Earlier this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling, striking down the State of Colorado’s decision against Jack Phillips. Though Jack served all customers, the State of Colorado punished Jack for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony by creating a wedding cake.

This is an important court decision, not just for Jack, but for every American who values freedom and hopes to freely exercise their faith in the public square!

This decisive 7-2 ruling invalidates the State of Colorado’s tyrannical ruling in which they violated Jack Phillips’ First Amendment rights by punishing him for operating his business according to his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. In other words, the court upheld Jack’s freedom to live and work consistently with his conscience.

The ruling clearly states the government cannot decide what is and isn’t ‘acceptable’ for you to believe or think. And the government can’t be hostile toward your faith.

This ruling will set the tone for future cases on similar issues of sexual identity verses religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Description:  Two men filed a complaint with the state of Colorado after they asked cake artist Jack Phillips to design a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted, but that he could not design a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide soon on two closely watched cases that could have a major impact on life and the freedom of conscience in America. Justices will rule on a California law that requires pro-life pregnancy care centers to post notices about the availability of taxpayer funded abortions. And the High Court will be ruling on baker Jack Phillips, the Colorado man who refused, based on his faith, to paint a cake for a same-sex wedding. We need to pray for the US supreme court.

Written by Sean Maguire

Based on a quick survey of news articles and blogs on Mississippi’s law, HB 1523, you could conclude that gay, lesbian, transgender, and people who have sex outside of marriage, are about to be in great danger.

That is because the news articles and blogs are filled with hyperbole about how hated these groups of people must be. You will read about how scared lesbian women are when they travel to Jackson. You will read that opponents of the law say unmarried women will not be able to get birth control. You will read that people will be “hurt” and won’t have access to health care and governmental services. You will read that this law “leaves LGBT people in Mississippi in the crosshairs of hate and humiliation.”

And that’s about all that you will read about it. Based on the news reports alone, this law sounds like the worst thing ever to happen in Mississippi.

So it was fair to assume, based on the news and blogs, that the Supreme Court would protect the people of Mississippi from such a terrible law. Yet, the Supreme Court didn’t do that. This week, the high court announced that it isn’t going to hear the challenge brought against this law.

This is good news for the Mississippi government, which passed the law in the first place. But is it bad news for all the people the news and blogs have been crying out for?

Journalists, bloggers, and even Business Councils have talked about the “environment of discrimination” that this law might generate.

The name of this law is the, “Protecting Freedom of Conscious from Government Discrimination Act.”  So there’s no doubt, the law is about discrimination.

It’s telling that only one of the news articles called this act by its name. All the others, and all the blogs, called it “HB 1523” or “The Religious Freedom Act.”

Instead of talking about the dangers of governmental discrimination against religious persons, all the news articles and blogs have been going on about the dangers of discrimination by religious persons.

In reality, this law will not result in a discriminatory environment against individuals.

(This law does nothing to change the state of the law against individual discrimination. Churches are already allowed to make hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs. Individuals are already allowed to discriminate against same-sex weddings. This was reported in the one news article that actually called the act by its name.)

The “Protecting Freedom of Conscious from Government Discrimination Act” does just that. It protects religious individuals and organizations from discrimination by the government. After what we’ve seen done to Jack Phillips in Colorado, Baronnelle Stutzman in Washington, Kevin Cochran in Atlanta, Aaron and Melissa Klein in Oregon, and so many others, that kind of protection is definitely warranted.

Article originally posted on FamilyFoundation.org.

A cursory look at recent words from prominent homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan who self-identifies as Catholic illustrates the ways homosexual Christians attempt to remake Scripture in their own image to serve their own desires.

Catholic revisionist Sullivan, a well-known cultural commentator, offered a fanciful and childish reinterpretation of Scripture when he wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips. It should be noted from the outset that Sullivan hopes Phillips wins, but also hopes he wins based on expressive speech arguments—not religious free exercise grounds.

Sullivan not-so-carefully constructed an ugly straw man that he then went about pummeling with weak, floppy punches that couldn’t knock down a thin man of straw let alone God’s enduring Word:

Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. It was precisely this tendency of the religious to place themselves above others, to create clear boundaries to avoid ‘contamination’ from ‘evildoers’ that Jesus uniquely violated and profoundly opposed. If Jesus is your guide, why is this kind of boundary observance such an important part of your faith? Are you afraid your own faith will be weakened by decorating a cake? Would you have ever had dinner with prostitutes or imperial tax collectors as Jesus famously did? What is this Christianity you are so dedicated to? Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a type of union that is the antithesis of marriage in no way constitutes “sealing oneself off,” placing oneself “above others,” or avoiding “contamination” from “evil doers.” Nor is such a refusal impelled by fear of having one’s faith weakened. In reality, such refusal both reflects deep faith and strengthens faith through the trials (both figurative and literal) that ensue.

