Jack Phillips lost again. No surprise. He's that cake maker in Colorado who was first charged with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Since the Supreme Court threw out that one, not because Phillips was protected, but because Colorado didn't treat him fairly compared to all the other cake makers, Phillips would, of course, be the target of more attempts to throw out the right to the free exercise of religion in America ... or, at least, Colorado. So the court ruled that making a pink cake with blue frosting for a transgender was not a form of speech and being forced to show support for something that violated his religious beliefs was not a violation of his right to the free exercise of religious beliefs. In other words, the court, as expected, is mad. Crazy. Loony. Because Jack did not refuse to make the cake on the basis of their sexual orientation or, in this case, transgender status; he refused on the basis of his religious beliefs ... which is protected by the 1st Amendment. If it was on the basis of their orientation, he would have refused to make any cakes for them. That just wasn't the case.
It is ironic that the "American Civil Liberties Union" brought the case against Phillips' civil liberties. It's ironic that the court nullified his religious liberties in defense of the transgender's rights ... which are not protected by the 1st Amendment. That is, the court affirmed discrimination on the basis of religion is not discrimination on the basis of religion. It is absolutely irrational that, for instance, the LGBT crowd (which isn't listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights) would have rights denied religious people (which are clearly confirmed in the Bill of Rights). Phillips did not demand that those gay people stop being gay or that transgender stop being transgender. On the other hand, the demand of both the gay and the transgender as well as the court is that Jack stop believing what he believes. So who is discriminating against whom?
Jack Phillips is not my hero. He plans to appeal on the basis of free speech. Phillips apparently didn't read 1 John 3:13 or 1 Peter 4:12. He thinks he can get justice in a court that is mostly operated by God-haters (Rom 8:7) and is putting his hope in princes. Jack, you would be better served taking refuge in the Lord than to trust in government (Psa 118:9). Now that would be impressive to watch. No, Christians, it's not fair. It's not justice. But it is what we were told to expect, so why get your knickers in a twist? Try this. Remind yourself that "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).
5 comments:
First, this is just another case of the fictitious "rights" of the perverse subordinating the Constitutionally enumerated rights of the religious.
Secondly, what makes you think one rejects putting their hopes in God simply because they put seek justice in their government? That's absurd. Are you suggesting that one should simply lay down and take it when the possibility of reprieve and relief exists among men...even if the likelihood is low? Again...truly an absurd suggestion, and I'd insist not Biblical. Putting our trust in God is. Doing nothing in the face of injustice is not.
Can he not do both? Can he not use the legal system we have and still depend on God? Just because the state has deemed his religious rights less important than sexual rights doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to right that wrong. Just because the majority of the laws in our nation demand the ability to murder millions of children doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to right that wrong through the earthly means we have available to us. Sure, I'd agree he's wrong if he was counter-suing. But defending his Constitutional rights should be applauded, right? Even if he loses in the end, which I assume he will, can he not use the legal system to express Truth without relying on it to validate that Truth?
Look! Marshal and David agree!
My initial problem is I don't see a single biblical example of a believer going to court to counter a government injustice. Jesus didn't. Paul didn't. The Apostles didn't. So I don't have a biblical model of fighting for my earthly rights. Beyond that, the question to me is why? Why do it? Perhaps, if the point is to get across a message or help others with this problem or ... something other than "I demand my rights!", I suppose it might be viable. Does that happen very often?
Why is it that we Christians don't find some sort of delight in hoping that a Christian might face an injustice as our Savior faced His unjust treatment? Is "my rights" so inculcated in us as Americans that we can't fathom a different mode of thinking? I don't know.
If it were me, I'd fight it for the voice it would give to truth and to try to retain freedoms for others. Whether or not I won would be immaterial. Wasn't Paul defending himself to the secular court at Mars Hill, or when he appealed to Ceasar to be sent to Rome? Paul seems to have used the judicial system to further the spread of the Gospel. Is that what this man is doing, or most modern Chrisitians, not likely, but I don't think it is fair to assume selfish motives. We should be using whatever moral means available to stand for the truth.
Paul wasn't making a legal defense at Mars Hill. He was sharing the gospel with the intellectual elite (Acts 17:22-31). He did go to court in Jerusalem, demanding to be heard in Rome, but that was so he could take the gospel there.
I indicated it was possible to do that kind of thing for good reasons. What troubles me is that the American mind is a mind of "rights" that we feel we have (whether or not we do) and must defend and that doesn't seem to be the mindset of a Christian worldview where we're just sojourners here.
Post a Comment