“One wonders how the case would have come out if the Colorado Commission had not been overtly hostile to Jack Phillips.”

By William Olson and Herb Titus, first published June 5, 2018, by Restoring Liberty

[On June 4], the Supreme Court ruled in favor of cake maker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision for the Court, joined by six other justices, both liberal and conservative. Justices Gorsuch and Alito concurred, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred, Kagan and Breyer concurred, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.

There is very little principled analysis in any of the Court’s five opinions except for that of Justice Thomas, who concluded that Phillips was denied his freedom of speech.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion focused mainly on the despicable treatment Phillips received in front of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In particular, Justice Kennedy noted that the Commission ruled against Phillips for his refusal to bake a pro-gay cake, but ruled in favor of three other bakers who refused to bake anti-gay cakes.

The significance of the majority opinion is nicely summed up in its last paragraph: “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.”

In other words, this decision is essentially confined to his facts — ruling for Jack Phillips because the Colorado commission was openly hostile towards Phillips’ religious beliefs. Every future case involving such a state “public accommodations” law, however, will be a balancing act, conducted by federal judges, pitting homosexual “dignity” against sincere religious beliefs.

Freedom in the Balance: Will the Government of the United States of America force people of faith like Jack Phillips to use their talents and privately-owned business to honor and serve “marriages” based on immoral homosexual behavior? Click to enlarge. Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom.

Folks, here is a neat video on the Jack Phillips Supreme Court case by Elizabeth Johnston, the “Activist Mommy” despised by the Left because she is an effective and fearless Christian, conservative truth-teller. It strikes me as un-American that our simple freedom as citizens of this nation, founded on religious liberty, to associate with whomever we want and publicly live by our moral and spiritual beliefs now hangs by the thread of the whims of a few Supreme Court Justices.

All eyes are on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, though appointed by Ronald Reagan, has earned hero status on the pro-LGBTQ Left for his consistent, pro-homosexual record on the Court. Where will Kennedy, who authored the God- and Constitution-defying 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision imposing counterfeit “same-sex marriage” on all 50 states, come down on Phillips’ conscience-based refusal to participate through his cake shop in the celebration of disordered homosexual “weddings”? [Read the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s superb dissent on Obergefell HERE.]

Social conservatives warned that legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” would result in escalating State and cultural oppression against religious people and institutions–ironically, in the name of “civil rights,” “diversity,” and “equality.” Now that is happening with horrific consequences for principled Christians like Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman. The media- and Democratic Party-enabled “Gay” Revolution has advanced to the point where it is now working to effectively criminalize faithful Christians and other moral dissenters by preposterously comparing them to racist bigots and treating them accordingly.

The leading legal crusader for homosexual “marriage,” Evan Wolfson, said, “I’m not in this just to change the law. It’s about changing society.” Indeed. Now the question is: are we going to let the pro-LGBTQ Lobby and the Government destroy our First Amendment liberties in the service of a godless, radical egalitarian agenda that regards the public expression of biblical faithfulness as just one more component of “anti-gay discrimination”? We’ll see, but to say that a lot rides on this case would be an understatement. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Will liberty prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court? Graphic: Illinois Family Institute.

Folks, it looks like the case of Barronelle Stutzman–the Christian florist who was sued by two “marrying” homosexual men and the Washington State Attorney General because she would not create a floral arrangement for their “wedding”–is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Feb. 16, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Stutzman of a lower court decision and ruled that “the government can force her—and, by extension, other Washingtonians—to create artistic expression and participate in events with which they disagree,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom, which is handling Stutzman’s defense (see more info below video). [Read the court’s decision HERE.]

Below is a background video on Barronelle’s case created by ADF.  You will note from this 2016 court filing that ADF et al are defending Stutzman on “artistic freedom” grounds. We at AFTAH are not attorneys but we do know this: in a free society, anyone–Christian florist, Muslim cake-maker or atheist wedding chair-supplier–should have the liberty not to use their business to celebrate homosexuality-based “marriage,” which we, as Christians, regard as sin on steroids.

We hope that this kind, brave and faithful woman prevails at the Supreme Court. If she doesn’t, you can stop singing that America is the “land of the free.” — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH  [more background after jump and video]