After years of struggle, it appears that we face another decisive moment in the conflict between homosexuality and Christian commitment to God. The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will be heard and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its next term. Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner, Jack Phillips, declined to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony, although he expressed willingness to sell the customer any other cake.
This comes after years of court rulings mandating acceptance of homosexuality in law. These rulings were far more than mere decrees overruling democracy, but moral judgments against what the court and the protagonists of sexual liberation believe is oppressive religious and moral doctrine.
It also comes after several years of high profile public conflict in which religious defendants, pleading that they are entirely willing to serve homosexual customers, but not to facilitate homosexual behavior, have lost legal battles because the U.S. Supreme Court declares that people have the right to define their own reality. This is interpreted to mean that discrimination against sexual behavior is discrimination against persons, because sexual behavior is part of personal identity. In the meantime, public opinion has shifted under the weight of judicial defeats, as well as militant support for the acceptance of homosexual behavior by the mass media, the entertainment industry, the academy, and now — decisively in legislative religious freedom struggles — by the corporate world. It has come down to the demand that behavior God declares in Scripture to be vile depravity be accepted personally, from the heart, and shown to be accepted by words and deeds. And that demand can never be accepted by anyone who is obedient to God.
Much of the battle has to do with the refusal to accept the orientation/behavior distinction, which would allow discrimination against behavior but not against persons. Requiring action believed to be evil contradicts the native human fair-mindedness present in any culture, and so the enemies of religious liberty cannot let the matter rest here. They gloss over the distinction if possible, and deny it if pressed, as the New Mexico Supreme Court did in the Elane Photography v. Willock case. Another example of this was the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey of a sample of religious Americans earlier this year, finding that majorities supported same-sex marriage and opposed the right of business owners to refuse service to homosexual customers. But the real question is the right of conscientious objection against homosexual behavior, or the more narrow objection to same-sex marriage.
In contrast, a 2015 Marist poll showed that the majority of Americans favor religiously-based conscientious objection to the provision of particular goods and services pertaining to homosexuality. An analysis by the Catholic News Service pointed out that while younger persons were more likely to agree with exemptions from generally applicable laws, they were less likely to agree with exemptions that pertained to homosexuality. A recent Christianity Today article about LifeWay Research’s 2016 survey confirmed that there is still broad public support for legal protection for conscientious objection from homosexual behavior.
The survey shows that even among groups that that tend to think sexual liberation should prevail over religious freedom, this opinion is only held by minorities (e.g., 30 percent of men, 33 percent of respondents in the Northeast). The group with the greatest support for sexual liberation over religious freedom (49 percent) was nonreligious respondents. On the other hand, among groups which favored religious freedom over sexual liberation, substantial majorities favored religious freedom (68 percent of Protestants, 55 percent of those over 55 years old, 90 percent of those with Evangelical beliefs). Interestingly as well, a four category scale from “always support” sexual liberation to “always support” religious freedom showed increasing agreement (in a range of 10 percent to 31 percent) as the response categories moved from sexual liberation to religious freedom. If a “not sure” category is included among the response categories, it was the second most popular (28 percent) after “always support” religious freedom.
On the other hand, age breakdowns indicated a marked shift away from religious freedom, with ever younger categories less supportive as one moves from the oldest category (over 65 years of age, at 56 percent support for religious freedom) to the youngest (18-24 years of age, at 33 percent support for religious freedom). But despite this, Christians must communicate, by words and deeds, that it is wrong to require action believed to be sinful or evil because other people are pained. This may or may not be successful, but it is the only course of integrity left open.
The balance on the U.S. Supreme Court is at best precarious, and finally unclear. It will be true with Masterpiece Cakeshop, as it has been for the last twenty years, that Anthony Kennedy, who sits in the seat that Robert Bork would have held, and who authored all the pro-homosexual rulings during that time, will likely have the deciding vote. These decisions, as noted above, were most basically bitter moral attacks against opposition to homosexuality, and laws that implement it. In particular, both the Romer v. Evans case (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003) deplored the private discrimination against homosexuality which is at the heart of the current conflict. On the other hand, Kennedy cast the deciding vote in the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case (2000), which allowed the Boy Scouts to prohibit homosexual scoutmasters as an “expressive association.”
