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

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.

Glenn Beck: One TERRIFYING thing is clear no matter who caused the Nord Stream pipeline leaks

Photo by Danish Defence/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Evidence strongly suggests that the Nord Stream pipeline leaks were the result of sabotage, and U.S. and European officials have been working to discover who could be behind the explosions that damaged the natural gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

Was it Russia? Ukraine? Germany? But no matter who carried this out, it has put the entire world in grave danger, because if this is indeed an attack, it means that non-military key infrastructure outside Ukraine is now on the "target menu," warned Glenn Beck on the radio program.

"It is so important for you to understand, this is now a non-military key infrastructure that has been destroyed," Glenn explained. "If Russia thinks we did it, they've already said, 'Nukes are now on the table.' That gives us a green light to use nukes," he added.

"This is non-military key infrastructure outside of the borders of Ukraine. To date, as far as we know, combat targets were either in Ukraine, or were military targets hit inside of Russia by Ukrainian Air Force or special forces. But the target menu now includes key civilian infrastructure: electricity, water utilities, energy production. That makes Russia more dangerous than ever. And that would be true no matter who carried out the attack," Glenn stated.

Now, the Russians are saying the Unted States did it, and the U.S. is saying it was Russia. But no matter who carried out the attack, "We are facing a Cuban Missile Crisis," said Glenn.

"This could end up being the biggest story of our lifetime and ... if it isn't played calmly by every side, this could be World War III," he continued. "Russia has already said that this gives them the right to use nuclear weapons as soon as they find out for sure who did it. That would be catastrophic, absolutely catastrophic."

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The White House can try to spin inflation all day long (and it's trying very hard). But you feel the effects of President Joe Biden’s disastrous leadership every time you go to the grocery store or fill up your car. The American economy is on the brink of disaster after less than two years of a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. And they’ve got plenty more destruction in the works.

The bottom line is they WANT you to get used to a lower living standard. So, what do you do? How do you prepare? What will food and fuel cost in the months ahead? What would the next Great Depression look like? How are you going to feel the effects of ESG and the Left’s war on oil?

On Wednesday night's "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck brings in a panel of economic experts to answer those questions. He’s joined by Carol Roth, former Wall Street investment banker and author of “The War on Small Business,” and Jim Iuorio, a small business owner, stockbroker, and managing director of TJM Institutional Services. While both forecast the worst-case scenario for average Americans, they also offer a glimmer of hope to get us out of this mess.

Watch the full episode below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The FBI recently sent more than a dozen armed agents to the home of well-known pro-life activist Mark Houck to arrest him for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances or FACE Act. Now the father of seven faces up to 11 years in prison over claims that he blocked a man from entering an abortion clinic and shoved him when he wouldn't stop verbally harassing Mark's 12-year-old son. Now, if that doesn't sound insane enough, this all happened after local authorities dropped the case. So, what's the full story here?

Attorney Peter Breen joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to tell the family's side of the story, including how the case was already "won" three years ago, and how, after receiving a target letter from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mark's legal team agreed to cooperate fully, only to hear nothing back until the day the FBI showed up on Mark's doorstep.

Breen also explained how the FBI has tried to downplay "abuse of power" claims, accusing Mark's wife of making "inaccurate claims" about the terrifying experience.

"Ryan-Marie, who is Mark's wife, she thought she saw 25 [FBI agents.] The FBI came back and said it wasn't 25, it was no more than 15 or 20 heavily armed federal agents. And she had called them a 'SWAT team' because she's a lay person. I don't know the difference between a SWAT team and a bunch of heavily armed, armored, and shield-bearing federal agents," Breen said.

According to Fox News, a senior FBI source said:

There may have been 15-20 agents at the scene, but denied 25 were there. The agents who came to the door had guns out and at the ready, according to this FBI source, but the guns were never pointed at Houck or his family and were lowered or holstered as soon as Houck was taken into custody. Houck was handcuffed with a belly chain.

"So, yeah, they had guns drawn and pointed at Mark in front of his wife and their children. And that whole show of force was done against a man who was not a drug lord, not a mafia boss, but instead, a law-abiding pillar of the community whose attorney said, 'we'll bring him in if you decide to charge, even though you have no case.'"

Breen went on to assert that he believes Congress "needs to" hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable for the arrest. "I can't imagine that those 20 federal agents were excited about being called out to a peaceful man's home, guns drawn," he said.

In the video clip below, Breen goes on the explain what he believes should happen next, and why Houck's arrest "should frighten all of us." Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Gavin McInnes broke the internet last month when his live show was interrupted, and it appeared that he was arrested. He broke the internet again a few weeks later when he admitted that the arrest was staged as part of what was intended to be an elaborate prank.

McInnes joined Glenn Beck on "Glenn TV" to explain the real reason behind his disastrous prank.

"This was a $10,000 joke. I lost 100 subscribers because of it, but I was going away to Paris for a week because my daughter is going to college and I thought let's make it interesting," McInnes said of his decision to fake an on-air arrest in the middle of his live "Get Off My Lawn" podcast on August 25.

"There was a method to the madness, with the prank ... my point was, first of all, this is happening to people in real-time. Tim Poole has been swatted a million times," he explained to Glenn. "The thought police are in full effect. I also wanted to lampoon the media's bloodlust for us suffering."

Glenn played a clip of the now-infamous hoax while McInnes explained what was really going on behind the scenes, including how his very drunk friend "Unrelia-Bill" was supposed to act the part of the arresting officer but ended up being much too intoxicated (at "2 pm") to speak even a few lines, and how smugly gleeful the "far left" was when they thought McInnes had actually been arrested.

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.