Posted by & filed under Championing Religious Liberty, Kingdom PERSECUTION.

My heart-prompting to be in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday proved to be unrealistic. I was already planning how to take the Metro and arrive hours early for a first-come, first-serve seat… when I realized the real Deal Breaker.

I had returned to our Florida home from Virginia the week before.   🙁

What state am I in? (The State of Confusion?)  🙂

I checked the Internet this morning for late-breaking news from the history-making case argued there yesterday — Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Here are excerpts from a New York Daily News article…

Which trades or occupations can claim speech, artistry or expression for purposes of the First Amendment?

It’s not an easy question. Jack Phillips says the amendment protects his refusal to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins’ wedding. Are Phillips’ creations — each custom, and one-of-a-kind — more a standard commodity like chair rentals? Or something more expensive and artistic, like painting an oil portrait of the newlywed couple or composing a song for them?

The conventional split between the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative wings came through in yesterday’s lively argument. Justice Sonya Sotomayor hammered the baker’s position, while the conservative trio of Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts did the same to Colorado’s.

… In conservative circles, some yearn for a sweeping new right to ignore discrimination laws in the name of religious liberty or freedom of association… On the Left, some pine for a hard-line opinion that claims of religious liberty or free speech can never ever provide an excuse for discrimination.

In the middle… is Justice Anthony Kennedy, famous as the author of the Court’s gay rights decisions but also as a strong First Amendment proponent. Kennedy… did not seem to warm to a couple of theories offered on behalf of Phillips, including one from the U.S. Department of Justice that would recognize participation in ceremony as a legal category of its own.

But he did show… unexpected interest in what had been regarded as a side issue… namely… evidence that the Colorado commission, or some of its personnel, had taken a dismissive view of Phillips’ religious scruples (“freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric,” one commissioner had said).

“Tolerance is essential in a free society,” Kennedy pronounced… “And tolerance is most meaningul when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

… the theme that the commission acted badly in this particular case might give Kennedy a narrow way to let Phillips off the hook or send the case back without creating any particular carve-out to discrimination laws.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/oral-argument-supreme-court-cakeshop-case-heartening-article-1.3679938?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NydnRss+%28Top+Stories+-+NY+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results

The oral arguments occurred yesterday, but the Justices’ decisions will be made in the coming weeks and months… leading to their ruling in the Spring.

What will it be sweet?  Or bitter? Only the Lord knows.

So please… PRAY — and keep praying — for a God-pleasing outcome… asking for His mercy.

Meanwhile… What do you think? Should Phillips’ custom cake designs (if declined for a same-sex marriage) be protected as First Amendment expressions? Or condemned as discrimination?

Please post your comments below.

Diana Furr, a.k.a. Abba’s Girl

This blog may have raised questions for you. If you’d like to connect, engage, or get further help from me, you can…  EMAIL me at diana@championsofdestiny.com; CALL me at 863-446-1660; or request a complimentary initial CONSULT with me at  http://tinyurl.com/DianaFurr.

to “Sweet… or Bitter? That is The Question!”

  1. Helen Knowles

    It seems to be that the baker should prevail. He said he would bake them a cake, but not a wedding cake symbolizing an alternative lifestyle he doesn’t support. He also won’t make divorce cakes, Halloween cakes, or pornographic cakes so by saying his religious status precludes him from doing so goes with how he runs his business. From what I understand about the area he lives in, there were many other bakeries who would have accommodated the couple’s request. Sadly, 40% of this baker’s business has been lost as he cannot make cakes for anyone right now. It was interesting to see how equally divided the protesters were outside the Supreme Court yesterday.

    Reply
    • Diana Furr

      Thanks for your comments, Helen. I believe you hit the core issue like a bullseye. The ACLU’s attorney (representing the gay couple) argued yesterday that it was only Phillips’ conduct that mattered — i.e., according to the attorney, he refused to sell them a wedding cake because they were gay, therefore that’s “identity-based discrimination.” As if Phillips’ closely-held religious beliefs concerning marriage were irrelevant… when, in fact, they were (and are) fundamental to his inability to support a same-sex marriage through his artistry. For people of faith, this is a huge legal battle with far-reaching implications.

      Reply
  2. Debbie L

    Heart wrenching Mr. Phillips has been subjected to this travesty! But we KNOW our Lord is in control and He will be glorified!

    Reply
    • Diana Furr

      Yes, our Lord is Sovereign. So whatever the outcome may be, we can trust He has a plan that will somehow, ultimately, give Him glory. Meanwhile, I’m praying, praying, praying for His mercy in helping the Justices reach a decision that honors Him. I know you are praying, too!

      Reply
    • Diana Furr

      Thanks, David, for your fine proofing eye. Correction made. (Although maybe “off the cook” works, too… since he’s a cake artist!) 🙂

      Reply

Leave a Reply