For Christians marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. Its essence is complementarity. Christ the bridegroom and his bride the church are different in nature and role. Therefore, a union of two people of the same sex would suggest that there is no difference in nature and role between Christ and the church. In addition, Christ himself explicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Moreover, God detests homosexual activity. A ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates an intrinsically non-marital union that is “consummated” by activity that God abhors is heretical. Those, like Jack Phillips, who own businesses that serve only sinners—including homosexuals—everyday, aren’t sealing themselves off by refusing to serve a heretical celebration that mocks marriage. They are serving and honoring God.

Nor is such a refusal indicative of lack of humility as Sullivan claims it is. Humility does not require Christians to refrain from making distinctions between right and wrong. And making distinctions between right and wrong actions does not constitute or reflect pride, arrogance, or a sinful sense of superiority. When Sullivan decries actions that he believes are wrong or when he refuses to be a part of some activity that he believes is wrong, is he guilty of unbiblical lack of humility?

Pastor and theologian John Piper writes this:

Humility begins with a sense of subordination to God in Christ.… Humility asserts truth not to bolster ego with control or with triumphs in debate, but as service to Christ and love to the adversary.

Truth is integral to biblical humility.

Sullivan then makes the tiresome claim that because Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, there should be no boundaries regarding the types of events that Christians serve, facilitate, or celebrate. This criticism implies that Christians who refuse to be part of homosexual faux-wedding celebrations also refuse to eat with homosexuals. Does Sullivan have any evidence for such an ugly claim?

Jesus did, indeed, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors. He did not, however, serve, facilitate, celebrate, or participate in celebrations of prostitution or of the exploitation of the poor through excessive, unjust taxation. Nor did he just hang out chewing the fat with prostitutes, tax collectors, and people who favored other forms of sin.

Rather, he told them to “go and sin no more,” to repent and follow him. He told the sinners he spent time with that “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” and “whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

At the feast with tax collectors, Jesus described them like this:

Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Jesus broke bread with tax collectors, calling them sick and in need of healing and sinners in need of repentance. Sullivan left out those inconvenient details about the time Jesus spent with sinners.

Sullivan is wrong again. God did, indeed, establish boundaries for his followers. In Ephesians 5:11, the apostle Paul commands Christians to:

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Sullivan is right too. We should go to sinners. We should eat with them. And we should to the best of our ability and in humility emulate Christ by sharing the gospel message.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Homosexual-Catholic-Gets-Scripture-and-Jack-Phillips-Wrong-2.mp3

Editor’s note: Laurie is the featured guest on this week’s Illinois Family Spotlight podcast.  Check it out HERE.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake with the message, “God hates fags”? Should an African American t-shirt maker be required by law to design a t-shirt saying, “Long live the KKK?” Should a Muslim caterer be required by law to provide pork for a secular event? Should a Jewish photographer be required to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath? The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?

That is the big question the U.S. Supreme Court will be answering this week when it hears the Masterpiece Cakes case involving Christian baker Jack Phillips.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Phillips, has pointed out that: 1) “Jack does not discriminate,” and he was perfectly happy to sell the gay couple, who subsequently took him to court, cookies and brownies and anything else pre-made off of his shelves; 2) “Jack has turned down other cakes in the past,” including Halloween cakes and lewd cakes; 3) “Jack has faced anti-religious bigotry as well as threats and intimidation simply because he declined to promote an event,” so he is the one being singled out for unfair treatment; 4) “Jack owns a private family business, and he doesn’t give up his rights when he sells his art,” and by calling his business “Masterpiece Cakes,” he is making clear that for him, they are works of art; 5) accordingly, “Jack’s shop has been called an ‘art gallery of cakes’”; and 6) “Wedding cakes made up about 40 percent of Jack’s business,” and these are all custom designed. But due to Colorado’s laws and legal rulings to date, he has had to drop this part of his business entirely.

Now, common sense would say that this case should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk win for Jack Phillips and his attorneys. And in principle, I agree. The problem, however, is that “gay rights” have been exalted to such a degree that these “rights” trump all other rights and freedoms, including our freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion.

