A “win” for the Colorado Christian cake baker?
Yes.
Sort of.
(This originally was sent out as an email. While I typically reserve special additional content like this just for subscribers, I decided this one would become a blog post.)
As I teach my Government students, it is often not the immediate decision of the Supreme Court that matters in the long run, but the implications of the decision.
On the surface, the Court might seem to be a significant win for religious (and specifically Christian) liberty supporters, like myself. After all, the Court claimed that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which brought the original charge against the cake bakers, had expressed extreme anti-religious bias against the cake-baker, and accordingly not ruled fairly.
The ruling declares that “as the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and … compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”
So far, so good. Right?
What the opinion says here is factually correct, and for us Christians, the charge against the cake baker by the Commission is concerning. So shouldn’t we sigh a sigh of relief if the Commission is not allowed to get away with this based on their anti-Christian sentiments?
Justice Kagan, in a concurring opinion, confirmed that the Civil Rights Commission was not being neutral enough.
Does anyone see the problem with this, however?
The Court was saying, in essence that, “because the Civil Rights Commission was too biased against something we think they should not have been biased against, we will not allow them to force the bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding.”
Or, in other words, “pick something that we feel is more neutral or a more just cause, and next time we will let you control the labor of another person.”
So, while I agree with the ruling, it leaves the door wide open, based on the values of the Court majority. And even though I firmly agree with that value in this ruling, all it takes is another Court composition to find a slightly modified decision and use the brilliantly tangled language of legalese to declare similar cases to be not too-biased. “Just be nicer,” says the Court, “don’t be so mean, and next time we might rule in your favor.” Or, “we feel like the bigoted behavior of the Commission was worse than the alleged ‘bigoted’ behavior of the cake baker.”
In other words, it missed the whole issue, which is one of property rights, as I lay out in my post, “Bake the Cake…? Property and Discrimination.”It’s a subjective weighing of the Commission’s bigotry against the alleged ‘bigotry’ of the cake baker that only takes a later court to “feel” differently about.
I have studied law and jurisprudence long enough to know that this case will not serve as a protection against similar lawsuits in the future with a more progressive Supreme Court. The language of the decision alone is hardly enough to prevent future Court decisions from getting around it easily. And, on top of that, it’s squishy enough that other Civil Rights Commissions will be happy to “give it another go”, spend plenty of money putting Christians businesses out of business and casting a chilling effect for those who might just refuse to serve someone with whom they choose not to association. More such charges will be forthcoming.
To some readers, of course, this will bolster the justification for electing presidents who appoint legally-conservative justices, such as the recent appointment of Gorsuch (who I have very-much liked, so far). That is fine as far as it goes, but that’s a band aid on a hemorrhage. The real issue is one of property rights. Unless that black-and-white and principled position becomes the topic of debate, this case is necessarily a temporary win.
It is more than likely that, as culture changes and the state becomes more powerful, more of this sort of thing will happen. Don’t forget that litigation takes years and millions of dollars. So let me change the tone right here before the end of my email.
Will we Christians be bold enough to face the legal persecution anyway? Will we fight to persuade those around of the truth of God’s love and standards? Or will we cave to “respectable opinion” in order to avoid ostracism and possible legal battles?
I’ll leave you with two articles. The first is an eye-opener and not to be read lightly; it’s not an easy read, but I think very important for my Christian readers (but not for younger readers).
“State Enforced Paganism in America” (from The American Thinker)
The second is also important. If you haven’t, give it a look. (This one is safe for younger readers.) As I continue with this education and thought-provocation project, I am led more and more away from just clarifying the issues, but to challenging Christians, in light of the dismal realities, to be bold witnesses for Christ. That is what is truly important:
“Will They Know We Are Christians?”
Thumbnail photo credit goes to foxnews.com.
