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.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Correct in that the law is the same as before. Discrimination based on one’s so-called & supposed “sexual orientation” was never at issue. Once again proving that Jack & everyone else has the Constitutional Right to deny a product/service that violates their religious convictions. SCOTUS found that the CCRC impinged upon Jack’s RIGHT to exercise his Freedom of Religion.

            Thanks for highlighting that for all of us.

          • Jack

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

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Correct in that the law is the same as before. Discrimination based on one’s so-called & supposed “sexual orientation” was never at issue. Once again proving that Jack & everyone else has the Constitutional Right to deny a product/service that violates their religious convictions. SCOTUS found that the CCRC impinged upon Jack’s RIGHT to exercise his Freedom of Religion.

            Thanks for highlighting that for all of us.

          • Jack

            The Court never said anything that could rationally be interpreted as saying that “Jack & everyone else has the Constitutional Right to deny a product/service that violates their religious convictions.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for the public display that you have NO clue what is “rational”. Jack IS denying a product that violates his religious convictions thanks to SCOTUS!! If Jack gets to so does everyone else. That’s how SCOTUS rulings work.

            Glad I could clear that up for ya.

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

          • Jack

            Don’t fret. A lot of people, like you, have not understood the Court’s decision.

            Phillips was exonerated because the Court found bias on the part of the Commission.

            The law stands untouched.

            What does your snark do? It doesn’t make you right. Does it make you think that you’ve protected your ego from harm?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There ya have it AGAIN, folks!! The self-imposed narcissistic, psychotic god-complex at work again. Delusion at its best.

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Pro 16:18)

            The CO Law may stand untouched but so does the Federal Law & Jack Phillips is back making wedding cakes. That’s all the evidence that one needs.

            But don’t you fret, Barronelle Stutzman & the Kleins are going to SCOTUS and it’s gonna be abundantly CRYSTAL CLEAR soon that Religious Freedom will trump Sexual BEHAVIOR.

            Until such time as the 1964 CRA is changed or amended to include sexually immoral behaviors those holding to religious convictions are protected by the Law & sexual BEHAVIOR is NOT.

          • Jack

            Folks?

            That’s quite the overreaction you have going for you there, to compensate for not bothering with the truth about the case.

            But, it’s canned. One size fits all. Coyp/paste. You don’t even work at it.

            Oh, womp womp.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Still eager to collect your Plato Awards I see. Okie Dokie. Here ya go!

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            And, since you seem to be hungry again, here this one too:

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be ruined. (Prov. 10:8)

            Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool, And so is wisdom to a man of understanding. (Prov. 10:23)

          • Jack

            Why are you avoiding the actual issue? The one you don’t understand?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Didn’t avoid the issue at all. The one you don’t understand. Your inability to understand doesn’t reflect whatsoever upon mine.

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

          • Jack

            Wow, you don’t even know what the issue is. All you have are canned responses. Ad homs at that. You poor thing.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wow, you don’t even know that you still aren’t a god with omniscience or how to tell the Truth. All you have is babble. Poor thing.

            a babbling fool will be ruined. (Prov. 10:8)

            Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool, And so is wisdom to a man of understanding. (Prov. 10:23)

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            Now let’s see how long it takes a for the little puppy to come back for another helping. He does have quite the appetite! The last time he trolled me this went on for day before he finally ate enough of his own vomit to get full.

          • Jack

            Huh?

            All this because you were corrected after posting an erroneous statement. Hmmmm.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Huh? All this because “”Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            Your “correction” is just more delusion on your part. Nothing erroneous about my statement. Hmmmmmm.

            Oh, and btw, in case you’ve not been been following the most recent SCOTUS decisions & ruling further refute your suppositions.
            Barronelle will be vindicated just like Jack & Pregnancy Care Centers have been vindicated as well.

            Like I said with the Hobby Lobby & Little Sisters rulings – better get used to it. There’s MORE to come!

          • Jack

            You can huff and puff but you’re still wrong. You’re still you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You can still swim in the river Denial but you’re still drowning in Delusion. Still just a spiritually-dead, totally-depraved, son of disobedience & child of wrath who trolls Christian pages to do his daddy, Satan’s, bidding because he can only do what he’s driven to do.

          • Jack

            Bottom line: I refute what you say. You go on the attack. Bottom line: you are relegated to personal attacks.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Bottom Line: You need to learn the difference between “reject” & refute”. You haven’t refuted anything. As for you last, is that your new game? You have the gall to talk about personal attacks after you spent several days personally attacking me? LOL No surprise you’d call the Truth an attack. Ain’t nothing I said that ain’t true.

            “They mock and wickedly speak of oppression; They speak from on high.” (Psa 73:8)

            “They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly; All who do wickedness vaunt themselves.” (Psa 94:4)

          • Jack

            And still you continue.

            “after you spent several days personally attacking me?”