In the case at hand, because Phillips is a committed Christian, he doesn’t make cakes mixed with alcohol (nor can he be required to), he doesn’t make cakes for lewd bachelor parties (nor can he be required to), and he doesn’t make cakes for horror-themed events (nor can he be required to). But when he cannot, in good conscience, use his artistic skills to make a cake for a same-sex “wedding,” he can be charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws to the point that the state can now discriminate against him as a Christian.

Put another way, you can freely exercise your Christian beliefs unless those beliefs offend gays. In that case, you’re breaking the law.

And what if a Hindu came in and wanted a, “Krishna is Lord” cake? Phillips could politely decline, without legal penalty or pressure. The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, “Jesus is Lord.”

But wouldn’t that offend the Hindu and the Christian wanting to buy the cakes? Perhaps so, but the bakers are rightly protected by the law and cannot be penalized for refusing the business.

Why, then, are gays and lesbians treated differently? Why are they put in a special category?

The sympathetic answer would be that society has overcompensated for perceived past injustices. And so, the pendulum has swung from one side (mistreatment of gays and lesbians) to the other side (overprotection of gays and lesbians).

The more realistic answer is that some gay activists have always had as their ultimate goal the silencing of those who resist their cause.

As a Christian attorney once commented to me, “Those who were once put in jail want to put us in jail.”

In the days ahead, many on the left will argue that Phillips was guilty of discriminating against gay customers. But that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and if the Supreme Court finds him guilty, the implications for America will be massive.

It will mean that the highest court in the land has ruled that, in virtually all conceivable cases, gay rights trump religious rights. And it will mean that Christians in particular can be forced to violate their consciences and their deeply held, historic beliefs under penalty of law, with the real potential of losing their very livelihoods. And should they still refuse to comply, it could mean a jail sentence too.

While some on the left (including LGBT activists) will say, “This is not what we intended,” plenty of others will gloat. After all, if we deserved to be thrown to the lions in one generation, it’s no big deal to imprison us in another generation.

I’m hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court does the right thing. If not, my leftist readers may mock my words today but you will mark them tomorrow.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear a case that will either preserve our First Amendment religious liberty in the United States or diminish it.

The case is about Jack Phillips, a bakery owner in Colorado who in 2012 declined to create a wedding cake to celebrate so-called same-sex “marriage.” He turned down the job because doing so would violate his deeply held Christian belief that God created the institution as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips offered to make the same-sex couple any other type of baked good or sell them a pre-made cake, but they refused. A complaint was soon filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “sexual orientation” discrimination.

The commission ordered Phillips either to comply with the state-enforced morality by creating wedding cakes that violate his religious beliefs or stop providing wedding cakes altogether. The commission’s ruling also mandated “re-education” training for Phillips’ employees and requires him to submit quarterly reports to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Thankfully, SCOTUS has agreed to hear this case. On December 5th, attorneys will present their oral arguments. No person should be forced by the government to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. This includes artists like Jack, who shouldn’t be coerced into making art with a message that he considers immoral.

This may be one of the most consequential religious liberty cases to be heard by the SCOTUS in decades.  Therefore, IFI is calling for focused prayer for this case and preservation of religious liberty in our nation.

PLEASE PRAY…

• for clarity of thought for the attorneys defending Jack Phillips

•  for the U.S. Supreme Court Justices considering this case

•  for the Lord to preserve religious liberty in the United States

• for Jack Phillips and his family as they continue to courageously challenge government tyranny in the courts

• for the oral arguments on December 5th

• for God to receive honor and glory even in the midst of increasing opposition to His Word

Please continue to lift this case up in prayer throughout the next several weeks, and share this information with like-minded Christians. You can also share this article on social media.

#JusticeForJack

​​​​​​​#ReligiousLiberty

Legal affairs columnist at The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson, has offered the dumbest idea yet to solve the problem of homosexual couples trying to force Christians to provide goods and services for their faux-weddings.

Michaelson, who writes on “law, religion, and sexuality,” is a graduate of Columbia University and Yale Law School, which provides clear evidence that intelligence and prestigious educations provide no bulwark against foolishness.

Michaelson is also an “affiliated assistant professor at Chicago Theological Seminary,” a “teacher of meditation in a Theravadan Buddhist lineage,” and openly homosexual with a special interest in “queer theology.”

