Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?

American Thinker ^ | 1/9/2014 | Jim Yardley

[markomalley]

Several recent court cases have resulted in small business owners, who create the wares and services that they sell, being ordered by a judge to sell their custom-made products (e.g., wedding cakes and floral arrangements) or services (e.g., wedding photography) to gay couples despite the small business owners' refusal to do so based on their religious principles.

If the business in question sold standard, mass-produced items, such as rings, then denying gay couples the right to purchase such things would be clearly discriminatory in the same way that a realtor would be discriminating if they refused to show a house that was for sale to any and all interested potential buyers. The sexual orientation of the buyers should not be an issue in that sort of transaction.

However, the sensitivities of gay couples who claim to feel slighted is not the real issue. The plaintiff in a recent wedding cake related suit, one David Mullins, is reported to have said:

Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop [the defendant] was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration.

While vigorously defending the plaintiffs' claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs' request.

Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.

[stanne]

There is the militant homosexual which is the cause of fighting the culture for rights, equality, special stays and homosexuality in school curriculum. Thse are harmful to th culture.

And then there are hosexuality people. They mind their business and contribute to society.

I don’t want my money going to the foer. The latter I treat like anyone else

The courts say the same, that we have no right to discriminate against the private citizen.

I have the right to discriminate against a publically avowed militant homosexual rights advocate who will use my money to affect legal change in the culture

The gay wedding guys are acting within the law I can’t and wouldn’t discriminate against them. The religious freedom case lost here. It is not a religious issue.

I have stated this so leave me alone with your advocacy of hatred

Example. Birth control is factually the root of most cultural problems against purity we have today, including the immodesty, sexual promiscuity, acceptance of hosexuality and abirtion.

I don’t give my money nor support to any such entity that promotes it, as seen by the nuns’ ability to take their case to the Supreme Court. They have precedence and documentation and a strong case

But I do business with many people who tell me they practice birth control for whatever reason they feel they need to tell me

So please get off my case read my posts if you are so interested and get some logic

But quit preaching your hatred and bigotry and read the gospel

Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars. It’s like talking with the muppets

[2nd amendment mama]

I will gladly leave you alone but I first want you to show me by quoting me where I “preached bigotry and hatred”. You can’t!

[daniel1212]

The gay wedding guys are acting within the law I can’t and wouldn’t discriminate against them. The religious freedom case lost here. It is not a religious issue.

You are misunderstanding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.against sodomites.

Phillips was not refusing to sell bcz the men were sodomites, and in fact Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake, as the event was morally objectionable to him. I am surprised he went so far as offering to sell anything for the reception.

In addition, while Colorado law was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference (which must include animals) and gender identity - which was why the judge said he ruled for the sodomites - yet Colorado law discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marriage.

Thus the baker was acting consistent with Colorado's own interpretation of the extent of its antidiscrimination law. But here comes the judge, who might as well claim the devil made him do it.

Furthermore, as this is an issue of morality, then it is a religious issue as much as a legal one. Your faith determines your moral decisions.

But if you, even as a Catholic person of faith it seems, would not discriminate against the "gay wedding guys" because they are acting within the law, then would you say

An Orthodox Jewish baker has to make a custom cake to celebrate a KKK holocaust deniers convention? Or for a GLAD celebration?

Or a black bakery make anything for a KKK celebration?

Or a evangelical (being overall more conservative than Catholics) have to make a (if unsigned) advertising sign for a legal porn shop? Or such an artist (a decorated cake is) have to make a sign, even if unsigned, for a customer who will use it for a immoral if legal celebration he/she disagrees with?

Legally speaking the answer should be no, as much as a Sabbath keeper should not be compelled to produce on his day of rest. Morally, to answer yes to these questions is akin to agreeing Nazi Germany would be right in punishing someone who would not supply the Nazi party with yellow stars - or a certain gas.

Unless you agree with the sodomites.

And even with things we may not agree with, should

Or a liberal music artist have to sell music or a license to a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for dong so with music he had a license for, not that i support such music)

Or a devout Muslim baker sell buns to a hot dog stand?