            Never happened.

            But see how you say NOTHING about the subject — just about me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            It DID happen and you know it. And you’re not fooling anyone. Do you really think others are as blind as you and can’t see that you’re a God-hating troll coming to a Christian site just to harass?

            You spent day after day, numerous times a day attacking me, and you do the same thing on Facebook – Jeffrey Fuchs from Jackson Heights. Ya know, the lawyer for accountants who actually thinks he’s ready for SCOTUS? Is that why you hide behind your “deal with it”?

            So, in addition to the Christian Post you’ve found another site to troll. You bet I’m addressing you because I’ve already addressed the subject and you tried to turn your lack of understanding around onto me. Didn’t work. Just like you tried to bully your way thru the last time and it didn’t work.

            So let’s remind everybody why you’re really here:

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Jack

            Just one example. Thanks. BTW, it’s still illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Which, of course, is what brought the suit of.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not playing your silly game. Btw, it’s still NOT illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Which, of course, is what brought the suit and Jack WON!!

            We’re winning. Get used to it.

            Oh, btw, not only is “sexual orientation” NOT mentioned in Title VII of the 1964 CRA but there is ONLY ONE “sexual orientation” and that is Heterosexuality. Another other is an aberration and not true. Much like the word “gay” it is simply a misnomer the LGBTQABCXYZ+50 crowd have some up with to try & distract & divert from the Truth.

            In much the same way as they don’t want folks using Homosexuality because it is self-describing & therefore self-condemning and they know it, so they distract & divert with “gay” they are doing the same thing with the false narrative of there being any other “sexual orientation” other that the true one which is Heterosexuality.

            Glad for the opportunity to help you out. You’re welcome.

          • Jack

            So you’ve got nothing. Nothing good at least.

            “We’re winning.” Let me know when the camps are up and running.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You understand nothing. Nothing good at least,.

            Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. (Pro 17:28)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul. (Prov. 18:7)

          • Jack

            Now you’re doing “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Is that an attack? Will you continue with this nonsense for another several days as you did before?

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. (Prov. 26:12)

          • Jack

            A description of the actual tactic used? That’s not a personal attack.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Only when it’s done toward you I guess. And I guess the answer to my question is in the affirmative as well. Oh well, I’ve got the time whenever you get hungry.

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

          • Jack

            A description of the actual tactic is not a personal attack. For example: you’re doing your “I’m rubber, you’re glue” routine again.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            Thanks for glorifying God and being of such good use to Him!

            “You will certainly carry out God’s purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John.” – C.S. Lewis

          • Jack

            Rinse, repeat.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Okie dokie. Since you asked! And are proving that this will likely go on for days which proves you lied before
            .
            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            Thanks for glorifying God and being of such good use to Him!

            “You will certainly carry out God’s purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John.” – C.S. Lewis

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Jack

            Keep it going. I’ve not lied.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I doubt you’d know the Truth if He stood in front of you & showed His nail-scarred hands.

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            Thanks for glorifying God and being of such good use to Him!

            “You will certainly carry out God’s purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John.” – C.S. Lewis

            “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

          • Jack

            But I’ve not lied. In the context of this discussion, I’ve not lied. This is not about Jesus. It isn’t really about me or you, either. But that’s where you took it.

            BTW, in one hour I’m leaving for the airport to fly to another city to visit the deathbed and perhaps attend the funeral of a relative. Until I return, which may not be for a week or more, you will get the last word.

            Congratulations. BTW, you read the end of the book. You won. So, I don’t quite get why you are so bitter. Show me on the doll where the man touched you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You lied with your first comment & you just ied again. At least twice.

            Your first lie: “Since the law is the same as before, it is still a violation to discriminate based on sexual orientation.”

            Evidence: From the Opinion:

            Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
            Clause. Pp. 9–18.
            (a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.

            Note: There is NO “civil rights” for “sexual orientation” nor for a wedding cake.

            Your second lie: It’s not about Jesus.

            Uh, yes, it is.

            Your third lie: “The Court never said anything that could rationally be interpreted…”

            See the evidence above and THAT sure sounds like you took it to personal. So maybe that’s your fourth lie.

            Your FIFTH lie: “I don’t quite get why you are so bitter.”

            Not bitter at all. In fact, your lunacy & delusion gives me quite the LOL

            And now for an example of your continued delusion and you again being the one who takes it to the personal:

            “Show me on the doll where the man touched you.”

            Smh. Whattaya do with such delusion? Oh, I know…

            “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” (Rom. 3:13-14)

            “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.” (Matt. 15:18)

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be ruined. (Prov. 10:8)

            Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool, And so is wisdom to a man of understanding. (Prov. 10:23)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, that’s weird. Answered this last night but it seems to have disappeared. So let’s try it again. No doubt you’ll be eager to vomit out a response when you get back.

