Masterpiece Cakeshop Victory: We have a great update for the Masterpiece Cakeshop! Special guest Kelly Shackelford joined us in this episode to share exactly what happened in the courtroom that lead to this victory. Tune in now to learn about the major victory for free-speech and for our freedom of conscience!

Air Date: 06/07/2018

Guest: Kelly Shackelford

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton


Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “€œI know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”€

Rick:

You”€™ve found your way to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we talk about the day”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. Always from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective.

And we”€™re going to really dive into that perspective today. This is what we call Foundations of Freedom Thursday. That’s the one day of the week where we really get specific on the founding principles of the country and apply that to the issues of the day. We’re always talking about the hot topics of the day, but specifically here we’re going to get into some of the constitutional perspective on a decision handed down by the Supreme Court this week.

We”€™re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. Also Tim Barton, national speaker and pastor, and our president here at WallBuilders. My name’s Rick Green, I”€™m a former Texas legislator.

Our two websites we want to send you to today are WallBuildersLive.com, that’s our radio site. And then WallBuilders.com, that”€™s our main website. You can go there to find out about the pastor’s briefings we do in D.C., the youth leadership programs, we have the tools that you can get for your family. All kinds of great things there for you to educate, and equip, and inspire, your families. So check that out at WallBuilders.com.

David, Tim, we”€™ve got good news this week at the Supreme Court in this case for the Masterpiece Cake Shop. It’s not as– the decision doesn’t go as far as we had hoped it would, but it’s a victory. The baker wins this case.

A Narrow Decision?

Tim:

Well, I’ll point out I think the decision goes further than some of us hoped it would because–

David:

Yeah, because I was a pessimist on the other side–

Tim:

Yeah.

David:

Yeah, I thought it would go wrong.

Rick:

You thought it might go the other way.

David:

Right.

Tim:

For somebody who will go unnamed, there was this individual like kind of an Eeyore figure in the midst. And actually, the fact that it came down where it was– I remember when the news first broke this week on my phone it said, “€œThis is a narrow victory”€. And then I started reading and thought, wait a second, it”€™s 7-2, it isn’t even that narrow. This is actually much better than we thought it might be.

Now, the scope of what they actually unfold and what Justice Kennedy does to explain what goes on he says, “€œLook, it’s only this case and in this specific situation.”€ So, he really does put a very narrow focus on it. So, in that–

Rick:

I wish they would do that in all their cases. “€œThis is only applying to of the facts before us. We’re not making law for the country, we’re just applying the law that the Congress made to this particular case.”€ If only they would do that in all their cases.

David:

But, Rick, that would require you to read the Constitution.

Specific Cases or Across the Board

Rick:

Oh, you”€™re right.

David:

If they did that, that would mess up all these cases.

Rick:

That”€™s too much trouble.

David:

If we read the Constitution we wouldn”€™t even have this case at the court anyway.

Rick:

Sorry, Tim, I interrupted you.

Tim:

No, but I would say there are some cases that certainly we could point to and go, “€œOkay, guys, the way that you took this one specific issue and now you’ve blown this up and generalized it to apply it to all the American people.”€ But I would even then on the flip side say there are some times when there is a case that deals with a constitutional principle that should be across the board, right?

So, whether it’s the right to life, or the Second Amendment, and this should be something where they say, “€œLook, this is every American citizen.”€ And they say, “€œWell, in this situation–“€ And you’re like, “€œNo, no, no, this is not the time to narrow your focus.”€ Probably we could argue that it goes a little bit both ways. But certainly in this situation, instead of them saying, “€œLook, this is the constitutional right to freedom of speech, to freedom of association.”€ Going through some basic principles they do narrow the focus. But even with that being said this is still something very positive, very exciting, and certainly something that I’m excited to talk about on the show today.

Rick:

And later in the program Kelly Shackelford with us. He didn’t try this particular case before the Supreme Court, but he’s got some very similar cases working their way to the Supreme Court right now. And of course we have him on the program often to talk about the cases they’re dealing with. He’s just a great constitutional scholar. So, we’ll get his thoughts on this case as well. But, David, what was your initial reaction to this?

