The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that a Denver baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple cannot cite his religious beliefs as a defense because it would lead to discrimination.
This is not the first case nationally in which the new wave of homosexual “marriage” rights trumped religious freedom in court. But in the Denver case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, now faces the possibility of fines if he refuses to make any more wedding cakes for gay couples.
Remember all those promises from gay-rights activists and judges that making gay “marriage” legal wouldn’t restrict anybody’s religious freedoms? It turns out homosexuals now get to legally have their cake and eat it too.
Phillips refused to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012, saying it would violate his Christian beliefs. He also refuses to bake Halloween cakes because he believes Halloween comes from Satan. So far, no Satanists have sued.
Like other bakers who have been caught in similar setups laid out by homosexuals, Phillips said he has no qualms about serving homosexual customers at his bakery, but he won’t participate in a homosexual wedding.
A wedding is generally considered a sacrament in Christian churches, so to mock that sacrament, which is what a gay wedding really does, is seen by many believers as a slap in the face to God.
But the court in Denver officially doesn’t care.
Rather than uphold the concept of freedom of religion that forms part of the bedrock of our country, the court is replacing it with the very mercurial concept of discrimination, which notably varies with the mood of the people interpreting it.
If asked, no doubt the judge would explain how the Constitution is a “living document,” which is to say it can be ignored freely because popular opinion is the ultimate basis of law for liberals.
Properly seen, homosexual “marriage” is a religious concept. After all, you either have to believe there is no god, and thus anything is morally acceptable, or you have to believe that your god finds two men or two women diddling each other to be morally equivalent to a marriage between a man and a woman.
The only defensible reason for government to be involved in marriage at all is that the institution produces the next generation of citizens. Homosexuals, no matter how hard they try, cannot get each other pregnant unless they go outside the confines of their “marriage.”
If gay “marriage” were widely seen as a religious institution, then the push for nationwide gay “marriage” could be seen as what it is, an establishment of a neopagan religion.
That much of the Constitution yet survives liberal courtrooms. An establishment of religion, at least in the form of biblical Christianity, is one of the liberal bugbears that has inspired hundreds of lawsuits to stop public prayer, take down crosses, remove the Ten Commandments and destroy other evidence of Christianity.
But if the truth were ever established about gay “marriage,” that it is just a belief indicative of one of a few religious worldviews, then it would be a lot harder to use it as a hammer against Christianity, which is the real point of the gay rights movement.