A homosexual sign maker have to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?

Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.

Considering the doctrinal errors of Rome, in addition to its liberal scholarship in your main Bible for decades, that is hardly an answer, and in any case Scripture is not Rome's master but its servant. But it would be interesting what their take would be on this case, if you could even get a timely official response (to anything). Do you have their 800 number?

[daniel1212]

The gay wedding guys are acting within the law I can’t and wouldn’t discriminate against them. The religious freedom case lost here. It is not a religious issue.

You are misunderstanding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.against sodomites.

Phillips was not refusing to sell bcz the men were sodomites, and in fact Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake, as the event was morally objectionable to him. I am surprised he went so far as offering to sell anything for the reception.

In addition, while Colorado law was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference (which must include animals) and gender identity - which was why the judge said he ruled for the sodomites - yet Colorado law discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marriage.

Thus the baker was acting consistent with Colorado's own interpretation of the extent of its antidiscrimination law. But here comes the judge, who might as well claim the devil made him do it.

Furthermore, as this is an issue of morality, then it is a religious issue as much as a legal one. Your faith determines your moral decisions.

But if you, even as a Catholic person of faith it seems, would not discriminate against the "gay wedding guys" because they are acting within the law, then would you say

An Orthodox Jewish baker has to make a custom cake to celebrate a KKK holocaust deniers convention? Or for a GLAD celebration?

Or a black bakery make anything for a KKK celebration?

Or a evangelical (being overall more conservative than Catholics) have to make a (if unsigned) advertising sign for a legal porn shop? Or such an artist (a decorated cake is) have to make a sign, even if unsigned, for a customer who will use it for a immoral if legal celebration he/she disagrees with?

Legally speaking the answer should be no, as much as a Sabbath keeper should not be compelled to produce on his day of rest. Morally, to answer yes to these questions is akin to agreeing Nazi Germany would be right in punishing someone who would not supply the Nazi party with yellow stars - or a certain gas.

Unless you agree with the sodomites.

And even with things we may not agree with, should

Or a liberal music artist have to sell music or a license to a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for dong so with music he had a license for, not that i support such music)

Or a devout Muslim baker sell buns to a hot dog stand?

A homosexual sign maker have to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?

Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.

Considering the doctrinal errors of Rome, in addition to its liberal scholarship in your main Bible for decades, that is hardly an answer, and in any case Scripture is not Rome's master but its servant. But it would be interesting what their take would be on this case, if you could even get a timely official response (to anything). Do you have their 800 number?

[daniel1212]

The gay wedding guys are acting within the law I can’t and wouldn’t discriminate against them. The religious freedom case lost here. It is not a religious issue.

You are misunderstanding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.against sodomites.

Phillips was not refusing to sell bcz the men were sodomites, and in fact Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake, as the event was morally objectionable to him. I am surprised he went so far as offering to sell anything for the reception.

In addition, while Colorado law was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference (which must include animals) and gender identity - which was why the judge said he ruled for the sodomites - yet Colorado law discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marriage.

Thus the baker was acting consistent with Colorado's own interpretation of the extent of its antidiscrimination law. But here comes the judge, who might as well claim the devil made him do it.

Furthermore, as this is an issue of morality, then it is a religious issue as much as a legal one. Your faith determines your moral decisions.

But if you, even as a Catholic person of faith it seems, would not discriminate against the "gay wedding guys" because they are acting within the law, then would you say

An Orthodox Jewish baker has to make a custom cake to celebrate a KKK holocaust deniers convention? Or for a GLAD celebration?

Or a black bakery make anything for a KKK celebration?

Or a evangelical (being overall more conservative than Catholics) have to make a (if unsigned) advertising sign for a legal porn shop? Or such an artist (a decorated cake is) have to make a sign, even if unsigned, for a customer who will use it for a immoral if legal celebration he/she disagrees with?