Gathering Momentum For At Least 10 Years

David:

Well, this is something that has been gathering momentum for at least 10 years. You can go back, I think the first one I recall was the photographer Elaine Hugan and I think in New Mexico that was told, “€œYou have to photograph a gay wedding.”€ And she said, “€œNo, I can’t do that with my conscience.”€ So, she was fined ten thousand dollars. And then from there you started seeing it go to florists, and to bakers, and to all these other service industries.

What always struck me on all of them was that in each case, like Elaine Hugan, and she said, “€œHey, I can’t do that, but here’s a whole bunch of photographers that will be happy to do your wedding.”€ And in each case they were always, their response was always, “€œNo, we want you doing it. If you don’t want to do it we want you to be the one to do it. We don’t care that others will do it and we don’t care– we’re not after just getting photographs for the wedding, or just getting flowers, or just getting cakes, we want you because you’re the one who doesn’t want to do it.

And so it was not about religious liberty, it was not about accommodation, it was not about any middle ground. It was about coercing people who had a legitimate conscience belief that this was wrong. And so I’ve watched it grow for ten years and then we saw that after 30 or 31 states voted in marriage the people said, “€œWe want marriage to be between a man and a woman.”€ Here came the Supreme Court and said, “€œYou”€™ve got it all wrong. If you believe that, it’s animus, you have hatred, you have bigotry, and we at the Supreme Court are going to tell you we’re going to get rid of that hatred.”€

And so they’re the ones that have opened the door for this. It has being growing this way, and growing this way, which is why I did not believe it would have a positive outcome. Because Justice Kennedy is the guy who gave us the Lawrence vs. Texas case that really opened the door for expanding LGBTQ into all sorts of areas it had never been in. And then he came back and wrote the gay marriage decision Obergefell. And so why would he not right this decision carrying it forward saying now you have to accommodate.

Both Sides of Most Issues

David:

So, that’s where he is. For years he’s had the nickname flipper because he comes down on both sides of most issues. And so he managed to do that this time. But I will tell you that the fact that they did not do what I thought they would, and that is say that you have to– Jack Phillips is going to jail. And that was what he was facing in Colorado was jail time for not having baked this cake. The fact they did not do that I think is a huge, huge, win. It’s not a big legal win because it did not address the issue.

But what it’s going to do in cities across the nation where they have these human rights councils that said, “€œOh, if you’re Christian, you’re an automatic bigot and you have to do this.”€ For people who are not lawyers, who are just elected officials, or mayors, or city council members, or whatever, they’re going to say, “€œOh, you know, the Supreme Court 7-2 said that we can’t force you to do this.”€ I think the effect of that will be huge although there’s been no huge legal change by this decision. I think the psychological effect has kind of turned the corner that this thing may have kind of bottomed out a little bit, it may be going back the other direction. I hope so.

Rick:

Yeah, yeah. Good stuff. Alright, well let’s get Kelly Shackelford”€™s input on this as well. He’s going to be with us when we come back from the break. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “€œWe the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”€

Leadership Training Program

Rick:

Hey, friends! We’ve got a great program to share with you today. It”€™s the WallBuilders Leadership Training Program and it’s an opportunity for 18 to 25 year olds to come spend two weeks diving into the original documents we’re always talking about here on WallBuilders Live.

Tim, you’ve already been doing this a couple of summers and seen the results of young people coming to this program. We’re going to see more of them coming this year.

Tim:

Yeah, Rick, it”€™s something that”€™s been cool to see the transformation with young people coming in. The emphasis, for us, largely is a pursuit of truth. We have a culture that doesn’t know what truth is. We don’t know what biblical truth is, or constitutional truth, or the American heritage that we have. And so we really dive into original documents and say, “€œWell, what did they actually write? What did they actually do? Not just what did somebody say, what is actually true, and the truth is what’s transformational.

David:

Yeah, guys. This really is a remarkable opportunity. And for those who want to spend time with us and spend time in the original documents, this is a great program. So, if you’re from 18 to 25, or you know someone who’s 18 to 25, send them to sign up for one of our three sessions this summer at WallBuilders.com/leadershiptraining.

