have a lot of explaining to do to our kids and grandkids and great grandkids — not to mention to God as well.

This doesn’t mean that we hate those we differ with. God forbid.

This doesn’t mean that we harass or persecute those who identify as LGBTQ. Not at all.

Rather, it means that anything that threatens our most fundamental freedoms — to repeat, our freedoms of conscience and religion and speech — must be resisted.

The churches must resist it. The media must resist it. The educational system must resist it. Big business must resist it. And the courts must resist it.

Although the 7-2 ruling could have been broader in terms of addressing the larger, philosophical issues at hand, the fact that it was 7-2 (rather than 5-4), with liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joining the conservative justices (with Anthony Kennedy), bodes well for the future. It sends a message as well.

Justice Alito’s Prediction

Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and deigned to redefine marriage, Justice Samuel Alito issued a strong dissenting opinion. In it, he warned, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

He was mocked for this opinion in a remarkably short-sighted (really, almost blind) op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Robin Abcarian. The headline read, “In a bizarre dissent, Justice Alito predicts gays might seek revenge on straights.”

Abcarian wrote, “You might have thought that today’s landmark Supreme Court decision represented the end of discrimination against gays who want to marry. But according to one dissenting justice, the decision instead represents a threat to another group of citizens.

“Who might they be? People who oppose gay marriage.

“Incredibly, Justice Samuel Alito fretted that it won’t be safe to knock gay marriage anymore.”

What is incredible is that Abcarian wasn’t aware of the high tide of anti-religious discrimination that had already risen in America. (That’s why I said the op-ed was almost blind and not just short-sighted.) What Alito warned against was already here. And it was Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the redefinition of marriage.

Today, Kennedy took one small step to righting his wrongs. May much bigger steps be taken in the days ahead.

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.
  • JP

    Awesome. Thank God righteousness prevailed.

  • Patmos

    The mainstream media is stunningly useless at this point.

  • Chip Crawford

    What if Christians sued for their perspective in these matters — first ?

    • RoundRocker

      On what grounds?

    • Andrew Mason

      Since Colorado has ruled that Christian speech can equal hate speech, and that Christians can be refused service, it would make for an interesting case.

  • RoundRocker

    They didn’t so much rule in favor of the baker as against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. I hope people remember this ruling doesn’t provide carte blanche for businesses to discriminate. “Colorado law,” Justice Kennedy wrote in one, “can protect gay persons,
    just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring
    whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and
    conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” There will be more incidents of discrimination, and more cases that will settle this definitively. This one’s not it.

    • Andy6M

      I don’t think anyone is asking for carte blanche. They’re asking for the right to speak freely, and not be compelled to speak against their conscience. This is the case with the baker, the florist, and the photographer (boy, that almost sounds like a nursery rhyme).

      • RoundRocker

        Other cases may be decided on their merits. We can only wait and see what happens as more cases wend their way to SCOTUS. This particular case may seem like a victory for businesses that want to be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people, but it really isn’t. The baker, the florist, the photographer have always been free to speak their truth. They still are and will remain so. The question is, will they be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people in their business practices? (By the right to “speak freely” I assume you mean to use or withhold their “artistic talents” as a business that provides services for weddings and receptions? Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you.)

        • Andrew Mason

          Except businesses such as Masterpiece have always served homosexuals and continue to be happy to do so. The sticking point is whether the state has the right to force them to deny their religious orientation and support LGBTism when asked. In this case SCOTUS found that Colorado had shown such bigotry in deciding the case they could repeal the decision without even considering how lifestyle rights balance with freedom of religious orientation.

        • Andy6M

          You’ve interpreted correctly. I agree that this ruling is far from the end of the issue. I wish the court had been more definitive.

          • RoundRocker

            On that, we both agree. There will be other cases, I believe the florist is up soon, and maybe we will get a more definitive answer.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          “The question is, will they be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people in their business practices?”

          The answer is YES. Sheesh. Whattaya think the case was all about? SCOTUS said CO showed CO & the HRC showed undue hostility toward Jack & did NOT provide him adequate religion freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution.

          • RoundRocker

            I know what the case was about, and I know what the ruling said. The ruling was more about what the Civil Rights Commission said in their decision- that it showed animus toward Jack’s religion. Justice Kennedy also said “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await
            further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of
            recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without
            undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting
            gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
            market.” so the matter isn’t really settled. This one baker won this one case, but other cases of discrimination will have to be decided separately, because this ruling is not a precedent for other cases. Whether other businesses will be allowed to discriminate without repercussions is still an open question.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. Bottom Line: Jack does NOT have to make wedding cakes for SSM. Try to spin it any way ya want but that’s the outcome. The LGBTQABCXYZ+50 crowd & their supporters LOST.

            So YES, it REALLY is a CASE for other businesses to be allowed to discriminate without repercussions. (“Discrimination” btw is not necessarily a bad thing.) And YES it is a precedent. ALL court rulings are precedent.

            Now, what we know, as YOUR OPINION proves is that there is still an ongoing always ever present “open question” because Jesus hasn’t come back yet and therefore there will ALWAYS be the spiritually-dead and blind with us. So therefore there will always be the reprobates who will try to spin anything & everything to their advantage and benefit.

          • Jack

            Since the law is the same as before, it is still a violation to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

  • Ray

    Well the whole homosexual agenda is about force, about making everyone an enemy of God, (see James 4:4) and the ACLU is always against Civil Liberty. (fake organization) They shouldn’t be allowed to practice whatever it is they are doing. (see Acts 13)

Inspiration
The Tiniest Casket
Jennifer Hartline
More from The Stream
Connect with Us