If a homosexual baker were asked to bake a cake for an anti-homosexual event, should he be forced to do so even if it completely violates his own beliefs? If your answer is "no", then you support freedom of speech across the board, right? Or does it depend on whose freedom is in question?
Jack Phillips, the petitioner in the case currently being heard by the US Supreme Court, is a Christian business owner who welcomes all customers gladly, but occasionally he is asked to create something that violates his conscience, e.g. Halloween themes, divorce parties, Satan's birthday, and most recently, a same sex "marriage" reception.
Though he offered the homosexual couple in question his services for anything else (meaning he wasn't discriminating against the couple for their homosexuality - just the event that violate his beliefs) that wasn't good enough. After being flipped off by the loving homosexual couple, Phillips promptly learned of the complaint filed against him. The complaint has led to the case currently in front of the Supreme Court.
This is not only a religious rights case, but also a freedom of speech one. In the case of Phillips, the First Amendment protects his work - which is art (a form of expression). To be forced to create art that violates an artist's belief system is a violation of his speech. If that's not true, then a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Swastika case for a Nazi event. A black sign maker should be forced to make posters supporting a KKK rally. A vegetarian cheese maker should be forced to use rennet, rather than microbial enzymes.
But in Colorado, where this case originates, the state has actually supported bakers' rights to not bake cakes with anti-gay messages if it offends them to do so, because the state of Colorado recognizes that type of freedom of speech. Shouldn't they apply that same standard to Jack Phillips and other Christian business owners?
For those who aren't involved in any type of bakery, photography, banquet or other businesses that may be asked to accommodate same-sex ceremonies on some level, why should this case matter? Because we're already seeing how expansive it's become.
Aside from Colorado's already demonstrated actions of picking and choosing whose freedoms should be respected, recall the CEO of Firefox, who was fired from his own company for making a financial contribution to California's Proposition 8 to uphold traditional marriage. HGTV cancelled an upcoming real estate show because it was discovered that the two scheduled hosts had previously vocalized their support of traditional marriage. Emergency Services' former top fire official in Atlanta was fired for supporting traditional marriage in Bible study on his own time. In Michigan, a farming couple was recently banned from selling their produce at the local farmers' market because they declined a request to host a same-sex "marriage" ceremony on their farm. It goes on and on.
The homosexual couple in question in this Supreme Court case ended up getting a rainbow cake from another vendor so they could express their support of LGBT activities. That is their right to do so. But don't private business owners have the right to not partake in it? If not, and if instead they are forced to provide work against their will, doesn't that make them slaves?
The First Amendment specifically allows for and protects our differences. The Supreme Court just needs to uphold that.
Hi, Julie! Once again I’m guilty of reading your fine blogs but not commenting and letting you know that they’re very informative.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always been convinced that these lawsuits against Christians who refuse to violate their conscience have nothing to do with “rights” and everything to do with the campaign to silence any and all opposition to a sinful lifestyle. There’s no shortage of bakeries willing to provide a cake for any event imaginable, but what does the LGBT crowd do? They’ll intentionally seek, and sue, a bakery known to be operating under Christian principles in order to attempt to silence its opposition to that sinful lifestyle. And the ultimate goal is to make it a crime to even hold to the belief that that lifestyle is sinful.
I’m no legal scholar, but I’m concerned that defending Jack Phillips primarily on the basis of his artistic (and, yes, freedom of speech) rights may not be the winning strategy. Not surprisingly, Elena Kagan already tried to minimize and trivialize that argument with her straw-man comparisons to the “hair stylist” and “makeup artist”. It seems to me that the broader argument of not compelling anyone to do anything that violates their sincerely held beliefs would be the stronger route. If we can clearly see that a professional photographer shouldn’t be forced to photograph a nude wedding, then this particular case should have an obvious outcome. And the reason for the photographer’s refusal may not even be artistically or religiously based – he may simply be uncomfortable doing that type of work. But when it comes to same-sex “weddings”, there doesn’t seem to be room for refusal.
Keep up the great blogs, Julie!
HI Paul....and once again I am guilty of not seeing/responding to a comment in a timely manner - sorry about that!
DeleteThanks for your great comments. I totally see your point about the dangers of just making this an argument about artistic/freedom of speech. I think the issue is much more sinister than that, as you point out. You're completely correct that the left sees Christians as the last obstacle to their "utopian" world of anything goes. Someone with morals and who, worse, tries to stand up for those morals against the tide, simply must be eliminated. Whatever tactics it takes to do that is fine by them. It's despicable -- and dangerous beyond belief for Christians or anyone who wants to exercise their beliefs in the public square. We need prayers more than ever before.
Thanks again for writing and I wish you a very happy, peaceful and blessed 2018!