Focusing on the case of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose case before the U.S. Supreme Court starts next week, Michaelson proposed this:

All Masterpiece Cakeshop has to do is state that they only provide wedding cakes for weddings that take place at certain churches (and, if they like, synagogues and mosques). Don’t turn people away based on their identities, or the type of wedding they’re conducting. Turn them away based on the place where they are getting married…. That leaves the discrimination up to the religious institution, and churches are allowed to discriminate. They can refuse to host same-sex weddings, interfaith weddings, interracial weddings – whatever. And almost everyone agrees that they should be allowed to do so. Whatever else it means, the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.

That’s a doozy of a “solution.”

First, a few thoughts.

Neither Jack Phillips, nor florist Barronelle Stutzman, nor baker Melissa Klein, nor calligrapher Joanna Duka, nor photographer Elaine Huguenin, nor Bed & Breakfast owner Jim Walder “turned people away based on their identities.” All of these defendants in unjust lawsuits brought by petulant, intolerant homosexual oppressors served homosexuals and provided products to homosexuals—an inconvenient fact that Michaelson omitted. Phillips was willing to sell the homosexuals who are suing him a pre-made cake for their wedding or any other baked goods. Stutzman had sold flowers for years to the homosexual who has sued her, knowing full well his “sexual orientation.”

For the umpteenth time, what these Christians are unwilling to do is provide a service or product for a type of event that the God they serve abhors. For theologically orthodox Christians, marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. The union of Christ the bridegroom and his bride, the church, is a union of two different and complementary entities. They are different in both nature and role. Pretending that the union of two people of the same sex can be a marriage is heresy. In theological terms, such a belief would necessarily mean that there is no difference in nature or role between Christ and his church.

And theologically orthodox Christians throughout the history of the church and today understand that God detests homosexual activity even as he loves those who reject Him and his Word. What a grievous injustice it is for the government to compel Christians to serve, participate in, or provide products for an event that celebrates a union that God detests.

Christians also recognize that true marriage—that is the union of one man and one woman—also serves public and secular purposes. It serves children who have an intrinsic right to know and be raised by both a mother and father–preferably their own biological parents.  Further, the needs of children are best served when they are raised by a mother and father. In serving the needs and rights of children, true marriage also serves society.

Michaelson offered this odd statement: “the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.”

Evidently Michaelson isn’t “woke” to the fact that the First Amendment definitely covers religious individual’s right to decide how to exercise their religion.

Michaelson denies that his solution of providing goods and services only for weddings held in certain churches constitutes religious discrimination:

[S]ince the bakery (or photographer, or florist) is limiting their services to certain physical venues, rather than discriminating against individual customers, the practice is what lawyers call “facially neutral.” If you’re getting married at venue A, B, or C, we can provide a cake for you. Period. You can be of whatever religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity that the venue allows; that’s up to the venues. All the bakery cares about is where the wedding is happening.

None of the Christians being sued is discriminating against individuals. They’re making distinctions between types of events: a union between two people of the same sex is as different from the union of two people of different sexes as a man is from a woman—which homosexuals and “trans” cultists tell us are very different, indeed. So, why is discriminating between venues “facially neutral,” while discriminating between types of events is unjustly discriminatory?

So, now for some questions that may help further illuminate just how asinine Michaelson’s proposed solution is:

1.)  What if a theologically orthodox Christian couple is having their wedding in a home, on the beach, on a mountain top, at an inn, in a hotel, or some other venue? Why should Jack Phillips be precluded from providing a wedding cake for such a wedding?

2.)  What if a denomination or church is in the midst of a schism, with some members upholding orthodoxy and some heresy? And what if a theologically orthodox couple in this church want a cake from the baker? Shouldn’t Phillips be free to provide a cake for this type of event that doesn’t violate his religious convictions?

3.)  What if Phillips wants to serve any sexually complementary couples because of his belief that marriage—which has an ontology—is good for all humans and good for society? Shouldn’t he have the right to serve all such couples regardless of their religion or absence of religion?

Jack Phillips did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He served them many times. He refused to make a type of product he had never made for a type of event he had never served: He declined to make an anti-wedding cake for an anti-wedding.

Marriage has a nature. It is something. Societies historically have recognized and regulated it, but they did not create it out of whole cloth. Marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not and cannot, in reality, be a marriage. A same-sex union is the antithesis of a marriage. It is an anti-marriage. I bet if a homosexual couple were to ask Phillips to make a birthday cake for the birthday of one of their mothers, he would do it. This illustrates that Phillips’ refusal to make an anti-wedding cake does not constitute discrimination against persons based on their “sexual orientation” but, rather, constitutes discriminating among types of events based on his religious beliefs. To paraphrase Michaelson, Phillips doesn’t care about the “sexual orientation” of his customers. All he cares about is the type of event that he’s being asked to serve.