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”€

Rick:

Welcome back. Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders live. Good evening Kelly Shackelford is back with us from First Liberty Institute. Kelly, how are you doing, brother? Appreciate your time.

Kelly Shackelford:

Oh happy to do it.

Good News? Mixed News?

Rick:

Hey, man, this is– so good news? mixed news? I know it’s a limited decision, but the baker one, right?

Kelly Shackelford:

Absolutely, yeah. This is definitely good news. This could have been a disaster when you look at what’s going on. This could have been a decision that would have essentially communicated that when gay rights and religious freedoms conflict, gay rights always wins. And that would just have had multiple thousands of implications on people’s conscience and religious freedom issues.

So, this is a victory, the baker won, but it isn’t really a solving of the big question. People– this really is about on one side you’ve got the LGBT rights and you should have to make a cake for everybody, you should do everything for everybody, etc. And on the other side you’ve got, “€œWait, if people have conscience beliefs, religious freedoms beliefs about marriage, that comes from most people’s religion is where they get the sanctity of marriage and those issues. So, you’ve got that conflict and if you rule for one you kind of rule against the other.

And evidently Justice Kennedy didn’t want to do that. So, he found a way to rule and not really decide the issue, but to get rid of this case. Which is he said in this case, this particular state tribunal was so biased against religious and religious people that it was an unfair tribunal. It wasn’t a neutral tribunal, it was religious hostility, and religious bias, and therefore this is unconstitutional. It’s a violation of free exercise because you have, essentially, a government entity that is, before they even started, were anti religious and you can’t have that. But that would narrow it just to those kinds of facts. So, certainly cases like ours representing the Clines out of Oregon, the two bakers out of Oregon–

Rick:

Yeah.

The Case That May Decide This Issue

Kelly Shackelford:

–that’s on its way. it very well might be the one that decides this issue a year or two years from now, but it sort of kicked the big issue down the road a little bit. But it’s a victory for Jack Baker and we certainly wish him well and are glad that he got a victory.

Rick:

Were you surprised– the first kind of, I guess, red flag for me was that it was obviously not going to be, like you’re saying, the solution a type of a decision was that it was 7-2. I think it was Kagan and was it Breyer was the other liberal.

Kelly Shackelford:

Yes.

Rick:

Yeah, that was surprising to me. When I saw that I was like, “€œOkay, this thing can’t possibly be going that far.”€

Kelly Shackelford:

Well, I thought this is exactly kind of what I was expecting.

Rick:

Really.

Kelly Shackelford:

After the oral argument it was clear that Kennedy had found a middle ground to decide the issue. And he was really bothered by the fact that you have government officials– essentially it’s like your judges that are saying in public– can you imagine if you’re about to go before judges and they said in public, “€œI’m so tired of religious people who cover their bigotry with their religion.”€ When they’re making statements like that–

Rick:

Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford:

–you’re like, “€œWell, this is not going to be a fair trial for me as a person of faith.”€ Kennedy did not like that at all. And he saw that as an easy way to nail this decision down. But it really does keep the big issue open and that is what about the government forcing people to violate their conscience, forcing people to say things, or express things, that they don’t agree with. That’s a big, big, issue. That’s an issue that we’ve got to win on the side of the First Amendment.

The Ultimate Intolerance

Kelly Shackelford:

But it wasn’t really decided today. That’s going to have to be continued to be fought out. But it’s a really crucial issue that’s going to be decided in the upcoming years. Whether it’s in our case with the Clines out of Oregon, or any of the many others that we’re involved in. That’s an issue. All of a sudden the government thinks in many different ways people want to use the government to try to force people to say things or express things that they don’t agree with or that violate their faith. That’s not necessary.

But to me it’s sort of the ultimate intolerance when you’re so intolerant that you can’t even let people have different beliefs. You want the government to punish them and actually force them to say things that they disagree with.

Rick:

Are you seeing any cases that go beyond the baker and photographer? It seems like this should apply to any service. Can you be forced to go sing a song at an event that violates your– could a black singer be forced to sing at a KKK rally for instance. Or could a– or any other service, or gifting, or whatever your profession is, or is it mostly right now limited to the baker/photographer type situations for weddings?

