Supreme Court Hears Baker Case That Will Affect Us All: This is a case we’ve been following and it has to do with the Baker. Of course, people have heard about bakers, florists, photographers, and all the different people that are getting fined and run out of business if they don’t use their art and their skill to participate in something that violates their conscience. This is the first time we’ve seen one this specific at the Supreme Court level so it’s a very important case and can have national implications. Special guest Mark David Hall shares with us the hearing of baker Jack Phillips”€™ case and his thoughts of how it”€™s being handled at the Supreme Court.  Tune in now to learn more!

Air Date: 01/03/2018

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

Guest: Mark Hall


Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcript will be completed within 48 hours.

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast.  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

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we’re talking about today’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and culture. All of it from a Biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. Take those three perspectives and you’re going to get the right position on any issue out there and it’s the best way to analyze what’s happening in the culture.

We’re doing that today with David Barton. He’s America’s premier historian and our founder at WallBuilders. Also Tim Barton national speaker and pastor. He’s the president here at WallBuilders. My name is Rick Green I’m a former Texas state legislator.

You can find out more about us at our two websites WallBuildersLive.com – that’s the radio site. And then WallBuilders.com – that’s our main organizational website. And a lot of great materials are available for you at both websites.

Big Supreme Court Case With National Implications

David, Tim, big case at the Supreme Court heard just a week or so ago. It’s one we’ve been following, it has to do with the Baker. And of course, people have heard about bakers, florists, photographers, and all the different people that are getting fined and run out of business if they don’t use their art and their skill to participate in something that violates their conscience. This is the first time we’ve seen one this specific at the Supreme Court level. So it’s a very important case and can have national implications.

David:

Well, it is an important case and it’s not that it can have national implications it will have national implications.

Rick:

That”€™s right.

When the Emperors Come Back to Town

David:

There are dozens of these cases that are pending at lower level. Some have already been decided if this goes the right way. And just to lay it out, what happens is the Supreme Court, oh, I’m sorry, the Emperors come back to town and begin their term every year in October.

Rick:

The Dictators.

David:

That’s right.  So when royalty comes back to town in October they start to bring people before the Royal Court. And they bring people before the Royal Court and quiz them and ask them questions and whatever.   There are thousands and thousands of cases appealed to the Supreme Court. They take usually 70, 80, 85 a year and this is one that they took.

So, with what the Supreme Court says here, unfortunately, people will say, “€œWell that’s the law of the land whatever they decide one way or the other.”€ And that is such nonsense. It is not the law of the land, it is the opinion of nine different individuals whatever percentage of them go whichever way.

Rick:

But wait, David, I thought, I mean, we’re supposed to be looking at this from a constitutional perspective. Doesn’t the Constitution set up the Supreme Court as nine unelected dictators that are supposed to make law for 330 million people? Is that not the way the Constitution designed this?

Nine Unelected Unaccountable Individuals

David:

No, if you will check the handwritten notes of James Madison, that’s exactly what he said when he talked because he is the father of the Constitution after all. And so when he wrote it down he said, “€œI want nine unelected individuals unaccountable to the people to be able to hold a position for life regardless of what the president or Congress does.”€ And that’s the way we have it – exactly what the founders wanted.

Rick:

Yep.

Tim:

I’m sensing a few inaccuracies in what you said.

Rick:

I’m hoping that new listeners know that we’re definitely being sarcastic now. And of course it is that way today–

David:

No, I”€™m stating reality – that’s not sarcasm. I’m just telling you the way it is.

Tim:

Maybe if you went to Harvard Law School yesterday.

David:

Yeah, that’s right.

Tim:

Certainly no, James Madison was not even considered in the founding era, the father the Constitution. He was one of five guys who were kind of major players in it and certainly, he didn’t write all this. But it’s even interesting the thought if you look at the Constitution, is, today we’re told the U.S. Supreme Court, they are the final arbiter. They have the final say of what anything is constitutional law and constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution do you see the U.S. Supreme Court is the one who gets to say what is and isn’t constitutional.

Constitutionally, Congress Has More Power than the Supreme Court

Tim:

In fact, it would seem to indicate that Congress, according to Constitution, has more power than the Supreme Court. And that actually, that if there are three different branches, which we today hear their coequal branches which certainly is not historically accurate. But even if that argument were true, if they are coequal branches, how can one branch tell the other branches what is and isn’t constitutional if they”€™re coequal branches?