I’ll speculate again. I bet if a man who identifies as homosexual were to choose to marry a woman—perhaps because he wants a traditional family life—Phillips would bake a wedding cake for the reception. Conversely, if two heterosexual women were to choose to marry—perhaps for some pragmatic fiscal reasons—Phillips would likely refuse to make a wedding cake. Both hypotheticals illustrate that Phillips’ refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple has nothing to do with their “sexual orientation.” It is the type of event to which he objects.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asinine-Idea-to-Protect-Christian-Vendors-From-Lawsuits.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Casey Ryan

A Colorado baker has a right not to make a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage that is against his faith, and the LGBT agenda is not a new civil rights movement, black Christian leaders said Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine leaders spoke in support of Jack Phillips, whose lawyers will ask the high court Dec. 5 to affirm that his free speech and religious liberty rights under the First Amendment allow him to turn down a request by two male customers to create such a cake.

“The First Amendment gives us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion,” Garland Hunt, senior pastor at The Father’s House, a nondenominational church in Atlanta, said at the press conference in defense of Phillips, who was not there. “The freedom of religion is an inalienable right that comes from God.”

In 2012, Phillips declined the business of two men who visited his bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked him to create a cake celebrating their wedding in Massachusetts.

His Christian faith, Phillips has said, teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. He also has said he doesn’t design and make cakes that go against his faith in other ways, such as being sexually suggestive or depicting Satan.

Persecution of Christians is real and “coming for America,” Hunt said.

Dean Nelson, co-founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of North Carolina and senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said Phillips is being attacked because he is a Christian.

“Jack is an honorable man who has served his community through his business for all people, regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual identity,” Nelson said. “Jack as a Christian is compelled to love all people, and this is what he has done for decades.”

The press conference was organized by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that defends religious liberty and represents Phillips, and sponsored by the Frederick Douglass Foundation, which promotes Christian and Republican values. The foundation also has launched a website in support of Phillips called We Got Your Back, Jack.

Janet Boynes, author of Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom, said the civil rights movement started to help blacks gain their rights and sexual behavior is not the same as skin color.

“I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” Boynes said.

LGBT activists want special rights, she said, and she is concerned that people are falling for the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. American culture is in a “downward spiral,” she said.

“God only condones and blesses sex between a man and a woman in marriage,” she said.

William Avon Keen, president of the Virginia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization co-founded by civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., said activists for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have hijacked civil rights.

Unlike many LGBT activists, Keen said, he dealt with separate and unequal public facilities when he was growing up.

Keen said the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.

“We as Christians, we feel that murder is a sin. … We feel that marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman,” Keen said. “We don’t believe in the third gender.”

He said the civil rights movement of the 1960s was “anti-sin,” and that today Christians are “too quiet” on societal issues and need to speak up.

“It is an injustice for our nation or anyone to try to force an individual to deny their faith,” Keen said.

Article originally posted on Stream.org.

Jack Phillips’ case going before the U.S. Supreme Court later this fall is a case that has the potential to alter the course of American history. If Jack loses in court, our ability to live out our faith will be fundamentally changed…for the worse.

Yet many people are unfamiliar with Jack’s case.

Jack is the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop and is being sued by the state of Colorado for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding.

While many want to say Jack wants the right to deny service to gay customers, that couldn’t be further from the truth. Jack served many gay customers – but it was when he was asked to participate in a religious service that he disagreed with that he declined.

Watch and share this video below from Alliance Defending Freedom – and you’ll see why this case is so important.

Great news!  On June 26th, U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 ruling in favor of religious liberty!

The High Court ruled  in favor of a church in Missouri that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground safety project because of a restriction that prohibited state taxpayer funding for religious institutions.

The case involves a Missouri preschool that was denied a state grant for rubberized playground surface material solely because it’s a church that runs the preschool.

Chief Justice John Roberts summed things up near the end of his majority opinion saying:

“The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution… It cannot stand.”

Illinois Family Institute praises the decision as a great victory for all people of faith!

This ruling makes is clear that government bodies and public programs cannot and should not discriminate against Christian organizations merely because they are religious. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment right to freely exercise religious faith in the public square.

Christian organizations throughout the state of Illinois and across the country provide much-needed services to young students, senior citizens, the poor, addicted, and under-served. It’s wrong to treat them differently simply because their service is inspired by the Word of God or their love for Jesus Christ.

