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—
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 need to redouble their efforts to contend for the true meaning of marriage for the cause of religious liberty and for the good of all.
On Monday, June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Commission. 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 so that it applies only to Jack Phillips’s case just because of the bad behavior in this instance of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Because the commission had been openly ridiculed Jack’s beliefs and actions, the Supreme Court invalidated the decision the commission had issued against Jack. The implication of this is that had the commission been more restrained, yet still issued the same ruling, the court might have let that ruling stand.
Therefore, Jack Phillips won, but he won on a technicality. 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.
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.
Significantly, in his discussion of these interactions, Justice Gorsuch wrote about “a cake celebrating same-sex marriage.” In a footnote in her opinion, which is cited in this article, Justice Kagan hones in on Justice Gorsuch’s description:
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.”
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 it is compel him to refuse to participate in a ceremony that calls it something he believes it isn’t. Of course, his participation would involve making a cake to celebrate the union. Kagan sees no distinction between a cake created to celebrate a heterosexual union and one created to celebrate a same-sex union—and to her, the idea these cakes are the same isn’t merely an opinion, but fact. She does not believe Jack has a right to see any difference between the two, either. “In other words,” says journalist 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—
There’s more. Even a casual reader of the decision can figure out that 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 that belief! This really is what Kagan and other leftists think!
- 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
The survival of the human race depends upon marriage as the institution by which we procreate and perpetuate civilization.
—Charles Colson—
A Different World
We are not talking about a right to ridicule people or to demean them, either with words or actions. 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. Reducing heterosexual marriage and same-sex “marriage” to the lowest common denominator—currently two people—Elena Kagan and other leftists see no difference between between a man-woman union and a same-sex union. Mark it down! After Obergefell, this perspective prevails in the legal realm and is applicable to everyone! Thus, in the eyes of the government, all married persons have 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.
One of the lessons arising from Jack Phillips’s case is this:
Religious liberty is tied to the meaning of marriage. Because this is true, we must continue to fight for the true meaning of marriage on all fronts.
Next time we’ll explore some of the implications of this reality.
Stay tuned!
Part 2 is available here.
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}