I’m profoundly thankful that the Court saw the injustice that the government inflicted on me. This is a great day for our family, our shop, and for people of all faiths who should not fear government hostility or unjust punishment.
—Jack Phillips—
[T]he Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and…said that religious hostility has no place in a diverse society like ours, whether the government is regulating art or anything else. It’s a significant victory. For freedom.
—Kristen Waggoner, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom who argued Jack Phillips’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court—
If you’re going to stomp on a man’s conscience, stomp respectfully.—Brian Bailey, summarizing the inherent message of the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Commission to those wishing to punish Christians for putting their faith into practice in their businesses, not just in their personal lives—
Key point: Believers in man-woman marriage can be thankful that Jack Phillips won his case, but they also need to redouble their efforts to contend for the true meaning of marriage, for the good of all.
A condensed version of this article is available here.
This week and next, we interrupt our series on apologetics and the Christian worldview to consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Commission, which was handed down on Monday, June 4. The court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who, based on his religious beliefs about marriage, politely declined to make a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding in 2012. Alliance Defending Freedom represented Jack in this important case. Writing in The Daily Signal and quoting a summary, or syllabus, of the decision, the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson reported,
The court held that the state of Colorado was “neither tolerant nor respectful” of Phillips’ beliefs about marriage. The court pointed out that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.”
Certainly this is good news for Jack Phillips, but it also is good news for all Americans. The court recognizes that government should not get away with ridiculing and running roughshod over people for following their consciences.
The current justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Cause for Concern
Yet we must hasten to qualify the good news with a warning. It does not bode well for religious liberty that the court fashioned its ruling to apply only to Jack Phillips’s case just because of the bad behavior in this instance of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling states,
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. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated.
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, 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.
James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Charlie Craig and David Mullins—the gay couple who requested that Jack Phillips make them a wedding cake—said, “I think the bakery got a get-out-of-jail-free card because of what the court thought of as misbehavior by the Civil Rights Commission.”
Jack Phillips won, but he won on a technicality. The ruling is narrow and limited, not in terms of the number of Justices who voted for it, but in terms of its scope. Jack’s beliefs were respected in this case, but only because he was mistreated in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s application of the law. Ben Shapiro writes,
Of course, the Supreme Court likely ruled on narrow grounds in order to achieve a 7-2 majority including liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. But the ruling bodes ill for the future: It doesn’t protect religious Americans, nor does it protect freedom of speech.
Shapiro goes on to say the Founders would be appalled Jack’s case got to court in the first place. Ideals like freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion were sacred to them, and these were some of the foundation stones on which they founded the republic.
Shapiro continues by noting that the Founders believed government had no business interfering with private transactions. They understood that freedom in the marketplace among both sellers and consumers could resolve issues like this, and everyone would be better off if government stayed out of the way. Shapiro then sounds a warning: “Now, however, the courts have decided that the government can tell you what to say, who to say it to and how to act out your religion. The only holdup is that they have to be nice about telling you what to do.”
Now…the courts have decided that the government can tell you what to say, who to say it to and how to act out your religion. The only holdup is that they have to be nice about telling you what to do.
—Ben Shapiro—
What Is Marriage?
We do well to read carefully Justice Elena Kagan’s concurring opinion. While she joined the four conservative justices, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kennedy, to form the 7-to-2 majority in this case, she explicitly stated she disagreed with Justice Gorsuch on very critical point. In a footnote in her opinion, which is cited in this article, Justice Kagan writes,
As Justice Gorsuch sees it, the product that Phillips refused to sell here—and would refuse to sell to anyone—was a “cake celebrating same-sex marriage.” But that is wrong. The cake requested was not a special “cake celebrating same-sex marriage.” It was simply a wedding cake—one that (like other standard wedding cakes) is suitable for use at same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike.…And contrary to Justice Gorsuch’s view, a wedding cake does not become something different whenever a vendor like Phillips invests its sale to particular customers with “religious significance.”
As journalist John Daniel Davidson explains, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, had issued a concurring opinion that highlighted that when three other bakeries had denied requests to create wedding cakes carrying religious messages, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled these businesses did not violate the statue they were trying to punish Phillips for breaking. The bakeries cited secular beliefs to decline the requests, and the commission respected their convictions—but not those of Phillips. Gorsuch rightly observed that Jack wasn’t treated as the other venders were. The commissioners clearly believed they had every right to act as they did because, in their eyes, the three other bakeries had valid convictions—and Jack did not.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, which Justice Sotomayor joined, echoes Kagan’s point of view.
