Now that I’ve had a day to marinate on the Masterpiece ruling, here are two major upsides to the ruling that need more attention:
The Supreme Court (including two hard left justices!) declared that Christians have dignity too, and the government has to respect our dignity. There’s no way to spin that. It’s a clear rebuke to the Rainbow Jihad and its backers who want to “punish the wicked.” Amazingly, three of the social progressives who voted to legalize gay mirage are also saying that “crush all dissent from gay marriage” is not a legitimate government interest.
Conservatives have a bad habit of viewing Supreme Court rulings in exclusively legal terms. Let’s not do that here. It’s very possible that this ruling is a watershed moment in the culture. Let’s hope and pray that this is the beginning of the end of homosexual totalitarianism. When you’re the gay rights movement and you’ve lost 3/5 of the justices who ruled for gay marriage.
If you’re dubious about the idea that there is a concerted effort to undermine the rights of Christians in America, meet Tim Gill:
The megadonor bankrolling the LGBT movement and its allies in the Democratic Party says he will continue to “punish the wicked” who hold traditional views about sexual morality.
Despite the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states, tech millionaire Tim Gill said he is not satisfied with the movement’s progress. He plans to use his immense wealth, corporate influence and political network to target red states with laws protecting religious people who disagree with the LGBT movement’s worldview.
It’s a *massive* opportunity to buttress religious freedom, even though the ruling doesn’t do much on the legal front. Specifically, the ruling says outright that the government doesn’t get to determine what things are offensive. Don’t miss this: if the government doesn’t get to determine which things are offensive, then you either have to let everyone refuse service because of an offensive message, or no one can.
Unless I’m missing something, Kennedy is explicitly forbidding liberal states from giving their favored groups a pass when they refuse service (if they’re going to force Christians). In short, if Christians have to decorate gay wedding cakes, then African Americans have to decorate confederate flag cakes.
A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances (a “gay” wedding cake made by Christians vs. a racist cake made by a minority) cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.
Here’s what the court said in a similar case where a baker refused to bake an “anti-gay” cake (and the court agreed with him):
Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs.
Remember how Roberts’ Obamacare ruling left the mandate in place, but provided the opening for Republicans to end it through reconciliation (with zero Democrat votes)?
This is like that.
The first time a black baker is forced to decorate a confederate flag cake – that will be the end of these “anti-discrimination” laws.
Over at the far-left rag, the Nation, the anti-Christian leftists are worried that i’m right.
“At oral arguments last December, Kennedy fixated on one statement by a single member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who had simply observed that religion had throughout history been used as “an excuse to hurt others.” In his opinion today, Kennedy focused again on that same statement, along with the commission’s decision finding no violation of the state non-discrimination law in the case of a customer named William Jack. Three separate bakers had refused Jack’s requests for cakes with Bible images and homophobic messages on the grounds that they found those messages derogatory. Jack claimed he was refused service because of his religious beliefs.
“The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ objection,” Kennedy wrote, concluding, “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other objections.” In other words, Kennedy reasoned, the secular bakers were given more leeway to act according to their conscience than Phillips was—something he viewed as proof of anti-religious animus.”
Kennedy seems to be clearly seeing the “neutral application” as “bakers who support SSM get exactly as much leeway as bakers who oppose it.”
If so, the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling will play a vital role in defending our religious liberty in the coming days.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com