Trump Advocates for Christian Baker at SCOTUS
I don’t know about you, but I dread continually having to point out what the federal government and its agencies are doing wrong.
This week, I’m glad to say I get to bring something they are doing right.
President Donald Trump’s DOJ filed an amicus brief with the High Court Thursday in support of the Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012.
Jack’s business was attacked based on his religious convictions.
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees protection for one’s religious belief and the freedom to act on that belief, so long as it doesn’t bring physical harm or danger to anyone.
Those simple words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” guarantee an American’s protection from government tyranny.
Practicing his Christianity by not participating in a sinful ceremony, Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012.
The homosexual couple then filed a complaint, which was upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC).
The CCRC found Philipps in violation of Colorado’s public accommodation laws for refusing to sell the homosexual couple “wedding cakes or any product” that he normally “would sell to heterosexual couples.”
The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the CCRC’s ruling, which Phillips is now appealing before the Supreme Court.
The question to be asked, though, is if Mr. Phillips, or any of us for that matter, are only free to believe and not act, what is the point in your religion?
Attorney General Jeff Session’s team argued, “The government may not compel an unwilling speaker to join a group or event at odds with his religious or moral beliefs, otherwise, a graphic designer whose clients include ‘a Jewish affinity group’ could also be forced to make fliers ‘for a neo-Nazi group.’”
Just like in the case of Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman and dozens of other wedding vendors, Jack offered to sell the men anything in his store, but that did not satisfy them — nor did the long list of area bakeries who would have gladly baked a cake for this homosexual couple.
Instead, they wanted to force Jack to use his creative talents to celebrate a message that violates his beliefs.
Referring to public accommodations laws, the AG’s offices rightfully emphasized that they “must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees.”
This type of discrimination is exactly what Samuel Alito warned when the Supreme Court attempted to redefine marriage for everyone in Obergefell.
Alito stated, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
In conclusion, the President and his DOJ are fulfilling their constitutional oaths to the people and their God.
Now it is time for the Supreme Court to use its constitutional authority to stop this crusade against the freedom to exercise one’s religion, which it was responsible for starting.