Kelly Shackelford:

No, it’s beyond that. Look at the other case that’s going to be coming down here within the next few weeks, the * case. There’s another example of that on the free speech side which is when you have the state of California trying to force religious crisis pregnancy centers–

Rick:

Oh yeah.

Kelly Shackelford:

–to give out–

Rick:

Do the posters and the whole nine yards, right?

That is Not America

Kelly Shackelford:

Yeah.

Rick:

These big posters on the walls to tell you where to go get an abortion.

Kelly Shackelford:

Exactly. So, it’s the same concept.

Rick:

Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford:

It’s the government thinking it can force– this is the ultimate intolerance. When the government– if the government wants to get a message out even if it’s wrong. Let’s say you lost in the other side won in the election and they want to get their message out through the government, they can. But it’s quite another thing to say that the government can now force other people who disagree with them to speak their message.

Rick:

Yeah, yeah.

Kelly Shackelford:

–that is not America that’s not the First Amendment. And that’s what”€™s at play here in these cases. And so our Klein case is on its way to the Oregon Supreme Court. We’ve got some hostility in our case as well. We had the judge in our case before he ever heard it publicly stated that our clients needed to be rehabilitated.

Rick:

Wow.

Kelly Shackelford:

So, that’s obviously hostility as well. But this very well could be the case that ends up going from the Oregon Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court. And of course Arlene’s Flowers is still out there. There’s a number of them, but this is an issue that’s going to have to be decided. And I hope, certainly, it’s on the side of freedom.

They Don”€™t Understand That That Power Will Be Turned Upon Them

Kelly Shackelford:

The shortsightedness of folks who think that they somehow win something by giving the government the power to crush people who won”€™t to express what they want them to express. They don’t understand that that power will be turned upon them next.

Rick:

That”€™s right.

Kelly Shackelford:

So, let’s hope for the sake of our country that free speech, and freedom of conscience, free exercise of religion, are protected for people who believe on all sides of the issues because that’s what America is all about.

Rick:

Amen, yeah, excellent way to put it. That would be a great one to end on, but I’ve got to ask you to catch us up on Kline real quick so we know what to expect on this one. And remind our listeners, this is the one where there’s like a hundred and thirty or forty thousand–

Kelly Shackelford:

A hundred and thirty five thousand dollar fine.

Rick:

Put them out of business, right?

Kelly Shackelford:

Yeah. Their bakery, which was their family business, has now been destroyed. They were fined one hundred thirty five thousand dollars. Nothing was off limits – they could come after their house, everything. They were actually– there was a gag order put on them by the judge not to speak about their beliefs about marriage publicly.

Rick:

Wow.

Living to Fight Another Day

Kelly Shackelford:

So, it’s incredible. We are now up at the Oregon Supreme Court. Oregon’s obviously known to be one of the more liberal states. But no matter what the Oregon Supreme Court does we can go directly from there to the United States Supreme Court. And this is all about the First Amendment. So, this is the case that a lot of people are really watching because they think this is probably one of the next ones on this big issue that was just decided today.

Rick:

And a little bit in the weeds for us for a second, Kelly, here. So, you would go– once it’s done at the Oregon Supreme Court you don’t have to go to a district federal court at that point–

Kelly Shackelford:

No.

Rick:

–you can go directly to U.S. Supreme Court.

Kelly Shackelford:

Directly. So, we’re within two years of being at the Supreme Court. And by then, the Supreme Court could be slightly different. Under a President Trump if there is another replacement it would probably be a little more conservative and a little more likely to  protect free speech. And so we’ll see what happens. But we were pleased by today because this could have been something really bad and it wasn’t. It doesn’t decide the issue, but that’s okay. We feel like time is in our favor right now with the kind of judges that the president has been appointing to the bench.

So, we’ve lived to fight another day. We got a victory for Jack Phillips. And hopefully we’re going to get a victory for everyone and their freedom here in the near future.

The Only Way to Follow This Stuff Directly

Rick:

FirstLiberty.org is the website. Folks, you can go there and get on the e-mail list. That way you can keep up with not only this Kline case, but the many others that Kelly and his team are out there on the forefront on. Also, you can contribute at that website. They do these cases for free for the people all across the country and it’s because of folks like you contributed. So, go to that website, it”€™s a great way to support this very, very, very, important battle for our freedoms.