Seeking to Manipulate and Change Reality
Consider carefully the idea explicitly expressed by these Justices—that a wedding cake can’t be deemed a “cake celebrating same-sex marriage” or, if it has been made for and is used at a heterosexual wedding, it can’t be deemed a cake celebrating man-woman marriage. They’re all simply “wedding cakes”! This thinking reflects the left’s perspective on the First Amendment as it applies to Jack Phillips. Jack’s beliefs about marriage and what marriage is compel him to refuse to participate in a ceremony that calls marriage something he believes it isn’t. Kagan sees no distinction between a man-woman union and same-sex marriage and does not believe Jack has a right to see any. “In other words,” says John Daniel Davidson, “[Justice Kagan thinks] Phillips’s religious beliefs about marriage—beliefs, by the way, which are orthodox teachings in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—are not to be taken seriously.” Kagan may have objected to the way the members of the Commission handled the matter, but she clearly agrees with them!
“[Justice Kagan thinks] Phillips’s religious beliefs about marriage—beliefs, by the way, which are orthodox teachings in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—are not to be taken seriously.
—John Daniel Davidson—
You see, what Justice Kagan has written about cakes shows what she believes about marriage. A wedding is a wedding, regardless of whether a man and woman, or two men or two women, are getting married! Furthermore, neither Jack Phillips—nor anyone else, for that matter—has a right to believe there’s a difference between a heterosexual and a same-sex wedding, much less act on it! This really is what Kagan and other leftists believe!
- Never mind that same-sex couples do not fit together sexually.
- Never mind the health risks associated with homosexuality. Men having sex with men reduce their life expectancies by as much as 20 years! Increased risk of anal cancer is surely one of the reasons!
- Never mind that only a heterosexual couple can bear children!
- Never mind that moms and dads parent differently!
- Never mind that children need both the nurturing touch of a mother and the loving strength and protection of a father!
- Never mind the negative consequences that same-sex parenting has on children, even when both parents love them dearly!
- Never mind the repercussions of widespread same-sex marriage on society! Marriage “isn’t just about caring for babies and children so they will grow up to become responsible individuals; it’s also about maintaining a healthy society for years to come. The future of the human race depends on reproducing it so those dying out can be replaced. This can occur only with heterosexual couples. As Charles Colson put it, ‘The survival of the human race depends upon marriage as the institution by which we procreate and perpetuate civilization.’”1
A Different World
Of course you and every other individual should treat people—all people, whether male or female, young or old, gay or straight, rich or poor, wherever they’re from and whatever their abilities or disabilities—with dignity and respect. This does not mean, however, that you must violate your own conscience and participate in an event you believe to be morally wrong. Those demanding your participation need to respect your freedom not to participate in their event, even as you respect their freedom to hold it. This has been Jack Phillips’s approach all along. This is authentic tolerance, but unfortunately, tolerance also has been redefined in our culture. Now it means acceptance and approval of every choice and every value. If you don’t give your approval, you’re declared to be intolerant and a bigot. While not all homosexuals have this perspective, the militant gay lobby does, and so does the political left.
Against this backdrop, we must realize that despite the 7-to-2 ruling in Jack Phillips’s favor, the post-Obergefell world is very different from the world that existed before marriage was redefined. In the eyes of the government, everyone who is married has the equivalent of a same-sex marriage—a “marriage” that government created and over which it is exercising absolute control.
In the eyes of the government, everyone who is married has the equivalent of a same-sex marriage—a “marriage” that government created and over which it is exercising absolute control.
What are some of the implications of government’s seeing all marriages alike, and how should Christians respond? Also, what should Christians and others who believe in man-woman marriage do in light of the ruling in Jack Phillips’s favor?
We’ll attempt to address these questions next time.
Stay tuned!
Copyright 2018 by. B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Note:
1Charles Colson with Anne Morse, My Final Word, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 142.
top imager credit: Jack Phillips, Alliance Defending Freedom, youtube.com
image credit: Elena Kagan
.jpg){kind=link}
Be First to Comment