David:

Well, to go with what Tim”€™s saying, now that we’re off the facetious stuff. You go back to what James Madison did say — and he is not the father of the Constitution in the Founding Era, as Tim pointed out, there were a number. He made 70 different proposals and 40 of them were voted down. So, the other founders rejected over half of what he proposed. But nonetheless, he had key ideas that were incorporated.

But he is the chief author of the best commentary ever written on the U.S. Constitution and that is the Federalist Papers. And in the Federalist Papers, James Madison says the three branches are not coequal. As they point out in the Federalist Papers, they say the judiciary is by far the weakest. Now if you’re coequal, you can’t have somebody by far the weakest. It”€™s like parity in the NFL – they want all the teams to be competitive.

They did not design the judiciary that way. They were by far the weakest, they had the least amount of power. And as a matter of fact, they said it is contrary to the Constitution to let the judges have the final say on any policy. It just doesn’t happen.

Comparing the Supreme Court to the NFL

Tim:

So, the U.S. Supreme Court was supposed to be like the Cleveland Browns of the NFL.

David:

That’s right. That’s right.

Rick:

In fact, if you got drafted by them you didn’t want to go, right? John Quincy Adams said, Thanks, but no thanks. I don’t want to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.”€

Tim:

These guys are not good. It”€™s embarrassing. We don’t even want to be seen in public. Please. Now for any Browns fan, you”€™re going to of course point to 20, 30, 40, years ago when you were awesome.

Just referencing right now. And by the way, we can feel your pain. As a Cowboys guy, we’ve been awful for years, I get it. But, yeah,–

David:

We are the essence of parity because we’re in the middle, mediocre, on everything. So, we’re what parity is supposed to be is right in the middle. And that’s not good for the Cowboys either.

Tim:

No it hasn’t been good for us. But looking at the U.S. Supreme Court, certainly, they were not thought to be the powerhouse that we have made them today.

David:

Yeah.

Federalist Papers in Modern Language

Tim:

And even this idea though of coequal branches is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Madison certainly did not argue that. Again, if you read the Federalist Papers, most people never have and they”€™re super hard to read. But there’s so much great information about how the Constitution works inside them.

David:

Unless you get Original Argument. Original Argument is the Federalist Papers in modern language. So, it’s like instead of King James you’re reading in the Living Bible. And so if you grab the book Original Argument, which is a good one to get the federalist papers, then you will see what they intended and it’s easy to read.

Rick:

Hi guys, we”€™re going to take a quick break. Later in the program, Mark David Hall will be with us. He’s actually watched the case and kind of the reaction of the judges on this particular case. We’ll be back in just a moment though. Stay with us, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live!

Biographical Sketches

Hi friends! This is Tim Barton of WallBuilders.This is a time when most Americans don’t know much about American history or even heroes of the faith. I know, oftentimes as parents, we”€™re trying to find good content for our kids to read.

If you remember back in the Bible, the Book of Hebrews it has the Faith Hall of Fame, where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well,, this is something that as Americans we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity and our faith as well.

I wanted to let you know about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called, “€œThe Courageous Leaders Collection“€ and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers.

There’s a second collection called, “€œHeroes of History“€ in this collection you read about people like Benjamin Franklin, Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, the list goes on and on.

This is a great collection for your young person to have and read. And it’s a providential view of American and Christian history. This is available at WallBuilders.com.

Rick:

Welcome back. Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live. We’re talking about the Supreme Court case that was heard just in the last week or so. And Mark David Hall be with us after this next break to talk about what happened. But,

David, Tim, we”€™re talking about the role of the Supreme Court and how the Founders wouldn’t even– if they were in a time machine and they came to today, and they saw how crazy we go over a Supreme Court nominee, or how much attention is given to the Supreme Court, they would probably be a little confused I would think.

“€œThis Was What We Were Separating to Avoid”€

Tim:

I think they would pull out the Declaration of Independence and say, “€œGuys, this was all the things we were separating to avoid. And you are now doing it.”€

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

So, probably a little flashback history lesson for us. The way we’ve embraced that very kind of tyranny on some levels they were trying to escape from under the king.

