When the Supreme Court overturned centuries of law and tradition in ruling that there is a right to same-sex marriage, it also created a huge muddle in which that newly-invented right conflicted with the enumerated First Amendment right of freedom to practice your religious beliefs without government restraint. In handing down that ruling, the SCOTUS made clear that care should be taken that it not infringe on religious beliefs. But the ink was barely dry before Christian bakers, florists and other wedding service providers in blue states were being sued, harassed, hounded, fined, branded as “haters” and driven into bankruptcy simply for declining jobs that would require them to violate their sacred belief in the Biblical definition of marriage.

(Say, remember when same-sex marriage activists questioned why Christians would oppose it when it would never have any effect on them? That seems as long ago as the silent movie era.)

The case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips would have been an excellent opportunity for the SCOTUS to clean up the giant mess it made and issue a broad-based ruling reaffirming that the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom is #1 for a reason and that it means what it says and is supreme over all other laws. Unfortunately, while today’s 7-2 ruling in favor of Phillips is welcome and long-overdue relief for him, it still only tinkers around the edges of fixing the damage wrought by the original decision. The ruling focuses on the egregious actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was relentlessly and openly hostile to Phillips’ religious beliefs every step of the way, never once according him even the benefit of the doubt that he had a legitimate objection of conscience.



The ruling (again written by the original muddler, Justice Kennedy) still doesn’t clarify the larger issue. Kennedy writes:

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

So the state can infringe on the free exercise of religion as long as it isn’t hostile to religion? And who will make that subjective determination? State officials, like those on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission?

This ruling is something to celebrate, because the treatment of Jack Phillips was outrageous and unconstitutional. But it still leaves unfinished the untangling of the knot of conflicting rights the SCOTUS created. I expect there will be many more such cases as liberal state officials try to find ways to infringe on religious beliefs while being cagier about hiding their hostility to religion. Maybe someday, a future SCOTUS (possibly one with a Trump-appointed replacement for Kennedy) will get tired of dealing with the endless end-run attempts and finally issue a decisive ruling that the government cannot compel anyone to violate his or her religious beliefs, but it would have been a lot easier for everyone concerned if they’d just done it now.

I’ll bet the Founders thought they were being fairly clear when they wrote, as the very first words of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE.  I READ THEM!

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Report coming soon: Comey SPIED ON Trump in the White House

YES, George Soros is involved with Justice Democrats

Comments 1-50 of 72

  • Steve Merkel

    06/23/2018 07:11 PM

    Well I'm glad alot of people agree with you that they should be able to serve whomever they want as a business owner, so don't be surprised if happens to your daughter, oh wait, you were and you called it "Bigotry today on your twitter.". Well, get ready for business owners to refuse you or anyone like you based on that basis, and hide behind "religious" reasons. Personally I don't agree with the SCOTUS decision, but you do, and be prepared to be refused service because of a Muslim baker refuses to serve Christians or vice versa you pathetic old man hiding behind your own religion, and then thinking that them refusing to serve your daughter is bigotry, but not refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple isn't bigotry. Your daughter chooses to work for this POTUS, most gays don't choose to be that way and just want to live hassel free, but actual free speech warriors like you can't see the hypocrisy when it fires back onto you.

  • Connie L. Bickel

    06/10/2018 11:21 AM

    I bought and paid for my business venture, so-o-o it ought to be my choice to serve whomever I choose - or not to serve.

  • Deborah Adler

    06/10/2018 12:00 AM

    While I am in agreement that we, as Christians, should be respected and allowed to practice our religious beliefs without fear of reprisal or legal action, I am concerned that Christians choose which sins seem the most deplorable to make a stand against and ignore the rest of them. We tend to stack sin in the order that we feel comfortable with.... or by the ones we feel we can safely, and righteously, say “I would NEVER do that....” I am not saying Mr Phillips should have made the wedding cake for the gay couple... what I am saying is this.... if Mr Phillips provided his bakery service for any other person indulging in “sin” but not the gay couple, then he did, indeed, discriminate. Did he ever make a cake to help celebrate the years of a couple living together without being married? How about a birthday cake for a child born out of wedlock? Did he ever sell a baked good to an alcoholic? How about to a physically abusive husband or wife? Did he ever make a cake for a smoker? Some of you are thinking I am nuts, if you have read this far into my post... but the fact is, in God’s eyes, sin is sin..... one sin only becomes greater when we feel we would never commit that sin..... I am as concerned as anyone about keeping our Ammendment Rights and being able to practice our religious beliefs. Perhaps based upon the Laws of our great, wonderful USA, there was no discrimination and having the original ruling overturned can be accepted as a victory. However, if we are going to stand upon the wishes of our Founding Fathers, we have to ask ourselves how closely we are following GOD’S laws..... Just a few thoughts..... Also, to the person who submitted the post about Freedom of Speech being violated because Mr Phillips would be FORCED to write “Happy Wedding” to the gay couple..... when is the last time any of you have seen writing on a wedding cake? That’s a stretch, sir.... One more thing.... some folks have intimated that the gay couple purposely chose Mr Phillips’ bakery, knowing he is a Christian and would not agree to make their cake... I don’t know this to be true as I have not read anything that has said directly or which caused me to assume that this couple chose this particular bakery for any reason other than to order a cake.....

  • Steve Sega

    06/07/2018 12:20 PM

    I think everyone missed one of the biggest underlying messages when Nutty Pelosi claimed the baker should still be "held accountable for turning away customers", we all know Pelosi has ZERO business background and has no clue that ALL businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone, that's not even taking into account the 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom. However, the way she worded it, she was saying the baker needs to become a SLAVE to the homosexual couple. Democrats have always been the party which is pro-slavery. The main reason they fight against Trump about illegal immigration is so they can have a constant incoming flood of slave wage labor at their disposal. I lived in CA for a brief while in 2008, and you could hire "undocumented workers" to clean your house for as low as $1/hr!! Those are slave wages, and that's exactly why Democrats want them.

    When you wonder why Democrats can support both homosexuals and the Muslims who want to kill them and you don't see the connection, that connection is SLAVERY!! In Arab nations where the Muslim religion is the main religion, they still have slavery today. Democrats do not mind importing "refugees" (which they lose that title by going half way around the world, the law defines a refugee as someone who flees to the nearest safe country, when you go around the world that is called an immigrant, not a refugee, but they do that to give them extra bonuses to incentify them to come to the US). They want the Muslims in the US because they were born and raised in slave owning cultures. They use "sexual orientations" as an attempt to leverage this exact situation against the baker to try and force them to do their job, which is a form of slavery.

    I watched on C-SPAN when Obamacare terminology was compared to slavery, when the wording stated that doctors could not turn away patients, they would be required by law to treat someone and expose themselves to medical malpractice lawsuits for cases they tried to turn away. Tell me one thing Democrats have tried to push which does not have some kind of slavery terminology attached to it because I haven't found any.

    https://www.westernjournal.com/pelosi-not-happy-with-wrongheaded-scotus-decision/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-WJ&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=western-journal

  • Cheryl L Armstrong

    06/06/2018 11:21 PM

    Happy for the Baker but sad to say, due to this type of activists demanding such as they are to many Christian "Religious" business people, my outstanding photographer, daughter, gave in to a lesbian couple to take their "wedding" photos, for fear of what the outcome would have been for her business, had she refused. She was not free to say no, as her income is a huge part of support for her family of 4, husband and 2 small children.. It is not right, it was not fair, but she believed her good name would have been put to slaughter. Good to know in the Bakers case, it turned out so far for the good for him to stand up for his beliefs, and may it only continue to for any who will follow. We need pray for the ones like my daughter that feel such threat to want to turn down these ones, knowing if they do, their career is pretty much finished. That is a tough call for the young believer. God help us all to have what it takes to stand against this evil that more and more is taking over with a fight hard to win, but praying will soon, more and more win over with good. God bless all.

  • Mrs. Nancy Lee Magera

    06/06/2018 09:47 PM

    We so enjoy your e-mails. Please keep them up! And please keep praying that CA will elect a Republican Governor in the Fall.

  • Robin Ticker

    06/06/2018 03:21 AM

    bs"d

    Maybe it's best that the SCOTUS didn't go further one step further to say that religious beliefs must be protected since it would then perhaps open a pathway to those who demand the Sharia Law be protected as well. Included in such a clause should be a clause that discusses Universal Morality as was understood by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Let me suggest that the Bill of Rights was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics whose definition of Universal Morality probably has their roots founded in the 7 Noahide Laws which defines what we know today as a civilized society. Can Radical Islam under Sharia Law be considered a religion or does it hide behind the name religion to justify heinous crimes. that defy Western Civilization. In Biblical Israel, residents who were not descendant of the 12 Tribes were welcome and protected in the Land so long as they accepted the 7 Noahide Laws. Pagan and Satanic "religions" were therefore excluded.

  • Connie Hoag

    06/06/2018 12:29 AM

    Wow. So glad for Phillips, but very unhappy with the wording of that decision. It paves the way for more infringement of our freedom of religion, provided the state carefully balances it's hostility to religion in enforcing gay "rights." What a mess.

  • Kathleen M Milligan

    06/06/2018 12:14 AM

    We need to speak out and defend our religious beliefs. Which will bring back the love and worship of God our Father in heaven and on earth. I believe it will bring back the safety to our country and resolve all our problems. Amen

  • Mrs Linda Polier

    06/05/2018 10:52 PM

    What a pleasure to get good news! We're both delighted that this ruling went in favor of the baker and decency.

  • Kevin Schwinkendorf

    06/05/2018 03:40 PM

    It seems to me that in addition to the violation of the baker's First Amendment rights of Religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission also violated his First Amendment rights of Free Speech. Speech that is forced or compelled is not Free Speech. In creating a custom wedding cake, there would be (no doubt!) text on the cake, something to the effect of "Happy Wedding Day to the Happy Gay Couple." Since Jack Phillips obviously would never agree to this message, he would be forced to make a statement directly (and vehemently) against his own personal views. This is compelled speech. It would be the same thing as though some neo-Nazi went to a Jewish baker and demanded a birthday cake (for April 20) with the text message on it, "Happy Birthday Mein Fuhrer! May the Third Reich Rule 1,000 years! Seig Heil!" I don't think many Jewish bakers would be willing to accommodate this customer's Free Speech by becoming an accessory to it. And yet, is the Nazi message "protected free speech?" Actually, it is, as the courts ruled in 1977 that the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of America had a First Amendment right to march in the town of Skokie, Illinois, a heavily Jewish community. That ruling upset a lot of people, but it did show how far the First Amendment right of Free Speech can be taken.

  • Jennifer Zaccagni

    06/05/2018 12:47 PM

    Insightful and brilliant writing, governor. Your communication skills are so above the ordinary with never a hint of revenge. You write with clarity and poignancy! Thank you

  • Lynn Jonas

    06/05/2018 11:18 AM

    We are SO HAPPY that SCOTUS actually did something right ... especially in this situation. Mr. Phillips was in his rights to say he wouldn't make the cake. Sad our country has come to this thinking process. Our feelings are "HATE the sin, love the sinner" since the Bible CLEARLY states it's wrong.

  • Lisa Gauger

    06/05/2018 10:54 AM

    You are so right! Do appreciate all of your commentaries. Shalom aleichem.

  • Stephen J Wuest

    06/05/2018 10:46 AM

    The core problem, is that we have atheists (which is a position on a core religious subject) imposing their expectations/demands on what "valid" religion is. This is as invalid as atheists imposing their definitions of "God" to be used in Christian churches.

    -- We have FaceBook banning users, because they post comments that represent their conservative religious values, but offend against the PC morality/ethics that was pushed by Obama. ABC News on FB will ban you, for using some word in some secret list of banned expressions, and this ban will be perpetuated by Zuckerberg across all FB platforms, regardless of the beliefs of different websites using FB as a communication platform. In this way, FB can insure that there is no freedom of speech for religious conservatives, even on their own websites (if they use FB).

    -- we have denial of "equality before the law" and its replacement by Obama's endless arbitrary favoritism, based on race, sex, sexual orientation, native culture, etc. This is very PC, but denies the meaning of equality before the law in the Constitution, as it denies that positive favoritism for an arbitrary group is defined by the language of the Constitution, to be illegal discrimination. The old positive favoritism for white males, is labelled as illegal discrimination. The new positive favoritism for non(white males) is labelled as positive diversity. It's all illegal discrimination.

    -- the new toleration of illegal activity, "justified" by PC slogans, is all incompatible with a fair rule of law. This is no different than the old lynch mobs of the Old South. This arbitrary toleration of abusive behavior against PI people, is no different than Muslim imams issuing moral/ethical "justifications" that it is justifiable to commit genocide against certain individuals and groups that they disagree with. This all falls under the "lawlessness" that is condemned by the apostle Paul.

    -- the modern "civil rights" movement under Obama, rejected individual moral/ethical responsibility, and replaced it with blaming of arbitrary external groups. This is a complete break with the historic American civil rights movement. The blame rhetoric that Obama used, is exactly the tactic that Hitler used to blame everything that was wrong in Germany after WWI, on Jews and Roma, etc. Then Hitler used his Brown Shirts to terrorize all his political opponents. America's PC monoculture is well on the way to that sort of destruction of freedom and personal rights.

    I see a conscious apathy by the far left, for Constitutional rights/liberties. Also for the basic principles that are needed by every fair rule of law. I see a rejection of the far left (and PC monoculture) of individual moral/ethical responsibility. I see a willingness of the far left to "justify" the worst sorts of slander and emotional manipulation, enervating people with synthetic rage, in order to promote lawless intimidation of their political and philosophical opponents. None of this behavior is compatible with Constitutional rights/liberties. Or with what secular philosophers have agreed on as moral/ethical. Or with the morality/ethics of Judaism or Christianity.

    The far left has abandoned the Constitution, and is promoting the arbitrary removal of Constitutional rights/liberties from all its political opponents.

    Stephen Wuest

  • June Allen

    06/05/2018 10:40 AM

    Same sex marriage is NOT MARRIAGE. It is a man-made concoction to ease their conscience to sin by having sexual relations with people of their own sex--the Bible defines this as SIN. Our sick culture wants what it wants, when it wants it, so they make up these crazy names for these wrong acts. Those of us who are against this pervertedness are labeled as homophobes or worse--the ones practicing this sin are the ones who need to be labeled sinners!

  • Gayle Johnson

    06/05/2018 10:24 AM

    What I find infuriating is that same-sex couples have tons of other bakers, florists, photographers, etc. to do business with but NOOOOOOOO they have to choose a wedding service provider whose religious beliefs differ greatly from their own and when they are turned down, they sue! I know this is a redundant question, but why don't they employ a wedding service provider that matches their own twisted idea of marriage?!

    (Say, remember when same-sex marriage activists questioned why Christians would oppose it when it would never have any effect on them? That seems as long ago as the silent movie era.) I can remember in the mid-70s when equal rights for gays was on the ballot and there were concerns that homosexuals would infiltrate the education system and begin teaching their perverted lifestyle. We were told "No, it won't happen, we just want the same rights as others." and I'm not referring to same-sex marriage. Well look at what is being taught in our educational system, that the homosexual lifestyle is normal . . . (NO! It's perverse!) Love is love . . . Be Proud, Be Loud . . . and hundreds of other perverted slogans! They are not only LOUD, they get right in our faces and shove it down our throats! The acronym for homosexuals used to be LGBT; now there are so many other letters added to the acronym pretty soon they'll have the entire alphabet included! SMH, RME (shaking my head, rolling my eyes)! How many genders are there now? I've lost count! The book of Genesis states CLEARLY . . . "So God created mankind in HIS OWN image, in the IMAGE OF GOD he created them; MALE and FEMALE he created them." Genesis 1:27 (added capitalized emphasis are mine)

  • Kathleen Arnold

    06/05/2018 09:51 AM

    Absolutely! Thanks for your skill at pointing these things out! Lord, save this nation for the things so many have died for!!

  • Dolly Klose

    06/05/2018 09:21 AM

    WHEN I WAS A GIRL (I can hear my children rolling their eyes here), many if not most businesses had signs posted saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". What ever happened to that right?

  • Darlene Lamoureux

    06/05/2018 08:48 AM

    Thank you, Mike and others, for verbalizing so well the problems with this Court ruling (which is still a wonderful thing - there is definitely value in blessing in it). It all comes down to the fact that we are supposed to be a nation under God, and that God's rule is supposed to be Supreme. So the Supreme Court MUST abide by the Supreme Leader's rules as our Constitution clearly, clearly lays out.

  • LaNaye Reid

    06/05/2018 06:18 AM

    Justice Kennedy’s wording of the ruling is truly frightening, clearly implying that there might be circumstances in which the state’s interests outweigh the freedom of religion. This leaves an open door for future infringement of 1st Ammendment rights.

  • RHONDA Tow

    06/05/2018 03:02 AM

    I agree with you. This is a limited victory...a battle won but not a war. We must continue the fight to keep government and political correctness out of our private lives !

  • Stephen Long

    06/05/2018 02:20 AM

    The fact that the Christian worldview in our nation has been placed in a defensive position in today's culture portends the distinct possibility that open persecution of believers may become a reality in the USA. Certainly this recent decision highlights that there has been no acceptance of the superiority of a worldview that has dominated Western civilization over many centuries, only that the god of tolerance must be obeyed even by over zealous governments. The decision is not an admonishment of government imposed orthodoxy only a warning to government that it must not appear antagonistic to religious views that do not support the government's cultural agendas. It is similar to hate crime legislation where the most egregious physical assaults are secondary to the intent and provocation of these assaults, where hatred is deemed the motive. Consequently as we move away from a God ordained culture based on Biblical truths be debase ourselves and rational thought is abandoned and foolishness is upheld.

  • Robin May Conkel-hAnnan

    06/05/2018 01:59 AM

    Thank the Lord.. We needed this win.. It's just shame this good man had to suffer so for his beliefs..

  • Mike F

    06/05/2018 01:49 AM

    I wonder how many people were forced to go into bankruptcy and lost their places of business from the $1000/day fines and overall loss of business from all the malicious demonizing and emotional turmoil from those who were forced, and refused - to act against one's beliefs? We know why this was not done in the Obama Reign of Terror, when Right was Wrong and Wrong - was Right. Too many people, who took many years to build their lives and businesses, may never get any of it back.

  • Michael Valgos

    06/05/2018 12:37 AM

    I am with you sir on the ruling. It is such a shame that we live in a country that will accept any, and all except when comes to our religious values. I have to say thanks to Obama for turning our country nearly upside down. Obama constantly tried is very hardest to destroy everything that this country stands for. It is plain to me that he did this because he was not born here, so he had no investment in our country, and that made it easy to try to bring down. His communist style of government showed his destructive ways from the very beginning. I will never call Obama president because he did not meet the prerequisite to qualify to run for the office of the president. Obama needs to be jailed for all of his antics. He tried to kill Christianity with all of his executive orders. He just doesn't understand that God loves us, and he will not allow a wasted freeloaded to take us down. God will prevail.

    respectfully submitted.
    Michael L Valgos
    disabled Marine veteran

  • Douglas Finnell

    06/04/2018 11:54 PM

    Other news agencies are reporting that this was a very narrow decision and yet stated in your report the Court's vote was 7-2!! That doesn't seem very narrow to me!

  • Pamela F Winstead

    06/04/2018 11:12 PM

    Yes, I completely agree with you. The baker Mr Phillips had every right to refuse them based on his religious beliefs. Our rights are continuing to be eroded by a few in power. It was a win for Christians when he was given his win. However, I agree there will be others in the future because the real ruling was not given that would protect future problems from arising due to more underhanded ways of persecuting folks who don't agree and never will agree with same sex unions.

  • Grant Duffin

    06/04/2018 10:38 PM

    This should be front page headline news on every news outlet in the country!
    Thanks for the continuing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the God of this land, and the incredibly wonderful folks of the Judeo-Christian tradition plus faithful followers of every faith tradition which protects freedom of conscience and the unfettered practice, publicly and privately of religiously based positive human values and traditions. The very survival of our country depend upon it!

    Thanks for the unflagging effort of My Faith Votes to inform and energize to act, people of faith in this great country!

  • Paula Jane Hass

    06/04/2018 09:59 PM

    Praise the Lord, Finally the Supreme Court did the right thing for the right reasons...Now lets end abortion, the murder of unborn children.

  • Margaret A Miller

    06/04/2018 09:38 PM

    I wish the Supreme Court would overturn their decision on same sex marriage. It's not a good idea and it's against the will of God.

  • Charles H. Walkup, Jr.

    06/04/2018 09:28 PM

    The real issue (which was avoided in this decision) is discrimination vs. Liberty.
    A "Liberty Preservation Act" is needed to clarify the following:
    Unlike Liberty, discrimination is NOT a constitutional principle. Liberty is, in fact, our right as individuals (persons and entities such as a business) TO discriminate. Our founders declared Liberty an unalienable (God-given, not government given) right and the Constitution was established "to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Illegitimate non-discrimination & public accommodation laws have stolen our Liberty. The 1964 Civil Rights Law was just (not because it prohibited discrimination against Black People, but) because it gave Black People the Liberty they had been denied by (what I call) "societal"/governmental (not mere "individual") discrimination via Jim Crow/segregation laws. Government prohibiting "individual" discrimination is a denial of Liberty. Government has legitimate authority to address ONLY demonstrable "societal"/governmental discrimination, the only form of discrimination that denies Liberty (the constitutional principle).

  • Gale Porras

    06/04/2018 09:20 PM

    I feel if it had been a Muslim business it would have been a 9 to 0 vote. Christians are getting persecuted more and more. I'm tired of it. Political correctness has gone too far and the government has too much leeway in our rights. I pray every day President Trump will drain the swamp so we can live free again. Please start the trials now. America is tired of waiting.

  • LouiseCA

    06/04/2018 09:18 PM

    Everyone should take a step back and look carefully at this case. Stop calling it discrimination. It can't be, since he was serving homosexuals all along, and fully intended to continue. He makes wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are specifically structured and decorated cakes with a figurine of a man and a woman on top. He does not make homosexual wedding cakes, and how can anyone condone the forcing of him to do so? He has the right to make or not make whatever he wants in his baker. These couples get in the good graces of bakers, florists, etc, by patronizing their business for a while, and then, boom!, they order a "wedding" cake, knowing the owner will have to decline and they can sue and bring the wrath of the state down on them. This is so unfair, and it should not be condoned in this country. There are bakeries in every town, it's not like there is only one place they can find to order their cake. It would be just as wrong to force a muslim to sell ham sandwiches or a Jew to make a cake with a swastika. There has to be freedom of expression allowed or we do not have a First Amendment any longer. For a family like this to be harassed, threatened, forced to pay massive fees, and robbed of a great part of their livelihood from having to stop making wedding cakes at all, is a travesty. Discrimination is wrong, but so is extortion. As Mike said, the real shame is that SCOTUS didn't have to guts to go ahead and right the entire wrong. Perhaps if President Trump gets the opportunity to appoint one or two more Justices, we will finally actually have justice once again for all in the United States of America.

  • Mary Schelske

    06/04/2018 08:53 PM

    Thank you for all you do! I just love your daughter Sarah- she is one great woman! I pray for you and your family and Donald Trump! Keep up the great work. Love watching you on Fox news.
    Mary Schelske

  • Cathy wragg

    06/04/2018 08:48 PM

    Hooray...Another step in the right direction!
    I think the militant gay, who wanted gay marriage are trying to force their beliefs on those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. They will not agree, to disagree and are every bit as bad as the Never Trumpers which is so destructive!
    On another note...you have such a beautiful, smart and strong daughter! I watched the press conference today and the reporters were so rude and obnoxious that it was really upsetting to watch, let alone be the one taking it! I do not envy her job and want to thank her for doing such a good job. Big Hugs to her!

  • Anne

    06/04/2018 08:40 PM

    I was a absolutely thrilled to read the decision this evening. God answered many prayers on this matter. When the Federal Judges made a ruling on gay marriage, I knew we were in trouble. The LGBTQ was not finished, they proceeded with religious attacks, attacks on our children with the boy scouts, attack on bathroom use, such as Target, and the many others they have tried. The voters should have been the deciding factor on our Social Issues, not the Federal Judges that was not even a balanced court. Obama chose to push against our social issues that had always brought about good family values. Praying for more continued changes and that God will intervene and stop any future attacks so our children will have less negative news and more positive news.

  • Carrie Foerster

    06/04/2018 08:34 PM

    As weakly stated as it is by Kennedy, this ruling could eventually open the door to a reversal of same-sex "marriage," or, at a bare minimum the renaming of same-sex unions. One can easily argue that the very definition and foundation of marriage is based in a religious institution, Christianity, created by God and outlined in the holy book of the Bible. Therefore, "same sex marriage" as defined by the government is a complete misnomer, not recognized (in fact condemned) in the religious institution of Christianity and is an infringement by the federal government on this religious sacrament. The government blatantly overstepped itself and will need to come up with a different name or way to deal with same-sex unions.

  • Linda L. Hamilton

    06/04/2018 08:33 PM

    If the Supreme court had not called same sex unions " marriage" but called it a civil union, or some other similar title, we would not have so many questions that need to be delt with.

  • Lynn Muschweck

    06/04/2018 08:31 PM

    I don’t think any establishment should have to go against their religious beliefs. If someone doesn’t like it they’re more than welcome to go somewhere else. They don’t want us shoving our religion down their throats well then show us some respect & don’t shove your stuff down our throats. Respect the decision & go on. Find some other place. And don’t be disrespectful & say bad things either.

  • Dwayne Clark Sr

    06/04/2018 07:53 PM

    The sad thought about all of this mess is that the Court still does not recognize that this Nation is under GOD!! not the other way around. The lgbt community will not stop until they have removed GOD from our Country. It is past due for the Church and Christian Community to take the lead on this and ride the road to Religious Freedoms and stop the persecution of Christians in the US.

  • pat ridge

    06/04/2018 07:46 PM

    I am overjoyed that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, Masterpiece Baker. Praise God for that victory. There is still hope for AMERICA.

  • Whitney Galbraith

    06/04/2018 07:44 PM

    Part of the tragedy of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is that it ended up in the judiciary to begin with. It never belonged there. The case belongs back in the Colorado General Assembly. They are the ones who created the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act of 2008, as Amended (to include sexual orientation), the atrocity that gave a politically appointed Civil Rights Commission the ammunition to attack any resident of Colorado that the commission members personally wanted to go after. It should be the Colorado General Assembly to clean up its own mess and revise or repeal the Act.

  • Charlee Lang

    06/04/2018 07:27 PM

    Thank you for good news. May this win be just the beginning...God Bless

    I am not a robot I am a 80 year old widow

  • Brother Amartey

    06/04/2018 07:24 PM

    Our next step is to overrule and overturn the diabolic 2015 decision. We need to pray for more conscientious judges who'd respect the constitution and restore sanity to the court and to America!

  • Susan Downey

    06/04/2018 07:20 PM

    Praise God! We as Christians have been discriminated against since prayer was removed from schools! We've been called bigots and drinkers of kool-aid since we've chosen to believe in the authority of God and Jesus Christ as being our ultimate authority. We are lovers of all humanity. Just because we don't believe in certain practices of others doesn't mean we don't love them! I'm reading an excellent book by Don Mc Laughlin intitled: LOVE FIRST: ENDING HATE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. It is exceptional! You should read it Governor! God bless you for being an example for us all! Warmest wishes,
    Susan Downey, Indianapolis IN


  • Kirby Millard

    06/04/2018 07:03 PM

    Thanks for the info and concise analysis of the SCOTUS bungling. Justice Kennedy and the Supreme Court grossly overstepped it's authority in creating the law illegally and now it must be corrected or as you correctly state religious freedom is in jeopardy.

  • Thomas Morofski

    06/04/2018 07:02 PM

    I do believe our country's founding fathers would be stunned by all the lunacy abounding in our courts and government venues today. That any member of these could or would DICTATE what a citizen will or will not do as a matter of personal faith and/or conscience is appalling beyond belief! As a Christian, with all due respect, I must ALWAYS seek God's approval over man's approval when forced to choose.

  • HANS Slade

    06/04/2018 06:24 PM

    The elephant in the room is a growing Muslim faith standing by watching how all this shakes out.
    Pockets of our society are already giving preference to Muslim dogma over Christian traditions that our country was founded upon.
    I PRAY the stoic legal minds in the Supreme Court will protect us from a religion with its own set of conflicting (Sharia) laws openly bent on world domination.

    Hans

  • David Smith

    06/04/2018 06:14 PM

    The ruling should have been unanimous. The two that ruled against only demonstrate that they either don't understand the Constitution as it was written (and intended to be interpreted as) or they are simply Marxists of one form or another seeking to destroy America.