Legally speaking the answer should be no, as much as a Sabbath keeper should not be compelled to produce on his day of rest. Morally, to answer yes to these questions is akin to agreeing Nazi Germany would be right in punishing someone who would not supply the Nazi party with yellow stars - or a certain gas.

Unless you agree with the sodomites.

And even with things we may not agree with, should

Or a liberal music artist have to sell music or a license to a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for dong so with music he had a license for, not that i support such music)

Or a devout Muslim baker sell buns to a hot dog stand?

A homosexual sign maker have to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?

Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.

Considering the doctrinal errors of Rome, in addition to its liberal scholarship in your main Bible for decades, that is hardly an answer, and in any case Scripture is not Rome's master but its servant. But it would be interesting what their take would be on this case, if you could even get a timely official response (to anything). Do you have their 800 number?

[daniel1212]

Sorry for the triple post, my speech to text software froze the page for a few seconds while i was tapping in the combox, but which evidently executed “post” three times.

[discostu]

Anti-discrimination laws force people who refuse business to be very careful in their statement.

[Elsie]

Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.

---

2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[Elsie]

Try selling this argument to GOD!!!

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

---

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 

 

 

 

[HarleyD]

I think this is a very difficult topic and one that calls for extreme spiritual discernment. On the one hand the natural man does not have the spiritual discernment to understand the destructiveness of homosexuality. So until they come to the knowledge of truth, they rest in their sins just like everyone else. On the other hand, homosexuality is the result of God abandoning them to their lustful passions because they knew God but purposely did not wish to honor Him.

I think our best example for this dilemma rest with Abraham and Lot. When asked by the kings of Sodom, Abraham was instrumental in helping the people of Sodom when they were raided. It was also to Abraham’s benefit to rescue Lot. Their relationship was one of respect but Abraham refused to entangled himself with them. Lot, OTOH, went and lived with with the people of Sodom. He sought to appease them to the point of sacrificing his daughters to them. In the end it says that Lot vex his soul and resulted in ruin.

Does baking a cake for a homosexual wedding show assistance or entanglement? Does going to a homosexual hairdresser for 10 years show mutual goals or entanglement? This is difficult to say and can only be addressed by each individual.

[stanne]

Wrongo. It’s addressed by the religious authorities in their proper and ordered and scholarly approach to the bible, tradition and church authority

It is also addressed by the courts.

Both have determined that it is not an infringement to sell such an item to individuals under this circumstance

To reinterpret is to judge by oneself to act as God the judge. And that’s it. To advise us or anyone to ignore authorities and judge, however tempered one’s tone, is encouraging bigotry and hatred.

If I were to withhold a professional relationship or services with everyone I deem steeped in an unrepentant lifestyle, Id be very busy interfering and causing a lot of unrest and anger and fear & loathing and going out of business

To purchase from an individual who probably engages unrepentantly in a sinful lifestyle is simply not a sin in the Catholic Church

I have many lists long lists of contemporary occasions of sin all based on the Ten Commandments and I can assure you that not casting judgement on people, shunning them and casting doubt and aspersions on them is not listed as sinful.

If I were to do so, what would stop me from doing the same to a practicing Catholic who openly or not openly advised the use of birth control, which is a sin, or who partakes on gossip, which falls under the fifth commandment, which, if you don’t know, is murder.

Who is to determine that an unrepentant catholic married outside of the church to someone who is married to someone else who it an anulment, or who drinks heavily is not as bad a sinner as a practicing homosexual?

Most kids in their twenties live with and are not married to their sex partners. How is that a lesser sin. Should I not pay my dentist if she’s not married to her live in boyfriend?

Should I not speak with my cousin, living in sin?

No? Shun only the homosexual?

You are promoting bigotry. Find the regulation in the Catholic Church that says give nothing to unrepentant sinners. Cite it then we can talk otherwise its like talking to the muppets

[jda]

This isn’t about hurt feelings or fairness, this is about forcing “breeders” to bend to their will, submit to their demands and make like they approve of gay marriage.

Careful with the word "bend" in the context of this discussion.

