BP This Week: Merry Christmas…Not Yet!

Ed Stetzer says, “Merry Christmas!”  John Stonestreet says, “Not yet!”  Playful banter ensues. Then our hosts explore the season of Advent: marking the coming of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, 2,000 years ago, and preparing for His return in glory.

Also, Tuesday the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Pray for Masterpiece owner, Jack Phillips, who has always happily served gay customers but is now being sued for not baking a same-sex wedding cake. Pray for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Pray that religious freedom will prevail and our freedoms will be preserved.


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.

  • The Bechtloff

    “I’d be the first to say ‘No you can’t refuse service to gays'” and that is why you guys keep losing, why conservatives never managed to conserve a thing in the past 60 years. This is a fight you lost in 1967 and you don’t even see that. Either you have freedom of association or you don’t and since the Civil Rights Act we don’t. You’re merely begging society to give you the privilege to discriminate in this particular case.

    • Scott

      The arguments in this case has nothing to do with 1967? I assume you are talking about Loving vs. Virginia? This case is about whether or not artists (and other creatives) should be forced to create something that violates their conscience. We all (artist and creative professionals especially) stand to lose a civil right if the Supreme Court rules against Jack Philips.

      • The Bechtloff

        It has everything to do with it. The Civil Rights Act did away with a private business having the right of freedom of association. This is just the natural consequences of such a decision. You don’t even see that you’ve already lost this fight.

        • Scott

          When you say that private businesses do not have the right to “freedom of association,” your statement is false. Take book stores for example. If you go to a Christian book store, you likely will not find Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion.” That is because a Christian Book store associates itself with Christian books. Same goes for a book store that sells college text books. You likely won’t find a copy of the Bible sold there… because that book store associates with college text books. All books are similar in construction, what separates one from the other is it’s content and in America today store owners have the right to associate with different content.

          The case Supreme Court case regarding Jack Philips is about freedom of conscience. Not the same as the above. Jack is a commissioned artist who decorates cakes. As an artist, he has the right of conscience… if the message he is asked to create violates his conscience, he should have the right to refuse. He may very well lose the case, but it won’t be because of Civil Rights Act. In fact, all artists stand to lose a “civil right” if the Supreme Court rules against Jack.

  • Brian Hale

    I would rather not be commenting every week, but when Christian leaders say Americans do not experience religious persecution, my jaw drops. No, my neck has not been sliced open on a beach, but for writing against same-sex marriage as a sin and a trap that does not even work on its own terms, much less Christian ones, I have had my food poisoned purposefully in restaurants and spent nauseous days in my bathroom; I have been accused of hate speech, and my life has been threatened. If that is not persecution, please one of you write your next book on the history of religious persecution in America so that you can educate me on what is.

  • Vangie

    For what it’s worth, haven’t Christians let the culture dictate how we define people. We should never have gone along with defining people by sexual behavior. If a person walks into a bakery, you have no idea how that person get his or her sexual jollies – and thus no discrimination happens. We should have been more vocal about making behavior the measure of personhood.