Christian Liberty vs. Special LGBTQIA “Rights”

The U.S. Supreme Court also announced they will take up the Masterpiece Cakes case out of Colorado. This case is about whether the government can punish people of faith for not participating in religious ceremonies with which they disagree.

Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakes, had a complaint filed against him for not baking a cake for a so-called same-sex wedding ceremony. Phillips had provided countless services to other LGBTQ customers, but simply did not want to participate in a religious ceremony – a wedding – that violated his religious beliefs.

The government should not be punishing Christians who merely want to live and work by the dictates of their faith.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case that will decide the conflict between protected class status for same-sex attraction, sexual behavior and religious freedom. Please pray that they will rule wisely in this case.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Written by Joseph Backholm

A story out of Colorado this week demonstrates what many of us have been feeling for a while. When it comes to laws dealing with “gay stuff”, there really is no law. Only the preferences of the person making the decision.

You may have heard a story about Jack Phillips, a Denver baker who runs Masterpiece Cakeshop. After declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) found him in violation of state law and ordered him to undergo sensitivity training. They also ordered him to file quarterly reports with the state to see if he has turned away customers based on sexual orientation.

But there’s another case you may not have heard about.

In an apparent response to the Masterpiece Cakeshop dust up, a man named William Jack from Castle Rock, Colorado approached three bakeries (Azucar Bakery, Gateaux, and Le Bakery Sensual) and asked them to bake cakes critical of same-sex marriage.

In the case of Azucar Bakery, he requested a cake with two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red “X” over the image. The cake was also to include three statements “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7”, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.”

To no one’s surprise, they declined.

In response, Mr. Jack filed his own complaint with the CCRC claiming that their refusal to bake the cake communicating his Christian opposition to homosexuality was discrimination based on creed; specifically his Christian faith.

Denying the charge of discrimination, the bakery claimed it refused to bake the cake because of the message not because of the religion of the person requesting it. They considered the message to be “discriminatory”.

In the end, the CCRC agreed with the bakery and concluded the refusal to bake the cake requested was not discrimination based on creed for three reasons.

First, they said the refusal was not because the person requesting it was a Christian but because the cake “included derogatory language and imagery.”

Second, they cited the fact that they had served Christians before as evidence that they don’t discriminate on the basis of creed.

Third, the bakery would also refuse to bake a cake that was critical of Christians.

If it feels like these are the same arguments that were made by Jack Phillips (and other businesses) who happily serve gay customers but are unwilling to be part of same-sex wedding, that’s because they are.

The CCRC summarized that, “ [T]he evidence demonstrates that the Respondent would have made a cake for the Charging Party for any event, celebration or occasion regardless of his creed. Instead, the Respondent’s denial was based on the explicit message that the Charging Party wished to include on the cakes, which the Respondent deemed as discriminatory.”

So, if the message on the cake is one you don’t agree with, you can decline. However, if the cake itself is a message you disagree with, you cannot decline.

That makes sense…to no one.

It is apparent that the CCRC sympathizes one perspective but not the other.

These arbitrary and contradictory results are the legal equivalent of the middle finger.

We’re in charge and you aren’t. That’s why.

Of course those bakeries should be free not to bake a cake that includes a message they disagree with. The problem is laws which permit people to act on one set of beliefs about a particular issue but deny people with the opposite opinion the same rights.

In fairness, arbitrary application of the laws based on the preferences of the person in power has been the norm not the exception throughout history.

But America has been an attempt to move away from that. It hasn’t been perfect, but despite abuses of power, we have aspired to create a world in which everyone is bound by the same laws in the same way.

As a result, we have worked to create a world in which people who were similarly situated could expect similar results in court.

Clearly, we have progressed beyond that. Because, you know…equality.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Originally published by the Family Policy Institute of Washington.

Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission has already handed down its decision in a case involving a baker who favors biblical marriage – now it will hear one concerning a baker who favors same-sex “marriage.” A customer walked into Azucar Bakery in Denver and requested a cake in the shape of a Bible inscribed with what bakery owner Marjorie Silva describes as “a hateful message” and an “X” through the image of a same-sex couple.

Silva agreed to bake the cake in the shape requested, but refused to add the inscription. The customer left and later filed a complaint before the Commission.

Alliance Defending Freedom represents Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips, who has already been found guilty of discrimination because, based on his Christian faith, he refused to do a special cake for a same-gender “wedding.” ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco argues that Silva has every right to decline to promote a message with which she sincerely disagrees – the same stance ADF took in defending Phillips.