[Springfield Reformer]

Shunning as a practice is only as between the church and those members that have fallen into sin and refuse to repent. Paul clearly states we can’t avoid all contact with sinners.

Having said that, constitutional law supports freedom of association, as well as free exercise of religion. It is criminal that SCOTUS has at times tortured the commerce clause into granting federal powers against those constitutional interests, and it should stop.

As to bigotry, nothing is more unloving toward the gay community than to cooperate and reinforce their delusional approach toward sex. I work with gay people, but I do not lie to them and tell them its all good. If a Christian baker doesn’t want to misrepresent or be misunderstood concerning his more rational view of marriage as the God-sanctioned context for biologically natural family creation, then he is duty bound to resist the intentional destruction of that understanding. Else he lies against God and himself, and he harms gays by supporting them in their rebellion against God.

[HarleyD]

You are promoting bigotry.

I find your response confusing at the very least or ignorant of the scriptures at the most. Now, based upon your response, it seems that you're saying it doesn't matter what type of sin people are indulging it, it simply OK and just look the other way. The Church doesn't care if you're associating with people living in sin. We do it everyday. And you used you cousin who is living in sin as an example as someone who you still should have a relationship with. Not a very good example.

Just a anecdotical word of advice. In my life time I've known too many Christians who stated what you're stating. It starts out that we should love the sinner but hate the sin. They convince themselves that it's ok to go to the bars with them because, hey, that's where they meet other who are in need of Christ. Soon they invite them to a Sunday football game and, hey, they miss one church service. But that's ok because they'll make it up. Of course they invite them to a bible study, but their friends are not quite ready yet. So they hang around them all the more. After all, it's to show that they can be all things to all people. Then they start sleeping in on Sundays because of those late Saturday nights with the gang or missing their bible study because they want to go to the races with the gang. Before long, they are no longer attending church and have lost their path.

I really don't give two hoots about the "regulations" of the Catholic Church. Condoning immoral behavior either overtly or covertly in the name of "love" is patently wrong. All this "judging" and "bigotry" talk is just a lot of dribble. It's simply trying to justify what one knows is wrong; just like the Corinthians tried to do. People who hang around immoral people end up reflecting those immoral behavior. Like Lot, his soul was vex.

Just a word of advice from someone who has seen this happen more than he cares to remember. What a person really loves is where they will spend their time and who they want to associate with.

Luk_12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[CityCenter]

How do you account for the people Jesus often associated with? They were not exactly the type of people who spent a lot of time in the Temple.

You and I are as much a sinner as people who aren’t Christians. The same price that was paid for us, was paid for them. Loving them doesn’t mean we embrace their sin, we should always lead by example. Gently and lovingly leading them to their Savior.

[stanne]

I did not say look he or other way

Where did I say that?

If you are interpreting scripture the way you are misinterpreting me I will not read one more word of your blather

get off my case.

Go talk to a clergyman about what you’re supposed to do about judging people before giving them money

But keep yourisinterpretatiomsvpfe and the bible out ofy face

Get away

[Talisker]

What is the 1st Amendment BUT moral exceptions? How does one practice one’s faith without making moral choices based on discrimination? How is the 1st Amendment empowered if not by protecting those moral exceptions?

The court is making a blanket ruling that the operation of a business open to the public is a de facto surrendering of 1st Amendment rights. That is the real ruling here.

So the next step is to study the nature of that “choice” that creates that de facto surrendering. What does it mean to have a business open to the public? Specifically, does it mean to have an incorporated business, versus a non-incorporated business? For those who aren’t aware, this is most probably the legal crux of the issue.

For once you incorporate, ALL rights are lost and replaced by privileges. Then, the only acceptable legal argument to the court is that it is beneficial to the state to grant your request. But does this apply to employees of a corporation? What is the test for state benefit in this matter? These are they types of legal questions that should be being addressed by the judge.

Of course there is a deeper legal question - where does the power to incorporate come from? Where is it in the Constituion? How can the acquisition of limited liability destroy all rights? Where is THAT in the Constitution? Why isn’t there a difference between corporations that operate directly, versus corporations which act as holding shells for other corporations?

