Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom: Which Will Dominate Society?
PJ Media ^ | 09/14/2017 | Avner Zarmi

Posted on 09/14/2017 8:25:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

One day in 2012, Charles Craig and David Mullins entered Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake. Phillips, a Christian and self-described “cake artist” who custom-designs cakes for various occasions, politely declined, citing his religious beliefs.

Having previously, in the words of his lawyer, refused to bake cakes for Halloween, or with anti-American, anti-family, or what he considered profane messages, Phillips also would not design a cake to celebrate an event in violation of his understanding of Leviticus XX, 13.

Craig and Mullins promptly filed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled that Phillips must be compelled to provide wedding cakes equally celebrating any kind of union, or get out of the business.

The basis of the ruling is a Colorado law that prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, religion, “gender,” or sexual orientation. Twenty other states have similar laws.

Phillips has appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Colorado law infringes his right to the free exercise of his religion. Two years ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar appeal filed by a New Mexico photographer who refused service for a same-sex ceremony; but it has agreed to hear this one.

The case has been widely covered from a Christian point of view, which is understandable, since Christianity is the religious worldview that Phillips professes. But the implications of the ruling by the Orwellian Colorado Civil Rights Commission are far broader than that. So Agudath Israel of America, a 94-year-old Orthodox Jewish advocacy organization, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case (full disclosure: I have the honor of serving as the Midwest regional vice president of the Aguda).

The brief, which can be read in its entirety here, formulates the question:

Will our society honor the guarantees of the Free Exercise Clause when a religious practice is based upon a moral judgment that is anathema to the contemporary zeitgeist ?

It then goes on to document the uniqueness of the American experience in Jewish history and the resultant compelling interest of the Aguda in the outcome of this case. As a summary of its argument, the brief cites the words of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., from 56 years ago:

"[T]he issue in this case … is whether a State may put an individual to a choice between his business and his religion. … [S]uch a law prohibits the free exercise of religion.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 611 (1961) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting).

The brief notes numerous examples in which Jewish practices have been infringed, restricted, and prohibited in foreign countries. For example, Jewish law not only limits the species of that which can be consumed, but also mandates the method of slaughter that must be pursued for the meat to be kosher. Yet in Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, all countries with a Jewish population, the practice is prohibited. Indeed, the UK recently made a serious attempt to ban the practice there.

As another example: Jewish law requires circumcision of all male babies on the eighth day of their lives, except under certain unusual circumstances that might endanger the baby’s life. Yet, on October 1, 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution terming the practice a “violation of the physical integrity of children.” In May 2012, a regional appellate court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that religious circumcision amounted to bodily injury and was hence a criminal offense. Some months later, the Bundestag reversed this decision and promulgated a federal law permitting the practice for religious reasons.

But the attempt had been made.

A further example, and one that hits very close to home, is the case of the Vishnitz Girls School in the UK. In 2013, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services, and Skills (OFSTED) visited the Orthodox Jewish primary school and passed it with flying colors. OFSTED highlighted the excellence of the commitment of teachers and staff to the pupils’ welfare and development.

That was before the British redefinition of “marriage.”

This year, OFSTED revisited the campus. While again noting the excellence of the curriculum and the fact that the girls were “confident in thinking for themselves,” the school was failed because of one issue:

Pupils are not taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles. As a result, pupils are not able to gain a full understanding of fundamental British values.

The school is in imminent danger of losing its accreditation and being shut down.

As the brief goes on to note, the sole major difference between all of these jurisdictions and that of the United States is that none of them have the Free Exercise Clause -- but we do.

The brief then goes on to point out that, until quite recently, the sexual mores and standard of public morality in the United States were generally congruent with the principles of Biblical morality which have informed Jewish life for over 3,300 years, since the encounter at Sinai. As recently as 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy was constitutional. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act -- mandating that the federal definition of marriage was the union of one man and one woman -- by a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. President Clinton signed it into law.

Nothing in the Constitution changed between 1996 and the Obergefell decision of 2015; there had been no new amendment proposed, let alone ratified. What had changed was a seismic shift in the nation’s zeitgeist. A consensus had formed among the intellectual elite that homosexual activities were just another form of sex, and that same-sex unions were just another kind of “marriage.”

But Jewish law, based on the timeless principles handed down at Sinai, does not have this flexibility and cannot accept the change.