Kelly, always a pleasure to have you, man, appreciate your expertise and God bless you.

Kelly Shackelford:

Thank you, Rick. Thank you for what you guys do. And I”€™d encourage people – make sure you go to FirstLiberty.org because there’s some stuff about to happen. The Coach Kennedy case will be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bladensburg Veterans Memorial, which has been up for 100 years, has been declared unconstitutional. The only way you can follow this stuff directly is to get it directly and not have it censored by Facebook, or Google, or somebody. So, we’d love to have all your folks involved praying and sending the word out to their friends.

Rick:

And you’ve got chaplain cases going, there’s a lot on you all”€™s plate right now. You’re right, the website”€™s the best place to go. And, man, I don’t know who you’ve got doing your videos, but the videos about the cases are fantastic. It”€™s a quick good way to get the lowdown on each of those cases for people to be able to go watch. So, great job on those as well. And friends, I encourage you to go to FirstLiberty.org, watch those videos, get on the e-mail list, make a contribution, and stay informed.

Kelly, God bless you, man. Keep up the great work.

Kelly Shackelford:

Hey, you too, Rick. Thanks.

Rick:

Stay with us, folks. We’ll be right back with David and Tim Barton.

Outro:

President Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”€

Pastors Only Briefing Trip

Tim:

Hi, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders and I want to encourage all the pastors out there with a unique opportunity that we’re presenting it WallBuilders. We’re doing a special tour just for pastors that you can come and learn more about the spiritual heritage of our nation. Not just seeing the sights but understanding the significance of what they are and what they represent.

We get to go to the Capitol at night.  And we get to see the spiritual heritage of our Founding Fathers, of who we are as a nation, where we came from. We bring in congressman that will tell you about current legislation, about our religious liberties  and freedom, and what’s going on in Washington, D.C.

If you’re a pastor or if you want to recommend your pastor for this trip, you can go to our website at www.WallBuilders.com. And there’s a link that’s for scheduling.  If you click on that link there’s a section for pastor”€™s briefing. There’s more information about the dates, when it’s going, and how it’s going to happen. If you want to know more about our nation, our religious liberties, our freedom, our spiritual heritage, this is a trip you want to be a part of.

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œIn questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”€

Rick:

We’re back on WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us. Thanks to Kelly Shackelford for joining us as well today. We”€™ll have links to his website and we really do encourage you to get on that e-mail list and contribute to those guys at First Liberty and help them continue what they’re doing.

We’re back with David and Tim Barton now and got some great input on this. It sounds like the Klein case that he’s got could be the one that really nails this down.

Hopefully Not Before We Have a Change on the Court

David:

Yeah, it could be. But hopefully it’s not going to get there before we have a change on the court.

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

Because the composition we have right now is not willing to address a substantive issue on this. And if they do it’s probably the wrong direction.

Tim:

Well, yes and I would say at least by appearance, right? Because we thought they wouldn’t address the issue of this case either and they did. And they found the loopholes to make it specific to this case and the abuse of Colorado against Jack Phillips.

So, yeah, probably this is not the group we would want this argued before, but we’ve talked on this program also before about how it could be this summer that you have a couple of justices that– at least Kennedy– who potentially could step down at the end this summer. Kennedy’s 80 something, right. And then you have other Justices – Ginsburg is what, 84, also 80-something.

So, feasibly over the next year or two you could have one or two justices step down who could be the potential votes on the wrong side. That if you get those votes changed out all of a sudden this could look totally different in the next two years. Which then, you’d be actually excited about getting some of these cases to the Supreme Court knowing there’s a much higher probability for the right kind of constitutional outcome.

Rick:

Yeah. And like you said, Kennedy was on the right side of the decision they handed down in this case. But that was part of why it was weaker than what it could have been. And David, you were mentioning off air that Gorsuch and Thomas had really good concurring opinions and that it might have gone that way, been more like their concurring opinion, if you could just replace even one of those guys, even just Kennedy.