It seems to this writer that freedom of expression is the most promising defense for Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips is selling his own expression, and has refused cakes that celebrate Halloween and a lewd bachelor party. Freedom of expression as a minimal defense against the demands of homosexual liberation would at least protect against being required to condone homosexual relations in government agencies and state institutions (especially colleges and universities), discourage forced speech in private corporations, which is an increasing problem, and of course, help protect those who sell their expressive talents in vocations of art and counselling.
But the real issue in this and other conscience cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws is the right not to be complicit in activities deemed sinful or evil. It is really on this basis that Jack Phillips should prevail. The Constitution guarantees the “free exercise” of religion, using the action word “exercise.” Contrary to the misguided Reynolds v. the United States (1878) and Employment Division v. Smith (1990) decisions, and the enemies of religious liberty, this cannot reasonably be interpreted as protecting only belief. Further, the action protected is the least action possible, namely, the right to decline to take action. Victory in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case on this basis would put an effective end to the spate of lawsuits against Christians in business, protect Christian professionals, especially in the health professions, and likely greatly enhance protection for the integrity of Christian educational and other institutions.
And so success using the free speech defense in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case will stop some of the momentum against religious freedom; success using freedom of religion will be more effective. Statutory law should not prevail against the intent of the Constitution. Contrary to the anti-religious freedom polemic, protecting the religious conscience against the sexual revolution is unlikely to lead to success in religious claims for racial discrimination, since that, at least for Christians, was a cultural preference, not a religious precept. Racial claims of other religious groups could be considered and protected, if they are shown to be integral to religious doctrine.
On the other hand, loss of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case by Jack Phillips will likely mean an all-out assault of religious freedom, as is now being pressed by the cultural left. Not only will there be no protection against having to facilitate homosexuality by businessmen and professionals, but Christian institutions will come under ever more intense pressure for “discriminatory” policies, and there will be intensified pressure against conscientious objection from abortion. Free speech in support of Christian morality against abortion, homosexuality, or the sexual revolution in general will come under assault. But that will not be the signal for Christians to abandon the morality revealed by God, but to be faithful to him and avoid complicity in sin, regardless of the consequences.
Comment by Sharon Kass on August 19, 2017 at 5:08 am
o As “LGBTQ” feelings are neurotic, preventable, and treatable, gay rights rulings from ROMER onward are all based on falsehoods and should be nullified somehow. The Court should not have heard BOWERS v. HARDWICK, either, since setting moral codes is not the judiciary’s job.
o The only way is to end the “born gay, always gay” fraud. See http://www.narth.com and http://www.therapeuticchoice.com. We are not far off from the state taking children away from parents who will not submit them for “sex change” butchery. Yes, it’s that serious. END GAYSCAM NOW! Contact me for more information on how to do this.
Comment by MarcoPolo on August 19, 2017 at 9:42 am
It would seem that the operative words that seem to define this case against our LGBTQ brethren, is, BEHAVIOR and ACTION.
Case in point, if behavior, an actionable word (verb) describing the sexual acts of (some) married couples is the offensive aspect of the Baker/Decorator’s defense, then just make wedding cakes for CELIBATE-same-sex couples!
There are many married couples who do not engage in sexual activity, thus no ACTION or BEHAVIOR that would meet the charge of the objector.
I’m not a fan of Guns, but I have no objection over their existence. So if I was a Gun shop owner who sold a gun to a person who then used it to commit a heinous ACTION against someone, would that implicate me as a “participant”? I think not!
I don’t mean to ignore those whose religious tenets require their abstinence from sexual behavior outside of marriage, but I also don’t think those same religious folks should be concerned about the ACTIVITY or lack of activity within other people’s marriages.
Comment by Rick Plasterer on August 31, 2017 at 6:35 pm
Marco,
It is to be presumed that a cake, flowers, or other decorations to be part of celebrating the beginning of a relationship defined as a marriage are celebrating a sexual relationship. A marriage is by definition a relationship where sexual behavior will occur, whether or not it in fact does. Therefore, to contribute to the celebration of a homosexual marriage is contributing to behavior scripture defines as sinful, and is thus sin itself according to Jesus words I have often cited (Matt. 18:7).
Rick
Comment by Ted R. Weiland on August 19, 2017 at 10:57 am
Could religious freedom be the problem and not the solution.
Religious freedom and Christian liberty are not the same thing. In fact, Christian liberty was sacrificed on the altar of the First Amendment’s First Commandment-violating freedom of religion.