David:

But, I don’t think that’s what they would have done. I think they would have got back in the time machine and said, “€œOops, we landed in the wrong country. We’re over in Europe right now. We landed in France or England. Let’s reset this and get to America because this surely isn”€™t America.”€

Rick:

Yeah, it is a totally different design the way we’re doing things now. Really, you could argue that a Supreme Court justice is far more powerful than a congressman, or a senator, and sometimes, even a president.

David:

Well, one of the things that we did on this, Rick, because this is such an undereducated piece of civics and government when you go through school right now.  You do not get the way it’s supposed to be you get only the way it has become.   So that’s why we did a book called Restraining Judicial Activism that goes through what the Founding Fathers said specifically about the judiciary.  That’s a book that every single American ought to get and read. It’s not long – I think it’s 80 or 90 pages, but it has their quotes.

We phrased it in such a way that you take the cases that are out there and let the founding fathers do the commentary. And it is a stark, stark, contrast to see what we’re supposed to be, what we were for 150 years, and what it has become in the last several decades.

Some Think We Should Live by European Laws and Reject the Constitution?

Tim:

Well, and guys, even as we’re talking about this I’m thinking, at this point, once you’ve opened the barn doors animals are everywhere. Trying to get them back in is very difficult. And so it’s one of the reasons that, of course, we”€™ve talked about on this program several times we were so grateful for the pick that Trump had getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. Because you have someone who respects the Constitution, who doesn’t think we need to live by European laws and reject the Constitution. But instead wants to uphold Constitutional values, Constitutional principles.

Much more of the– kind of the original intent design of this. And so as we’re looking at things, with the Supreme Court’s power they have right now, it’s so important to get people that have a limited government view. So they can hopefully try to rein this in, right, get some animals back in the barn that have escaped. And maybe bring some more sanity and stability to the way the Founding Fathers designed and intended. Instead of so much of what we’ve seen recently which, again, is why we’re so grateful for the Gorsuch pick.

David:

And one of the things I would point to that is, if you have a knowledge of what’s supposed to be in the barn, it”€™s a whole lot easier to get them back in. And in the sense that the Constitution gives you the guideline of where all the stuff is supposed to be so you can see what’s escaped–

Tim:

Sure.

David:

–and put it back in.

Tim:

Well, you can go, so the horse’s stall is over here–

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

–and the cows go over here–

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

–the chickens go here, and they don’t belong over there.

The National Republican Platform

David:

I say that because even this past summer before the election of Trump, I was one of the ones who was selected to write the National Republican platform. In that, we specifically addressed getting the judiciary back into the box the founding fathers put it in. And so I had a number of proposals and it was on national TV and so everybody saw the proposals. So, I went through the proposals, laid it out, and the committee overwhelmingly voted to pass these proposals that called on Congress to start using their Constitutional authority to get it back in the box.

And they took an unexpected break at that time and as soon as they took the break, a bunch of these guys off the side came to me and said, “€œYou”€™ve got to take that out. You’ve got to get that gone.”€ And it turned out they were chiefs of staff for U.S. senators. And I said, “€œWhat do you mean we”€™ve got to get it gone? They said, “€œWe don’t believe that.”€

I said, “€œWhat do you mean we don”€™t believe that? That’s directly out of the Constitution, it”€™s the Constitution”€™s own language.”€ They said, “€œYeah, but we don’t believe that.”€ And so what happens is, they have been taught at law school what judges are supposed to be and do. And when I went to the Constitution, and actually used the Constitution to say, “€œHere’s what judges should do.”€

That was brand new to them. And so we’re talking the chiefs of staff for U.S. senators. And by the way, we came back after the break and they got a re-vote on it and it still passed them. People wanted the Constitution rather than what they were taught in law school. So, the chiefs of staff lost that particular battle.

But that’s, again, that book Restraining Judicial Activism, we have it on WallBuilders.com, that’s a book you ought to get to educate yourself. Because once you do, you can start retraining those around you which is what we did in the Republican platform. For anybody who reads it, they’re going to get a good Constitutional view of what judges should and shouldn’t do. That’s the starting place is to get yourself retrained on this stuff.