            You lied with your first comment & you just lied again. At least twice. Since I gotta little time on my hands now I might as well chronicle a few for the record,.

            Your first lie: “Since the law is the same as before, it is still a violation to discriminate based on sexual orientation.”

            Evidence: From the opinion (EMPHASIS mine):

            “Held: The Commission’s actions in this case VIOLATED the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18.
            (a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, BUT religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage ARE protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

            “The government, consistent with the Constitution’s GUARANTEE of free exercise, CANNOT impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. ”

            “The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality REQUIRED by the Free Exercise Clause”

            “The case presents difficult questions as to the proper
            reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the
            authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect
            the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish
            to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of ALL persons to
            exercise FUNDAMENTAL freedoms under the First Amendment,
            as applied to the States through the Fourteenth
            Amendment.”

            “The freedoms asserted here are BOTH the freedom of
            speech AND the free exercise of religion.” (Note there is NO reference to any civil right to “sexual orientation”.)

            “It hardly requires restating that government has NO role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. On these facts, the Court MUST draw the inference that Phillips’
            RELIGIOUS OBJECTION was not considered with the neutrality
            that the Free Exercise Clause REQUIRES.”

            “The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is REVERSED.
            It is so ORDERED.”

            Note: There is NO “civil rights” for “sexual orientation” nor for a wedding cake. Also, for anyone else reading this, notice how SCOTUS has succumbed to the deceptive lies of those who strive to redefine the English language? Notice how they don’t use the accurate & self-condemning word “Homosexual” but instead the PC misnomer? Do you see how Satan works in his insidious ways?

            SO there’s lie #1 covered. You lied by saying “it is still a violation to discriminate based on sexual orientation.” SCOTUS just ruled that it is not when done so based on RELIGIOUS convictions PROTECTED under the 1st Amendment

            Now, I’ll start a new reply to address your other lies…

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your second lie: It’s not about Jesus.

            Uh, yes, it is. Whether you choose to acknowledge & recognize it or not everything is ALWAYS about Jesus.

            Your third lie: “The Court never said anything that could rationally be interpreted…”

            See the evidence above and THAT sure sounds like you took it to personal. So maybe that’s your fourth lie.

            Your FIFTH lie: “I don’t quite get why you are so bitter.”

            Not bitter at all. In fact, your lunacy & delusion gives me quite the LOL

            And now for an example of your continued delusion and you again being the one who takes it to the personal:

            “Show me on the doll where the man touched you.”

            Smh. Whattaya do with such delusion? Oh, I know…

            “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” (Rom. 3:13-14)

            “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.” (Matt. 15:18)

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

          • Jack

            How did you make this about YOUR religion? WHY did you?

            Here we were, having a polite discussion on a legal issue, and you go all REDRUM on me.

            And you don’t even have the decency to be original! Copy/paste your own shtik. Your “opponents” are NOT one size fits all. But, apparently your life is just that narrow.

            OK. Bye. Oh, I had a wonderful in Iceland! I did feel guilty, at first, going so soon after my cousin’s death, but the trip was paid for and it was something I really wanted to do. Really glad I did. It reminded me of how insignificant you are to me. As I am to you. And yet, you spend so much time looking for people to throw your canned sermonic diatribes at. Ta.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Uh, citing God’s Word where it’s applicable isn’t making it “about” my religion. I cited them because the shoe fits.

            There’s nothing polite about you. And yes, you’re all the same. Spiritually-dead, totally-depraved sons of disobedience and children of wrath who simply do what your daddy, Satan, bids you to do. He never comes up with anything new. Same old stuff and you don’t even realize it.

            Yeah, we can all see how insignificant I am to you. You just couldn’t wait to get back on here and see what you could reply to! LOL

            And remember Buckwheat, YOU are the one who’s trolling a CHRISTIAN page and YOU are the one who had to throw your blather about in response to my comment.

            I hope it is “bye” and for good. But I ain’t holding my breath.

          • Jack

            It was rhetorical.

            But what a nutjob you are. “Just couldn’t wait.” Ha. I’ve been home for almost a week. “To get back on here.” I get notifications. But you said it so it HAS to be true.

            Buckwheat? So, you’re a racist, too. Quel surpris, as they say in Denmark.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Like I said, I wasn’t holding my breath. Doubtful anybody would think you’re a man of your word.

            And no, I’m not a racist. My Black Brothers & Sisters can attest to that. “Buckwheat” is a term used for a piece of grain that doesn’t amount to squat and can’t even be used in for a loaf of bread.

            But hey, thanks for showing all ya got and proving once again that ya have some a pathetic existence all ya can do is troll CHRISTIAN pages.

            Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. (Prov. 26:11)

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            You have glorified God once again by proving the depths of depravity that Jesus died to save people from. Would you like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and be freed from your Sin master?

  • 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
Don’t Let a Pit Become a Grave
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us