These are the actual legal issues which bog down this matter. The very audacity of the government to flip the relationship with the people literally inside out, and deny all rights and claim ownership of lives, is the root of all the madness you see around you. But there are so few people willing to examine it - yet if you don’t, your arguments literally have no standing in these courts. As, of course, you can see by the rulings.

[presently no screen name]

How do you account for the people Jesus often associated with?

Telling sinners the TRUTH is not considered associating with them.

> They were not exactly the type of people who spent a lot of time in the Temple.

Right, sinners are more open to a Savior, unlike the 'sanctimonious religious'.

You and I are as much a sinner as people who aren’t Christians.

So you are the same as those 'in the world'. That's bad teaching about Christians coming forth and one in need of salvation. Born again Christians are NOT the same as they are 'in Christ' and God sees them as white as snow being washed in the Blood of Jesus.

we should always lead by example.

What part of 'man' and 'woman' don't you think they know and YOU can lead them by example? Do they hang around you that they see you long enough to 'get' your example? You think you can impress them somehow?

Gently and lovingly

Be careful, they may like that. Besides it sounds PC to me. The TRUTH is not gentle to those whose lifestyle is sinful. Speaking the Truth firmly and deliberately is love.

[daniel1212]

The court is making a blanket ruling that the operation of a business open to the public is a de facto surrendering of 1st Amendment rights.

Indeed, even though the baker engaged in discrimination* like his state's constitution did. It [2006] does not provide recognition of homosexual marriage, and the baker deprived them of a cake celebrating what the constitution does not recognize. The judge decided the 2008 law forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences (be it cows, etc.) and gender negated the constitution.

Note a similar case: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/22/photographers-discriminated-against-gay-couple-court-rules/

Thus a Orthodox Jewish business must bake a custom cake, or make a custom sign for a KKK celebration denying the holocaust. But liberal rock bands threatened Romney with a lawsuit for playing one of their songs on ideological grounds, even though they had a license.

Suppose Jim Robinson sold bandwidth. Then he would be forced to sell to clearly liberal sites. Maybe the baker needs to "rent" the cakes with a license they must agree to.

Of course there is a deeper legal question - where does the power to incorporate come from?

That's too deep for me.

*http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baker-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-after-judge-orders-him-to-bake-cakes-for-g

[HarleyD]

How do you account for the people Jesus often associated with?

Which ones? Our Lord did not associated with just anyone. Our Lord associated with high level people (such as Nicodemus) as well as those rooted in sin. But those who He "hung around with" were people who later repented and came to believe in Him. He taught them. He disciple them. He didn't hang around the Pharisees or Sadducees now did He? And, yes, those who He did hang around with were all sinners just like we are.

You and I are as much a sinner as people who aren’t Christians. ...Gently and lovingly leading them to their Savior.

I've never made the claim otherwise that we were not sinners. I just said that once you're saved you need to keep an eye upon your salvation and those people you associate with. As scripture states:

1Co_15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."

Son_2:15 Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards, for our vineyards are in blossom."

I don't know how Paul could be more plain. The whole book of 1st Corinthians is about character.

Christians deceive themselves if they think they will not become entangled in this world. We are enticed too easily and we're enticed by the company we keep. We are warned about this in scripture-many times.

And, no, Christ is not the Savior of unbelievers. He is the Savior of those who believe in Him. There are many who reject God and are enemies of the Lord. And, just to be clear, so were we like them-wicked and evil until the grace of God shown in our hearts.

Eph 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

We are saved by His grace-period. If people have not come to this saving knowledge then they are an enemy of God. David makes this clear time and again in the Psalms.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 "Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us."
Psa 2:4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
Psa 2:6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."
Psa 2:7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
Psa 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
Psa 2:10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Unbelievers purposely set themselves against the things of God. Most Christians today have absolutely no basic understanding of the Psalms. The question is who do we want to spend time with-the wicked or those who have been washed by the Lamb?