Rick:

We’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, Mark David Hall is going to be with us and give us a report on this case with the baker and see what it’s looking like coming out of the court. Stay with us you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Share a veteran’s story

We Want To Hear Your Vet Story

Rick:

Hey friends! If you have been listening to WallBuilders Live for very long at all, you know how much we respect our veterans and how appreciative we are of the sacrifice they make to make our freedoms possible. One of the ways that we love to honor those veterans is to tell their stories here on WallBuilders Live.  Once in awhile, we get an opportunity to interview veterans that have served on those front lines that have made incredible sacrifices have amazing stories that we want to share with the American people.

One of the very special things we get to do is interview World War II veterans. You’ve heard those interviews here on WallBuilders Live, from folks that were in the Band of Brothers, to folks like Edgar Harrell that survived the Indianapolis to so many other great stories you heard on WallBuilders Live.

You have friends and family that also served.  If you have World War II veterans in your family that you would like to have their story shared here on WallBuilders Live, please e-mail us at [email protected]  Give us a brief summary of the story and we’ll set up an interview. Thanks so much for sharing here on WallBuilders Live!

Rick:

Welcome back. Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live. Mark David Hall is back with us from George Fox University. Good to have you back, Mark.

Mark David Hall:

Hey, thanks for having me, Rick.

Rick:

So, hey, Professor, you’ve been following this Masterpiece Cake Shop case. In fact, when we had you on a couple of weeks ago we talked a little bit about it and movement now at the Supreme Court. Catch us up.

Baker Jack Phillips”€™ Case

Mark David Hall:

Yeah, it’s a fascinating case. If I can reiterate the facts real quickly–

Rick:

Yes, please.

Mark David Hall:

–you have a baker who tries to run his business according to his Christian convictions. And so he will not bake cakes celebrating divorces, celebrating bachelor parties, celebrating Halloween, and he refused, in the course of running his business, to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Colorado Civil Rights Division found out about this and came down on him like a ton of bricks. Basically threatening to drive him out of business because of his religious conviction. He has appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court heard arguments in this case.

Rick:

So, they’ve actually heard the case? We don’t have a decision yet, but they heard the case. What did you take from the actual hearing?

Mark David Hall:

Well, pretty much everyone expected the four conservative Justices, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch, to side on the side of the baker. The four liberal justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, pretty much everyone expects to side on the side of Colorado, this Colorado Civil Rights Commission. And so Justice Kennedy, as is often the case, is a key swing vote. And so a lot of the court watchers have been paying very close attention to the sort of questions he asked in order to try to discern which way he will fall.

Rick:

When this was kind of coming through at the lower court level, what did you sense from public reaction to the idea that somebody would be forced to do business, and forced to make things, and use their creativity, to participate in something that they obviously had a conscientious objection to?

What is the Public”€™s Reaction?

Mark David Hall:

I think oftentimes people don’t dive deeply enough to really understand what’s going on. So, sometimes if you’re on the more left side of the political spectrum people say, “€œIs religion an excuse to discriminate?”€ And they want to say, “€œOf course not.”€ And if you’re on the right side they say, “€œShouldn’t you be able to run your business according to your religious convictions?”€ And people say, “€œOf course not.”€

I think as people dive into this and look more carefully it does become a pretty strong argument on behalf of the Baker. Even if you might not be on the conservative side of the political and cultural spectrum, a really easy way to get at this case is to think of this sort of hypothetical scenario. Let’s say you have an African-American Baker and a white person comes in and asks that person to bake a cake saying “€œblack people are lousy”€ or “€œthe KKK is great”€. Should the black baker have to bake that cake? And almost everyone who hears this scenario would say, “€œOf course not – the Bakers shouldn’t be compelled to communicate something that he disagrees with.”€

Rick:

Yeah.

Mark David Hall:

And in the same way, when people kind of think this through with respect to the baker in Colorado, they see, “€œYeah, why would we compel this guy to communicate something that he doesn’t agree with?”€ And incidentally, let me add real quickly, this Baker has never said he won’t sell baked goods to homosexuals. If a homosexual comes in his bakery and pulls a cake off the shelf, or gets a dozen cupcakes that are already baked, the bakers will gladly sell them these baked goods. What he objects to is specifically being asked to create a cake celebrating something like a divorce or same-sex marriage which he believes is dishonoring to God.

