Bakery Religious Freedom Case Is a Slam Dunk—In a Sane World

June 27, 2017

WRITER

The Supreme Court made several monumental rulings yesterday and agreed to hear another that will decide whether religious freedom is still a core principle in the United States. The long-awaited showdown on religious freedom --- as it applies to Christian bakers, florists, photographers and owners of wedding venues providing services for same-sex weddings --- will finally have its day in court.

"Here's why you should care about this story. Freedom of religion, the freedom to exercise the dictates of your own conscience is at stake. You may have to participate in compelled speech. That's not good. You may have to participate in things that you have a deep feeling and a deep belief that it is wrong. We are talking about at the level of, if you're a pacifist and you're a Quaker, do you have to go and fight?" Glenn asked on radio Tuesday.

Unless the high court upholds the First Amendment as written, services providers will be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs to serve customers.

"How can you possibly violate the First Amendment by forcing the baker to participate in something that is a violation of his religious convictions? This is a slam dunk in a sane world," Glenn said.

We'll know in due time. The justices are expected to rule on the appeal case from Colorado baker Jack Phillips in 2018.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I'm going to start with some really good news. The Supreme Court made some monumental rulings yesterday and agreed to hear another that will decide whether religious freedom is still a core principle in the United States, but let's look at what they did do yesterday.

The long-awaited showdown on religious freedom as it applies to Christian bakers, florists, photographers, owners of wedding venues and others who have been forced into participating in gay wedding ceremonies, we have a quick recap on this first ruling. There have been several of these incidents around the country, but the one that is going to be decided by the Supreme Court involves a case in Colorado.

Now, in Colorado, the lower court ruled that Jack Philips, he is the owner of a place called the Masterpiece Cake Shop, violated Colorado's public accommodations law.

Now, the public accommodation law means that you can't refuse service to customers based on things like race or sex or marital status or sexual orientation.

Here's why you should care about this story. Freedom of religion, the freedom to exercise the dictates of our own conscience is at stake. You may have to participate in compelled speech. That's not good.

You may have to participate in things that you have a deep feeling and a deep belief that it is wrong. We are talking about at the level of, if you're a pacifist and you're a Quaker, do you have to go and fight? Well, yes. You do. Because it's for the country, and we're all citizens.

Well, but that goes against the dictates of my spirit, my conscience.

You lose conscientious objector. You lose the right of your own conscience. And you are no longer in control.

Now, let's look at the facts. Here are the things that we absolutely know: A gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cake Shop in 2012, along with Craig's mother. They wanted to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception.

Now, Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal at the time and then hold the reception in Colorado. But Philips said, "I'm sorry. My religious beliefs, I can't make your wedding cake for same-sex marriage." He said, "There are other bakeries that will be happy to accommodate you. I just have these religious feelings that I cannot move past." Now, here is something important in the fact category: Gay marriage was still prohibited by Colorado law in 2012, meaning that the Colorado civil rights commission determined that Philips' action violated state law, even though gay marriage violated Colorado state law at the time.

So they're both apparently breaking the law. Even so, the ruling was upheld in Colorado state courts. Now, those are the facts of the case.

The contested facts are Jack Philips is a bigot. We don't know. He's a homophobe. We don't know. He's violating the rights of the gay couple because he's a religious zealot. Well, when did religiosity become something that you had to shed?

His -- he believes his religious sensibilities and his conviction are being violated. He believes it is against his religion to participate in their ceremony, and that is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Now, here's what I believe: This is what this story means to me. What you should take away. If this were the other way around, if a gay baker were being asked by a Christian couple to make a wedding cake that said marriage can only be between a man and a woman, there is no way the state of Colorado would be forcing the gay baker to make that cake. No way.

If the baker were Muslim, try to imagine the scenario where the court would be forcing him to deny the tenets of Islam. But because Christianity is our major religion, it seems as though it is perfectly acceptable to limit, discriminate against, and totally disregard the convictions of those who practice it. Why?

Because Christians have been the oppressor. Forget about the oppression that is happening in Islamic states. We are a bigger oppressor, as Christians.

Now, how can you possibly violate the First Amendment by forcing the baker to participate in something that is a violation of his religious convictions? This is a slam-dunk in a sane world.

The Supreme Court needs to rule in favor of the First Amendment and every American citizen's right to free expression of religion.

Now, if it's a sham, that's something different. And that's why we didn't accept conscientious objectors from everybody. You had to show that that is what your faith taught and you were a good member of your faith.

If this is still America, there is no other way to rule. And the court will rule on this soon.

Yesterday, the court did make four decisions, some of them good, others, not so much. But there's good news here. In religious liberty, the Supreme Court made a ruling yesterday that flies in the face of the nonexistent separation of church and state.

