Although Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips has served those in the sodomite community, he got in trouble with tyrannical, unconstitutional pretended legislation in his state for denying to provide a "wedding" cake for two homosexuals attempting to redefine marriage.  However, after lots of money, time and threats, Phillips has been vindicated by the highest court in the land.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the united States, in a 7-2 ruling, ruled the that First Amendment's exercise clause protects Phillips from unfair treatment for his religious beliefs.

The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission may lead to some counter lawsuits on behalf of Phillips, as well as be cited in numerous cases across the nation, including that of florist Baronelle Stutzman, who refused to provide flowers for two sodomites who was attempting to redefine marriage.

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED(2)

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Mark Rienzi, president of Becket Law, said, “The Court has said 7-2 that the Constitution requires us all to try and get along. There is room enough in our society for a diversity of viewpoints, and that includes respecting religious beliefs too. The decision is a strong message to governments across the country that they must respect–rather than punish–religious diversity on important issues.”

In the court’s opinion, Justice Kennedy addressed the process and decision-making made by the state agency in Phillips’s instance in particular.

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” he wrote. “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.”

Christianity Today reported:

The unequal treatment in this case was relatively straightforward: While the state commission did not allow Phillips to refuse to bake the cake on religious grounds, three other Colorado bakers were not penalized for turning down a cake request that “would have required them to violate their secular commitments,” wrote Neil Gorsuch—the court’s newest justice and himself a native Coloradan—in a concurring opinion.

“That kind of judgmental dismissal of a sincerely held religious belief is, of course, antithetical to the First Amendment and cannot begin to satisfy strict scrutiny,” he wrote. “The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.”

Since the decision centered around the state commission’s failure to act neutrally with regards to Phillips’s religious freedom defense, the accommodation exception for Masterpiece Cakeshop does not universally apply to all Christians who desire to refuse service to LGBT customers on religious grounds.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue respect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy wrote.

Some outlets like CNBC reported the ridiculous claim that the Supreme Court ruled "narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake."  A 7-2 decision is a "narrow" ruling in CNBC's opinion?

Furthermore, other outlets like the Chicago Tribune issued an editorial piece that read:

In ruling for a Colorado baker who cited his religious objections in refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t decide the interesting question at the heart of the case: whether civil rights laws override such objections. The justices did not decide the issue everyone expected them to decide. But the decision they reached was nonetheless important and sensible.

...

This decision does not mean bakers can refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex unions — or that they can’t. It leaves that question to the future. “The Supreme Court reversed because the panel that heard his case below was biased,” noted Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman. “It said nothing that will prevent a new panel from ruling against the baker, as is the likely result under Colorado law.”

But the court upheld a vital principle that has application far beyond this case. A zoning board considering a proposed mosque may not reject it because the board fears Muslims. The Department of Veterans Affairs can’t forbid Wiccan symbols on gravestones in military cemeteries on the ground, voiced by President George W. Bush, that Wicca is not really a religion.

...

Bakers who assert a religious liberty not to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples may or may not ultimately win that fight. But when the court demands a careful impartiality from those deciding such issues, everyone comes out ahead.

That is absolutely ridiculous.  The freedom to exercise one's Christian religion is in public, including their place of business.  The point is that these civic laws are unconstitutional in the first place.  Anything that stand in opposition to that is not only an attack on the freedom to exercise Christian principles in public, but the freedom of association.

It gets worse though as Kennedy miscontrued the issue of sodomy.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.

The fact of the matter is the by engaging in sodomy they are engaging in indignities, period.  The same is true of lesbians.  They commit things that are shameful and not even worthy of speaking about in public.

Not only does the foundation of our Republic, the Bible, speak of the sodomites' crimes, but our forefathers all recognized they were crimes.

As I've written previously:

Blackstone's commentaries were the premiere legal source used by the Founding Fathers in America. So this should carry some weight with those who claim they know what the Founding Fathers knew and wanted concerning the issue of sodomy, but I'm guessing they will dismiss it. In Blackstone's Book the Fourth of Public Wrongs: Of Offences against the Persons of Individuals, Chapter Fifteen, he writes the following on pages 215-216 (emphasis added):

IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it's very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum ["that horrible sin not to be named among Christians"—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei ["When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed"—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta
says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur.

Most Americans are completely unaware that the "Father of our country," George Washington, who would also be considered this country's first "Commander-in-Chief" approved the dismissal from the service at Valley Forge in 1778 of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin. Why did he do this? According to the orders, which are held at the Library of Congress, Enslin was "attempting to commit sodomy" with another soldier. Under the title of "Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778" there is the following entry:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss'd the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

What's even more interesting is that Enslin's dismissal came less than two weeks after another soldier, Ensign Anthony Maxwell, was acquitted of the charge of "propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin" on Feb. 27, 1778. Penny Star cites the transcription of the court martial dated March 3, 1778: "At a Brigade Court Martial whereof Colo. Burr was President (Feby. 27th. 1778,) Ensign Maxwell of Colo. Malcom's Regiment tried for propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin. The Court after maturely deliberating upon the Evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the Character of Lieutt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the Charge."

Note that our first President viewed "sodomy" or homosexual relations with "Abhorrence and Detestation." He was not a spineless, wishy washy, panty waisted man like the current occupant of the White House, who claims his views have "evolved." He was a man that recognized perverse behavior for what it was, perversion. He was not alone either. In all thirteen colonies, sodomy was treated as a criminal offense and eventually that grew to encompass each and every one of the fifty states. By the way, that fell under "equal treatment under the law."

The law was based upon Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death."

This verse was "adopted into legislation and enforced by the colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut." Oh the irony that 2012's GOP Mormon nominee for President Mitt Romney was the one to "legalize" homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. Here are just a few of the states and the punishments they executed for sodomy.

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT

Ah, but some will say, "Thomas Jefferson would have never stood for this. He wanted liberty and equal rights for homosexuals to get married." Not according to the record he didn't. In Notes on the State of Virginia by Matthew Carey (1794) Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. I'm guessing there weren't too many sodomites wanting that to take place. You might say that is Jefferson's home state, but not Jefferson's thoughts on the issue. Not so fast. Jefferson actually authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments)). The below capture of Jefferson's legislation is courtesy of The Library of Congress and Apologeticspress.org.

jefferson-on-sodomy

Had America stuck to her foundations and principles, she would have been prosecuting the criminal sodomites rather than law-abiding Christians.  Since she has not, she faces an uphill climb that is not impossible with God, but requires both her repentance and courage in the face of unlawful opposition.

Personally, I'm happy for Mr. Phillips.  He has shown his true conduct while the sodomites have pulled off their mask to demonstrate who they really are.

It's time the tables were turned and the sodomites either repent by God's grace or face the lawful and just punishment for their crimes.  While I confess that as those made in God's image, I will respect the person of the sodomite or lesbian, but I cannot respect their behavior, nor will I.  Kennedy is wrong, many of us still oppose their behavior in much the same manner we oppose the thief, the kidnapper, the murderer and the rapist because they are not only sexually deviant in their crimes, but are spitting against the God of Heaven.

Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.