He Said He”€™d Do it for Any Other Occasion

Rick:

And Mark he actually said that he offered to sell the two gentlemen that are suing him anything else in his shop order to design a cake for them for any other occasion. But for a homosexual wedding, that was just something that violated his conscience and he could not bake the cake specifically for that.

Mark David Hall:

Yes, that’s exactly right. And I think Justice Kennedy, our swing justice, was sympathetic to that argument. I’ll tell you what else Kennedy was very sympathetic to – the same Civil Rights Commission in Colorado, we have three different shops, cake shops, where I believe there were Christians who went in and asked these bakers to bake anti-gay marriage Cakes. A cake that would have some sort of sentiment, I’m not sure what the exact wording would be, but it was definitely “€œwe’re against gay marriage”€, “€œmarriage is between a man and a woman”€. These three Bakers refused to do this and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission just said, “€œWe don’t care.–

Rick:

Wow.

Mark David Hall:

–“€œThey have a right not to do that.”€ And so I think when your average citizen hears this sort of thing, it just seems blatantly hypothetical. The baker who wants to not celebrate same-sex marriage is punished. The bakers who don’t want to celebrate same-sex marriage are left scot free. So, I think there’s just so much hypocrisy in this case that once the facts become known, I can imagine large numbers of Americans, even maybe those number of Americans who support same-sex marriage, saying, “€œThere’s no good reason for the state to compel a baker to express a message that he disagrees with.”€

Jack Phillips”€™ Comments

Rick:

I wonder, did you get any sense whether Kennedy was seeing, or any of the justices, seeing the personal side of this? I noticed that the baker”€™s comments, he said, because of his decision guided by an established set of religious beliefs — let me just read his comment he said, “€œI’ve endured a five-year court battle. It’s been very hard on me and my family. There have been tears and many difficult days for us. We have faced death threats and harassment. I’ve had to stop creating the wedding art that I love which means we’ve lost much of our business. —

–So much so that we are now struggling to pay our bills and keep the shop afloat. It’s hard to believe that the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and employees and violating my relationship with God. That’s not freedom. That is not tolerance.”€ Did you get any sense of whether or not the judges are seeing past the political issues to the personal impact that this has when we infringe on freedom this way?

Mark David Hall:

Well, I would sure like to think they are. There were no obvious questions or comments that made that evident. And of course, I think it even appropriately so, justices are going to try to step back and think about the broader legal principles in mind. But you’re exactly right – these cases have had a dramatic impact on someone like Jack Phillips. I don’t know them well, but I’ve met the bakers in Oregon that were subjected to a similar sort of set of suits from the Oregon State Government and they’ve been driven out of business, so they’re completely out of business.

There”€™s a florist up in Washington, this kind, godly, grandmother is being threatened with being driven out of business as well. So, I really do hope these stories get out. Maybe not even so much to affect the legal process, but to affect citizens. And of course, a lot of these people could be protected through state legislators. It doesn’t have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This Could be Changed at the State Level

Mark David Hall:

The states that have these sorts of public accommodations laws could amend them significantly or change them to make it clear that individuals engaged in expressive activities can’t be forced to communicate messages that they disagree with. And these should be written broadly enough so they aren’t just protecting Christians of course, but Muslims, and atheists. I don’t know why the government should compel anyone–

Rick:

Yeah.

Mark David Hall:

–to say anything the person disagrees with.

Rick:

Yeah, and your analogy was right on. It”€™d be like asking a black vocalist to have to go sing at a KKK rally, use their gift and their talent. And the rally organizers column will say, “€œWe want to hire you to come sing at this particular event.”€ Well, that”€™d be crazy. Nobody thinks they should have to participate in that kind of thing.

And it”€™s the exact same principle here. Mark, always good to have you, brother. Thanks for your time. Appreciate you coming on.

Mark David Hall:

Hey, thanks very much, Rick.

Rick:

That was Mark David all from George Fox University. Stay with us, folks. We”€™ll be right back with David and Tim Barton.