Concurring Opinions

David:

Yeah. You had the concurring opinions from Gorsuch and Thomas that said, “€œThis is a religious liberty issue. It should have been decided on those grounds we should have settled the issue.”€ On the other side the reason you picked up two of the liberal justices, the reason you picked up Breyer and the reason you picked up Kagan, was they said, “€œNo, this didn’t have anything to do with religion. This should have be covered under equal rights, civil rights. This is not a religious issue.”€ So, that’s why you pick those two up. But the other two guys, Gorsuch and Thomas, were saying, “€œThis is a religious liberty issue and this needs to be addressed.”€

So, if you get one more kind of pro Constitution guy on there, religious liberty guy, and you pick it up, we”€™d probably move from 4 votes on that. Because you probably would have had Alito, you would have had Alito, you likely would have had Roberts. And so if you get one more you’re likely to have had five that would say, “€œNo, religious liberty, you have to stop forcing people to violate the rights of religious conscience. That would have been huge.

And I look at this whole thing and this is an imperfect metaphor in the sense of maybe not even that, an analogy. But we were in a car that was driving about 75 miles an hour at the edge of the Grand Canyon. And what we did was just before we went over the edge we stopped the car. So, we’re parked, we’re looking down in the canyon, we haven’t driven over the edge yet, but at the same time we haven’t backed away from the edge of the canyon. We just kind of put a stay of execution if you will.

And that’s what this case did is it really kind of stopped the forward progress, we haven’t backed up or reversed anything yet, but we’re not going over the edge. And this– I think Kelly was exactly right – the good news is that it didn’t go the other way. Because had it gone the other way, oh man, the momentum at that point would have been almost unstoppable for people to come after churches, or nurseries, or anything at all. You’re not hiring the people we want, you’re not hiring LGBTQ people for youth director, for whatever it is.  

Kelly’s talked on other programs what it would have done for those who have legal licenses – whether it be architecture, whether it be attorneys, or any others. Every profession – nursing, anything, would have been told, “€œNo, you have no rights of conscience.”€ So, this really is a huge decision in that we did not go over the cliff. Now, we haven’t backed away from it yet, we haven”€™t reversed it, but hopefully that will come in future decisions.

Don”€™t Let Them Get Away With That

Rick:

Yeah, and it’s so important to point out, just like you’re saying, the other guys wanted to make it clear it was a religious liberty issue. The more liberal wing of the court wanted to say it’s just an equality issue. Which is why it was so– Kennedy pointed out and really hinged his decision on the fact that this commission in Colorado, the hypocrisy that was there, where they had said to bakers that didn’t want to bake anti gay marriage cakes that it was fine for them to do that.

David:

It’s not an anti gay marriage, it’s a traditional marriage cake. They call it anti gay marriage. No, no, no. It is traditional marriage. Pro traditional marriage does not mean anti-stuff.

Rick:

Yeah, good point.

David:

So–

Rick:

I’m just reading the language of the case.

David:

I agree. That’s the rhetoric they use and we shouldn’t let them get away from that.

Rick:

You”€™re right.

David:

Because they’re making hay when that’s not what it’s about. It’s not about hating the other side, it’s about supporting traditional marriage which is what we do.

Rick:

Yeah. But I was glad that they pointed out the hypocrisy. Here’s what they said – “€œThe division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers. But the commission found Philips”€™ willingness to do the exact same thing irrelevant.”€ So, they pointed out that the exact opposite of what the situation in terms of the type of cake, the commission was fine with bakers making the exact same decisions that Philips had made, but not allowing Philips to make those decisions. So, at least that hypocrisy was pointed out. But that’s why they hinged it on equality instead of on the just basic constitutional principle of religious liberty.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Victory

Rick:

And it’s so important for us to get that actual principle down the road because what if a state says, “€œNo, we’re going to command everybody to make everything for anyone that wants you to make a cake that says anything and everything no matter how offensive it might be to your religious beliefs.”€ That’s what we don’t want. So, we”€™ll be hoping that the Klein case can solve this for us long term and looking forward to following that with Kelly Shackelford. So, don’t forget to check out those links at our website today at WallBuildersLive.com. Thanks for listening to WallBuilders Live.

Samuel Adams said, “€œThe liberties of our Country and the freedom of our civil Constitution are worth defending against hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”€