This is a -- this is a big win for people of faith. Until now, Christian-based abstinence organizations have been denied funding, and pro-life organizations have been denied participation in governmental programs. While at the same time, an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood will receive half a billion dollars a year in government spending. Until now.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 7:2, that the government cannot exclude churches and other faith-based organizations from secular programs simply because they have a religious identity. 7:2. This is a huge surprise. Because it -- it means that reliable progressive judges, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, both joined Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and our new judge, Neil Gorsuch. And they join them on the side of the religious organizations.

The case involved the state of Missouri denying a church a partial reimbursement grant for rubberized playground surface material made from recycled tires. And the reason why they rejected it because the church runs the preschool, even though the only purpose of the grant program is to improve children's safety. It sounds like no big deal. But it is actually a very big deal. Thanks to that playground, Christian organizations can no longer be discriminated against. It is a step towards restoring sanity and the constitutional principles. Now, me personally, I have a problem with a tax exempt organization getting tax dollars. But I would say that about any organization, not just churches.

This is, however, in my mind, overall, because it means that if you're Christian, you can get the same services at everyone else. The court has taken a step towards ensuring you, you and your children, will be allowed to continue to exercise your faith the wait you see fit and you are not excluded from the rest of society. This is a rare victory for, not Christians, but the Constitution, and strengthens a core American principle.

There was another case involving a same-sex couple. Two female couples petitioned the Supreme Court to review their case, which fought the Arkansas Department of Health Insurance, or issuance of birth certificates, bearing only the birth mother's name and not the female spouse.

It would have said birth number and then, you know, the spouse of the -- the father. This is something that is always done, even if the father isn't the father. And it's -- it's done for other groups. It's just being held back, not allowing to have a female spouse.

They ruled yesterday and adhered to a provision of the Arkansas law, which was rejected by a trial law. Kept in place by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The high court reversed and remanded the Arkansas high court's judgment. They found that until -- until now, opposite sex couples were being treated differently than same-sex couples in similar situations.

Now, here's what's interesting about this: Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering dissent from the Supreme Court's decision that Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both joined. So it appears as though Gorsuch is ruling in the way he was advertised to rule, conservatively. We wondered if he would do this on social issues. He certainly did on this one.

Gay rights, an issue that has absolutely now been resolved in America, the battle is over, according to the courts and in large part the mindset of the American people. Gay couples have all of the same benefits and rights as opposite sex partners. There is no longer any differentiation. Your children are growing up in a world now, where it is possible, if not likely, that parts of the Bible could be considered hate speech soon.

Now, gun rights. Strangely, the court refused to hear an important California case, whether the Second Amendment gives people a right to carry handguns outside of their home for self-defense, including concealed carry, when open carry is forbidden by state law. Clarence Thomas, again, Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the case. Thomas wrote, in part, quote, for those who work in the marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think that we should stand idly by while a state denies a citizen that same right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it, end quote.

If you have been holding your collective breath on Neil Gorsuch, wondering if he's going to turn out like Thomas or Scalia or he be co-opted by the leftist on the bench and wind up like Souter and Kennedy. The early results -- we have some interesting facts about this later on in the broadcast -- the early results show that Gorsuch is everything as advertised. This is encouraging news from him. He seems to be the justice that everybody hoped he would be.

But because the court as a whole refused to hear the Second Amendment case -- and I think this one is critical -- not only did they squander the opportunity to strengthen the Second Amendment, but for now, gun owners in California are mostly unable to obtain a permit to carry a gun. So they have no protection. And California is more and more dangerous in the cities.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is still not understood by many in the United States. For whatever reason, court failed to act on behalf the Constitution.

Finally, the travel ban. President Trump's travel ban was surprisingly mostly -- mostly allowed by the court. It's -- it's not entirely allowed. It's just mostly allowed.

Maybe we can get Miracle Max to take it all the way home. They will give a full -- this issue a full hearing later in the fall. The Supreme Court, however, yesterday removed the injunction issued by lower courts on refugees, without a close tie to the United States.

Meaning that for the vast majority of refugees, the ban is now being upheld in the interest of national security. It seems like Donald Trump, at this point, is just asking for time to figure out what's going on. And, you know, it's not hard to figure this one out. But, you know, I believe there are extremists out there that want to create chaos and kill innocent Americans. And by allowing our government and this administration time to decide how best to secure our nation in a time where it's very difficult to discern who the good guys are and the bad guys are, Americans, many of them are somewhat relieved by this ruling. None of us want to see what's happening in Europe. But, again, none of us want to see a repeat of anything like the Japanese internment camps. This is not a permanent situation, and none of us want our children and our wives, our husbands placed in undue peril. We don't have to accept everybody in our country at once, and we do have an obligation to be discerning about who we allow in. And so far, the court is siding with Donald Trump.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.