“So the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which now has a complaint before it on [the Silva] case, has to decide whether this baker is going to have their First Amendment rights respected – or if they’re going to be put in the same position as Jack Phillips, who faces potentially losing his business just because they exercised their First Amendment right.

“We support the right of this baker who didn’t want to create a cake that was contrary to their beliefs,” he summarizes.

Tedesco says the state can go one of two ways in the matter.

“Colorado is either going to have to say We don’t care about anybody’s First Amendment rights in our state – or they may say, Well, we’re going to play favorites. We’re going to allow the baker who supports same-sex marriage to decline to provide services to people who object to that point of view.”

According to the attorney, the state would be stating the latter by allowing the baker who supports homosexual marriage to get away with it and letting stand the punishment against Christian baker Phillips. He has taken his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Churches in Denmark are now compelled, by law, to host same-sex “weddings.”

America is next.

Tyranny’s appetite is insatiable. The secular-left’s hunger for power and control over its detractors can never be satisfied. To outwardly succumb and affirmatively capitulate to their pagan demands will never be enough.

Thought control is the goal.

Case in point: Remember Jack Phillips, the Christian baker in Colorado? He exercised his First Amendment religious rights and politely declined to bake a “wedding” cake for a homosexual civil union. Colorado’s “civil rights” Star Chamber recently ordered Mr. Phillips to deny his faith and bake these fake cakes, “shut down” or face prison.

He and his elderly mother (an employee) have additionally been “sentenced” to attend “sensitivity training” (read: re-education camp). There, some snot-nosed college grad with a degree in “feminist/gender studies,” or some other such nonsense, will endeavor to scrub all biblical notions of human sexuality and natural marriage from their minds, hearts and souls, reboot and upload Mozilla Moral Relativism 2.0.

As Mr. Phillips has indicated, he has no problem baking for homosexuals, but, as a Christian, he simply cannot and will not contribute his time and God-given gifts to bake a “wedding cake” that mocks and defiles God’s design for the immutable institution of legitimate marriage.

Nor would he bake for a white supremacist rally or any other similarly wicked event that likewise flouts biblical truth.

As a result, Phillips has said he will stop baking wedding cakes altogether.

I hope he’ll reconsider.

I hope that Mr. Phillips will bake on. I hope he’ll embrace the mantel of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and engage in civil disobedience. I hope he tells this “brood of vipers,” in a loving and Christian way, to get bent.

This is his Rosa Parks moment.

Then he should prayerfully consider attending the “sensitivity training” as a ministry opportunity and co-opt it for the glory of Christ. He should take it over with respectful questions and direct disagreement. He should refuse to waiver one iota on biblical truth and rebuke those who deny Christ and His truths.

He should educate the “educators” as well as everyone else in attendance.

That’s what it means to pick up your cross and follow Christ.

But that’s just some baker, right, pastors? Sure, it’s happening to photographers, florists, inn keepers and bakers, but at least the church is safe.

No chance.

This is the issue. For some reason the enemy has chosen sexual immorality and faux “marriage” as a hammer to bludgeon the church.

Denmark was the first nation to imagine same-sex “marriage” as a matter of law. It’s now one of the first to compel, under penalty of law, churches to desecrate holy ground by hosting these sin-centric, pagan spectacles.

Columnist and AFR Talk radio host Bryan Fischer reports, “Well, the day we prophesied has arrived. Churches in Denmark – and the U.S. will not be far behind – have been ORDERED to perform sodomy-based weddings whether they want to or not.

“According to the London Telegraph, a new law passed by the Danish parliament ‘make(s) it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.’ No options, no exceptions, no choice. Homosexuals are to be married wherever they want, regardless of whose conscience is trampled and whose sanctuary is defiled in the process. …

“How long will it be before American churches will be ordered, as a condition of maintaining their tax-exempt status, to host same-sex ceremonies? How long will it be before American pastors are ordered to perform them?

“Unless America’s pastors rise up as one, now, that day will arrive like a thief in the night, a day when each pastor will be told that he must solemnize sodomy-based marriages in his church or his church’s 501(c)(3) status will be revoked. At that point, he and his church will effectively be out of business.”

Mr. Fischer is right. It’s a foregone conclusion. We are no longer a constitutional republic. American pastors, like bakers, florists, photographers and every other citizen, will be confronted with a choice: Obey God or obey man. Pastors will be compelled, under threat of imprisonment, to participate in these unholy pagan rituals.

Pastors, priests, you will then face three choices: 1) Surrender, disobey God’s law and obey man’s, 2) Stand firm, disobey man’s law and obey God’s, or 3) Use the opportunity to serve, speak truth in love and glorify Jesus.

