BreakPoint: Jack Phillips and the Freedom to Be Christian

Dissenting from the Sexual Revolution

We were told the new sexual orthodoxy wouldn’t impact anyone who didn’t want to endorse it. Well, that was false. Please stay tuned to BreakPoint.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding reception.

To understand this case in the midst of all of the misreporting and, shall I say it, fake news, please read Ryan Anderson’s recent article on the topic in National Review. Anderson noted that the Court announced its decision to hear Phillips’ case on the second anniversary of its decision in Obergefell, which made so-called same-sex “marriage” the law of the land.

While the timing of the announcement may have been serendipitous, the connection between the cases isn’t. In his dissent in Obergefell, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty.”

Even before the Chief Justice wrote those words, the clash between religious liberty and the new sexual orthodoxy, including, but not limited to, LGBT rights, was well underway, and Phillips was among the earliest examples. Why this clash? Well, as Anderson tells readers, “liberal advocacy groups [have] decided that civil liberties aren’t for conscientious objectors to the sexual revolution.”

Twenty-five years ago, the ACLU played a role in securing the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, the same ACLU opposed the application of that Act to the Little Sisters of the Poor in their battle against the HHS contraceptive mandate.

And the current threat to religious liberty and freedom of conscience isn’t limited to the usual suspects such as government or the ACLU. As Anderson reminds us, “As the law insists that social conservatives are like racists, big businesses and other institutions will bring their own pressure to bear on anyone who dissents.”

For instance, Anderson describes, “The American Bar Association has promulgated new model rules of professional conduct that make it unethical for lawyers to ‘discriminate’ on the ‘basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status,’ including in ‘social activities,’ which . . . would include ‘church membership and worship activities.’”

At the heart of this challenge to religious freedom is what Anderson calls “the never-ending expansion of anti-discrimination statutes. What started out as well-justified efforts to combat racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism have morphed into laws protecting against the [harm to dignity] allegedly inflicted by anyone who disagrees with progressives about human sexuality.”

This alleged “harm to dignity” is the rationale behind Colorado’s attempt to punish Jack Phillips, whose “offense” was that he was unwilling to completely affirm the current sexual orthodoxy, a refusal that somehow “diminished” someone.

This is of course silly, and underscores Anderson’s argument that “Ultimately, our goal should be to convince our neighbors that what we believe about sex is true,” and, “In the meantime we need to convince them that what we believe is at least reasonable and poses no harm to others.”

Part of that convincing includes standing up for everyone’s religious liberty, not just our own. “Provided they don’t harm the common good, violate human rights, or otherwise offend justice,” Anderson writes, “Muslims should be free to be authentically Muslim, just as Jews should be free to be authentically Jewish and Christians should be free to be authentically Christian.”

A lot is at stake in this Phillips case. But the battle for religious freedom isn’t limited to the courts. It’s also being waged, as Chuck Colson liked to say, over the backyard fence and in the public square.

We’ll have much more to say about the case of Jack Phillips. In the meantime, please, come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary for a link to Ryan Anderson’s excellent article. And be sure to share it with folks you know.

 

Jack Phillips and the Freedom to Be Christian: Dissenting from the Sexual Revolution

Click here to read Ryan Anderson’s article in National Review. And equip yourself with the actual facts in the Phillips’ case set to be argued this fall before the Supreme Court.

Resources

The Continuing Threat to Religious Liberty
  • Ryan T. Anderson | National Review | August 3, 2017
U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Colorado Cake Artist Jack Phillips’ Case
  • Marissa Mayer | Alliance Defending Freedom | June 26, 2017

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Phoenix1977

    “At the heart of this challenge to religious freedom is what Anderson calls “the never-ending expansion of anti-discrimination statutes.”
    Absolutely. 100 years ago it was unthinkable women were protected by the law. 60 years ago it was unthinkable blacks were protected by the law. And 5 years ago it was unthinkable LGBTs were protected by the law.
    And the joke here is the very thing Christians are fighting for in the courts today is their protection by the law. But I guess Ryan T. Anderson has no problem with Christians being protected by “the never-ending expansion of anti-discrimination statutes”?

    • Thisoldspouse

      Please stop with the “protected” euphemism; everyone knows that such “protections” are simply state-backed clubs placed in the hands of a special minority to violate the property rights of others.

      • Phoenix1977

        Like women and blacks?

  • Phoenix1977

    “This has nothing to do with voting, working, eating in restaurants etc. This has to do with compelling others to actively participate in a ceremony. There is a difference.”
    You’re absolutely right. This is far greater than voting, working or eating at restaurants. This is about our right to be who we are and to be respected.

    • Steve

      No one is saying you can’t be who you are. You need to let others be who they are too.

      • Phoenix1977

        If you fight against our right to marry the one we love or are in favor of openly discriminate against LGBTs based on your religion you don’t allow us to be who and what we are.

        • Steve

          You do have the right to marry now in the U.S. We have the right to disagree with that. You cannot force people to believe what you believe.
          Nor should you be able to force people to go against their beliefs to support yours.
          Is the LGBT community that insecure that they need everyone to agree with them?

          • Phoenix1977

            “You cannot force people to believe what you believe.”
            No, but we can force you to treat us equally as everyone else. Jack Phillips is a very good example of that.

            “Is the LGBT community that insecure that they need everyone to agree with them?”
            We couldn’t care less if you agree with us or not. The majority of society agrees with us and, far more importantly, the courts agree with us. We simply need you to treat us the very same as you would treat anyone else. And if not, we’ll see you in court.

      • jennyachuthan

        So the question is what happens when those two things conflict as they do here. Questions about religious liberty as it relates to the sexual revolution always come down to this. Chai Feldblum, former EEOC commissioner and a lesbian herself said conveniently that when push comes to shove ( perhaps an appropriate analogy) when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, ‘I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.’

    • Thisoldspouse

      You can force “respect?” Since when?

      I thought that had to be earned and given voluntarily, at least authentic respect does.

      • Phoenix1977

        i don’t think that is what your bible says about the subject.