America”€™s History

This is David Barton with another moment from America’s history.   Joseph Story is one of the most important names in American jurisprudence. Not only was he placed on the U.S. Supreme Court but President James Madison but he also founded Harvard Law School and authored numerous legal works on the Constitution. While today’s revisionist claim that the goal of the First Amendment was absolute religious pluralism. Justice Joseph Story vehemently disagreed.

He declared, “€œThe real object of the First Amendment was not to encourage, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but was to exclude all rivalry among Christian denominations.”€

According to Founder Joseph Story, Christianity, not pluralism, was the goal of the Founding Fathers in the First Amendment for only a Christian nation is tolerant and thus is truly pluralistic. For more information on God’s hand in American history contact WallBuilders at 1 800 8 REBUILD.

Maybe Gorsuch”€™s Biggest Case for His First Year

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us and thanks to Mark David Hall for joining us as well for some commentary on that case. So, guys, this will actually be maybe the biggest case for Gorsuch in his tenure on the Supreme Court for his first year.

David:

I don’t know that it will be the biggest case because he’s already had a big voice in other cases. It depends on whether he’s on the 5 or the 4 side on this thing.

Rick:

Hmm, yeah.

David:

If he’s on the 4 side, it’s not going to be the big– and four side means that we lose. If he’s on the losing side he’s not going to have a big voice. I think he’ll write strong dissents like he has up to now. He, like Scalia, uses that dissent platform to be able to give guidance on how to craft things to get around a bad court decision. So, he will probably do that.

If he’s on the winning side, I don’t know that they’ll let him write the decision. Probably Kennedy will want to write it because he’s the one who screwed this up in the Obergefell decision by saying that if you say “€œno”€ to homosexuality you have a hatred or an animus. But he did say that within that you should be able to accommodate religious liberty with homosexual kind of stuff. So he gets a chance now to say whether that’s going to be real or not.

Levels of Hypocrisy

Tim:

Well, and it’s important during this decision he was asking questions of the state going, “€œWait a second, so you told this baker that he could not refuse and you told those bakers they could.”€ And as he begins, as Kennedy starts asking these questions, for us I was praying, “€œGod please the light bulb go off.”€ Going wait a second, no, no, no, no, what we have here certainly is levels of hypocrisy and not justice in the midst of the way they are dictating what they are doing. And so hopefully in the midst of this Kennedy will come kind of to the right perspective. But certainly, as you see what is happening with this case, it should almost be a no-brainer, right?

Jack Phillips is willing to sell them basically anything he has in his store, “€œI’m happy to sell this, but there are just certain things I don’t do it for, this one of them.”€ He’s not blatantly targeting an individual of a sexual persuasion saying, “€œI will sell you nothing.”€ No, no, no, no, this is just not doing something above and beyond what I do for everyday clients, in the sense of, I’m not going to design something specific, but I”€™ll sell anybody a cupcake.

David:

Well, I thought what Professor Hall said was great he says, “€œLook, he won’t bake a cake for a divorce, or for a bachelor’s party, or for Halloween, or for a homosexual wedding.”€   And he’s right because all of those are going to cross Christian lines if you’ve got Christian convictions or moral standards.

Tim:

Right.

“€œI”€™m Going to Live by Christian Convictions Across the Board”€

David:

And so this is not singling out a group. This is saying, “€œI’m going to live by Christian convictions on this across the board.”€

Tim:

But knowing, again to me, it’s so significant knowing, hey, he’s willing to sell them cakes, he’s sold them things and it’s not a big deal. And it’s just, he”€™s not being painted that way in the media. And I’m sure if we win this decision the media is going to say, “€œOh my gosh, we can discriminate against people now. It’s terrible.”€ No, we’re still selling food to anybody that wants food – it’s just doing something above and beyond the everyday things we’re talking about.

Support Baker Jack Phillips

David:

And what you need to do is expect this decision to come down the week that they leave town which is the end of June. So, I don’t think this will be handed down to June. The most controversial decisions they always hand down as they are leaving town so they don’t have to read the media and hear the stuff in D.C. about it. So, probably look for this in late June.

Rick:

It’s going to be interesting to see. And Jack Phillips”€™ own words he said, “€œI’m profoundly thankful to the Supreme Court for taking my case. I hope and pray it will affirm the freedom of artists to peacefully express themselves in ways consistent with who they are.”€

Thanks for listening today, folks. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.