I like No. 3.

When you men of the cloth are inevitably put to this test, I suggest you do the following. It will take great courage and the strength of the Holy Spirit.

“Preside” over the mock marriage and speak the following truths in love:

“Let us begin with a reading from God’s Holy Word, Matthew 19:4-5:

“As Christ said, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’

“Do we dare call the living Christ a liar?

“I dare not!

“As it is written: ‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26).’

“Dearly beloved, we are gathered here on this dark occasion because the government has threatened to imprison me otherwise. We are gathered here, presumably, to join ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ in ‘holy matrimony.’ I say ‘presumably’ because this cannot be. God’s infallible word calls this a farce and a lie. God’s Holy word calls this an abomination – a mortal sin.

“He loves you enough, ‘Party A’, ‘Party B’ – all who are gathered here today – to tell you the truth. I love you enough to tell you the truth.

“God warns, ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.’ I will not call this evil good. You can persecute me, jail me or even kill me, but you cannot force me to deny Christ.

“I am a sinner and can cast no stone. Neither can I condemn you. But, as did Jesus, I can tell you this: ‘Go and sin no more.’”

“Repent, ask forgiveness and believe upon Jesus.

“Because your eternity depends on it.”

Then walk away and pray that these Holy Spirit-inspired words, these transcendent truths, pierce the hearts of those in attendance who labor under deception – who suffer under this “strong delusion.”

That’s what it means to pick up your cross and follow Christ.

Colorado baker Jack Phillips who because of his faith chose not to bake a cake for the civil union of two men has been commanded by Big Brother (i.e., Colorado Civil Rights Commission) to participate in such unholy celebrations or cease and desist from making any wedding cakes. He has chosen to stop making any wedding cakes.

But Big Brother’s ravenous appetite for the consumption of good men and women is not yet sated. The behemoth desires body, will, heart, spirit, and mind. As penance, the baker must also provide what is ironically called “anti-discrimination” training for two years to his employees and make quarterly reports back to Big Brother on their “progress.” Oh, and he has to maintain a list of any and all customers he refuses to serve—which will be a blank piece of paper because he has never refused to serve homosexuals.

Why can’t liberals get this through their thick dogma-encrusted skulls: The baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He was and is more than happy to sell baked goods to any and every customer. What he did was choose not to use his time, labor, and creative gifts in the service of a ceremony that God abhors.

This is an outrage and an occasion for civil disobedience. Neither the baker nor his employees should participate in this re-education sham.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Compulsory re-education in an effort to forcibly inculcate free citizens with non-factual leftist opinions about the nature and morality of homoerotic activity, relationships, and celebrations should offend all freedom-loving Americans and certainly all orthodox Christians.

The claim by “progressives” that the baker’s choice not to participate in a marriage-mockery ceremony is evidence of bigotry is simply nonsense—dangerous nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Propositions regarding which acts constitute immoral acts do not constitute “bigotry.” Further, the Left never applies that principle consistently. They never claim that their propositions about which acts are immoral constitute either bigotry or hatred of those who engage in them.

There’s foolish consistency, which is the hobgoblin of little minds, and then there’s foolish inconsistency, which is the hobgoblin of little “progressive” minds.

(just wondering, should homosexual activists who threaten IFI employees and all their family members and who swath their threats in bracingly obscene rhetoric attend some anti-discrimination training…)

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

A Colorado baker who declined to bake a cake for a same-gender “wedding” is fighting through an appeal to make sure his constitutionally protected freedoms – as well those of others – aren’t taken away.

In the summer of 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division after cake artist Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to endorse their marriage ceremony because of his faith. Last month the Colorado Administrative Law Court ruled Phillips must provide the cakes for homosexuals and prove that he has complied with the court order. Alliance Defending Freedom on Monday filed an appeal on Phillips’ behalf.

ADF-affiliated attorney Nicole Martin argues the government has “turn[ed] its guns” on her client for exercising his constitutional freedom.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of all citizens to live and work without fear of government punishment,” Martin offers. “Jack [Phillips] simply exercised the long-cherished freedom to not speak by declining to promote a false view of marriage through his creative work.

“It’s outrageous that the government would turn its guns on Jack and threaten him with a potential jail sentence unless he says and does what the government demands,” she adds.

In a statement to OneNewsNows, ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner says artists like Phillips “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes” without fear of the government compelling them to speak something contrary to their beliefs.

“Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free,” she says. “If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away.”

 This article was orignially published at the OneNewsNow.com blog