When You Get Basic Facts Wrong, How Can We Even Coexist?

In the run up to the Supreme Court case on religious liberty, the left is just making up facts.

In an effort to persuade His Majesty Anthony Kennedy to rule in their direction, the leftmedia has run a series of articles lately about religious liberty. The New York Times laments that the damnable first amendment just might let those icky Christians actually practice their icky religion. And now The Daily Beast is running an article that gets basic facts about the case before the Supreme Court wrong. Again, this is all for persuasion. They don't really care about the facts and it shows.

This article by Jay Michaelson gets the very basics about Christianity and the Masterpiece Cakeshop horribly wrong. Let's start here:

The facts are straightforward. Jack Phillips is the owner and chief baker of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and a religious, conservative Christian. When David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the bakery for a wedding cake, Phillips turned them down; he won’t do cakes for same-sex weddings.

That's not true. Phillips was willing to provide a cake for the wedding. Phillips just was not willing to do special customizations to the wedding cake that they wanted to reflect a same sex wedding. For that he was compared to a Nazi.

Allowing Phillips to refuse them service is like putting a “No Gays Allowed” sign in the window. This is what lawyers call “dignitary harm:” even if other bakeries would serve them, the refusal says that discrimination against LGBT people is okay, and that’s a harm in and of itself.

Again, Phillips was not only willing to provide a wedding cake, but Phillips has other gay customers. This is only about a religious service. Phillips will gladly make a cake for gay customers for birthdays and other events. Phillips, you should know, refuses to make cakes for Halloween, considering it a pagan holiday. He will also not bake cakes for second marriage wedding ceremonies.

All Masterpiece Cakeshop has to do is state that they only provide wedding cakes for weddings that take place at certain churches (and, if they like, synagogues and mosques)…. That leaves the discrimination up to the religious institution, and churches are allowed to discriminate.

So another words, the author's proposed compromise would require that Phillips surrender his beliefs to third parties instead of being able to exercise his religion in his daily life as the constitution insists.

Never mind that Jesus said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” clearly instructing his followers to obey the secular law even if they have religious objections to it.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what Christ said and is flat out ignorant of how Jesus's disciples interpreted it and how the Christian churches of the world interpret it. Christ was very specific, as were the Apostles in their letters, that when the world's laws and God's laws conflict, Christians have an obligation to honor God's law over the world's. Michaelson is perhaps ignorant of the fact that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with a question that led to his statement. And that statement pertained to paying an imperial tax. Christians pay American taxes with American money. They view marriage as a religious ceremony. Some of them view it as a sacrament of the church. And Jesus was very, very clear on that even in telling the pharisees to render unto Caesar. His full statement was, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Christians owe their first allegiance to God.

Michaelson wants a compromise and it is staring him, His Majesty Anthony Kennedy, and everyone else in the face. Christians should not discriminate in serving gay and straight customers in a business like a bakery, but no person of religious conviction should be forced to provide goods or services to a religious ceremony that violates their own religion. So bake the gay birthday cake, but not the gay wedding cake.

Comments
No. 1-13
rjfxvi
rjfxvi

@Kansasgirl444 @ewerickson I think Justice Kennedy has shown with many of his rulings that his first thought is to be loved by the media. The discombobulation needed to render his decision in the original gay marriage lawsuit should be proof enough of this. It happened as well to Chief Justice Roberts in the Obumacare case. Never underestimate the need for humans to be loved by others.

johntfs
johntfs

@JonH Except that you're actually much more likely to get polygamy (though hopefully not adult/child) now. The legal status of "married" carries with it a whole host of rights and implications for hospital visitation, child custody, inheritances and taxation. Because of that the "separated" church and state come uncomfortably close during the rite/ceremony of marriage. You could potentially open churches up to discrimination suits if the refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for certain couples. Because pastors are vested with the power to marry by the city/state/etc., that city/state/etc. has authority over them. If civil unions were separated from the rite of marriage, they wouldn't, because the pastor in this case would have the authority to marry coming only from Almighty God.

Kansasgirl444
Kansasgirl444

@ewerickson His job is as safe as any job on the planet, lest he commits treason or is adjudged mentally incompetent. Why would he care if the media likes him or not? And why would he stoop to reading the media to make an informed decision on such a matter? Is he really that vapid? I'd love to hear your answer, as it just seems to me that the court is incredibly insulated and intellectual too elite to read drivel. Gosh, I hope I am wrong!

Erick Erickson
Erick Erickson

Editor

@Kansasgirl444 I do

JonH
JonH

JohnTFS- I used to have the same thought, but I’m afraid that would be a Pandora’s box. If there is 0 religious involvement as a stopping block, it would only be a matter of time before polygamy and adult/child unions would be a thing. Then if course, being state recognized, there’d just be pressure for the church to accept them.

Stories