What about the First Amendment’s provision for free speech?
Is providing sodomites and lesbians a platform to proselytize our children wisdom or idiocy?
Is providing in utero infanticide (“abortion”) advocates a platform to promote murder good or bad?
Is providing Muslims a platform to evangelize our posterity to their false god Allah noble or a recipe for suicide?
“…[In addition to enabling national First Commandment-violating polytheism] Amendment 1 goes on to condemn the prohibition of speech, whether spoken or written. Does the Bible provide for free speech or does it limit speech?…
“Freedom of speech and of the press has … been used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, [in utero] infanticide, sodomy, pornography, drug abuse, violence, obscenities, and other abuses condemned by Yahweh. What about freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it concerns Yahweh Himself? Does He allow us freedom to curse Him or profane or blaspheme His name?…
“The provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also defend the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas.
“Homosexuals and infant assassins claim freedom of speech and the right to assemble to combat Christians who speak out or assemble against these heinous people and their blatant immorality. By labeling what Christians do as hate crimes, these immoral people are able to employ Amendment 1 against the rights of Christians to freely speak and assemble. According to the Bill of Rights, it is the religious right of these sodomites, baby killers, and Satanists to use Amendment 1 against Christians….”
For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
Comment by Ted R. Weiland on August 19, 2017 at 10:58 am
Could religious freedom be the problem and not the solution.
Religious freedom and Christian liberty are not the same thing. In fact, Christian liberty was sacrificed on the altar of the First Amendment’s First Commandment-violating freedom of religion.
What about the First Amendment’s provision for free speech?
Is providing sodomites and lesbians a platform to proselytize our children wisdom or idiocy?
Is providing in utero infanticide (“abortion”) advocates a platform to promote murder good or bad?
Is providing Muslims a platform to evangelize our posterity to their false god Allah noble or a recipe for suicide?
“…[In addition to enabling national First Commandment-violating polytheism] Amendment 1 goes on to condemn the prohibition of speech, whether spoken or written. Does the Bible provide for free speech or does it limit speech?…
“Freedom of speech and of the press has … been used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, [in utero] infanticide, sodomy, pornography, drug abuse, violence, obscenities, and other abuses condemned by Yahweh. What about freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it concerns Yahweh Himself? Does He allow us freedom to curse Him or profane or blaspheme His name?…
“The provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also defend the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas.
“Homosexuals and infant assassins claim freedom of speech and the right to assemble to combat Christians who speak out or assemble against these heinous people and their blatant immorality. By labeling what Christians do as hate crimes, these immoral people are able to employ Amendment 1 against the rights of Christians to freely speak and assemble. According to the Bill of Rights, it is the religious right of these sodomites, baby killers, and Satanists to use Amendment 1 against Christians….”
For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
Comment by True believer on August 20, 2017 at 11:24 am
First of all, justice Anthony Kennedy is a man deceived. He does not understand the difference between the truth vs. the lie. If he votes in favor of the lie, then we can’t wait for his retirement, he must be impeached.
The term “sexual revolution” really means a sack of homosexual lies. Homosexuals outright reject who God created them to be or their natural sexuality and instead cling to lies that they are something that they will never be. These lies must not be allowed into law.
A man cannot become a woman regardless of hormone therapy or surgery, and vice versa. This is truth of gender as scientific fact. For the law to demand that he be acknowledged as “she” leaves a person of faith speechless, particularly when Jesus gave strict instructions to His followers to “see to it that you do not allow yourselves to be deceived.” Forced deception is not law, its just plain stupid.
Two women cannot have natural sexual relations and produce a child, and vice versa. Real natural men are unsuspectedly being tricked into marriage by “transgender women” and this deceit is so horribly wrong on every level that it must not be allowed into law. What happens when the real man wants to start a family and discovers that he has been tricked and lied to which is already happening? How does the court address this level of deceit. There are no words for this kind of behavior.
Christianity is all about the truth. Because homosexuals reject the natural truth in favor of lies, by their own design and their own free will, they can’t reasonably expect Christians to reject the truth, their faith, and go along with and participate in their falsehood and sin. This is never going to happen, Supreme Court decision or not because it has eternal consequences.
This is not just about free speech or freedom of religion, at its core, it is about the truth vs. the lie. Christianity is all about the truth. The baker will be victorious because he has the right to pursue happiness, and that is how he loves and honors God in all that he is and does.