Moreover, it is a principle of Jewish law that one may not aid or abet an action which is prohibited, and so an Orthodox Jewish baker would be subject to the same strictures as Mr. Phillips.

Mullins has given interviews in which he says that the issue was never merely about a wedding cake, and of course he is right. There are any number of other bakers who would gladly take their business. The issue is also not one of tolerance.

It is of dominance.

The LGBT agenda seeks to impose its warped views on all of us. As Erick Erickson states it in the title of his book: You Will Be Made to Care. No less a personage than the speaker of the British Parliament recently said:

I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right.

Or in a synagogue. Which is precisely the point of the appeal and the amicus brief.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anitabryantwasright; constitution; culturewars; freedom; homosexualagenda; lgbt; religion; religiousliberty; samesexmirage; ssm; trends

1 posted on 09/14/2017 8:25:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The pervert agenda is surging because of very big money from very wealthy donors. They will not even slow down until they have obliterated all religious objection to them and their practices and they have unrestricted access to our children.

Don’t believe me? - just wait and watch.

2 posted on 09/14/2017 8:39:03 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

This is why many of us opposed homosexual “marriage” in the first place. It wasn’t about what consenting adults do in private or even who people spend their lives with. It was about the normalization/legitimization of homosexuality and the subsequent and ongoing war against opposing views. When government says two homoesexuals can marry, for example, that marriage has to be treated as entirely normal in all aspects.

We already surrendered religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of association in the civil rights era (for an arguably worthy cause—elimination of institutionalized racism), and legal homosexual “marriage” allows the homosexualists to use those same mechanisms to drive opposing thought/speech from the public sphere. In other words, the legal framework to oppress Christians was already in place.

You may be allowed to practice your faith in private—maybe.

3 posted on 09/14/2017 8:56:22 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If the Court finds for Jack Phillips and religious liberty, what do you think will occur? My bet is that there will be more “antifa”-type violence, first against Phillips, his family and his property, and then against anyone identified as being in any way in support of religious liberty. It will not settle anything, but will spur the moral anarchists on to new heights of madness, which will affect us all.

This is why I contend that the solution is no longer political. It will have to come to blood and annihilation.

4 posted on 09/14/2017 9:00:16 AM PDT by fwdude (Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s about destroying Christianity, especially the churches which have not embraced the leftist agenda.

They are not ever going after muzzies, and trapping them into refusing to perform a gay “marriage” because they know damn well the muzzies will refuse and cut their heads off.

How long before they go into a Catholic church to be “married” and sue the Church?

5 posted on 09/14/2017 9:23:28 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Freedom of speech: a fond memory of something that went away 30 years ago.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

By 2030, 50% of Israel will be Orthodox. They’re going to be following Torah much more closely.
Interesting article about an Ultra-Orthodox lawmaker having to resign after attending his nephew’s homosexual mirage. Since it’s against Jewish law to aid or abet an action which is prohibited, I’m assuming he quit before he could be ... fired?

6 posted on 09/14/2017 1:38:30 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

RE: By 2030, 50% of Israel will be Orthodox. They’re going to be following Torah much more closely.

Is there any barrier from keeping their able bodied male from joining the military?

7 posted on 09/14/2017 1:55:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I was just reading articles about the Supreme Court forcing Chareidi Jews to serve in the military, and it said they want to be able to focus all their attention on Torah/Talmud study, and, questionable in my estimation, they’re afraid their sons will leave the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish religions if they leave to serve in the army.

8 posted on 09/14/2017 2:16:12 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

Another, more detailed article on the Ultra-Orthodox lawmaker who resigned after publicity on his attending the same-sex mirage of his nephew:

9 posted on 09/14/2017 2:25:55 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Indeed. Anita Bryant was right.

10 posted on 09/14/2017 3:20:38 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right.”

Technically speaking, they can already have their faux mirages in any liberal “church” that permits it. It sounds like he wants this legally imposed on Biblically orthodox churches.

11 posted on 09/14/2017 3:24:01 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

It’s advertisers paying for it.
They make much more from self-hating perverts than from ethical people.
And they pay for the only mass media in town.

12 posted on 09/14/2017 3:28:13 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The only reason the LGERBILQ Nazis have been so successful is the lack of resistance from religion groups.

13 posted on 09/17/2017 8:43:50 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson