Hey, Bryan! Long time no natter. How are things going as Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association (AFA)? I hear tell you're be-bothered by a court ruling here in Colorado. Let's go look.
Jack Phillips is a baker here who refuses to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. In the particular case in question, a couple who was to be married in Massachusetts (note that Colorado doesn't allow same-sex weddings) wanted a cake to celebrate with family and friends back home . The couple filed suit with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), claiming the shop's policy, which Phillips clearly spelled out, was a violation of state anti-discrimination law regarding public accomodations (which includes bakeries). The CCRD ruled there had been illegal discrimination, and an administrative judge late last week affirmed that ruling.
At which point Phillips was dragged off to the gulag and flogged, then tied to a stake and burned to death for his faith.
No, no, I jest, Bryan. In fact, he wasn't even fined for the violation, though the judge did make a cease-and-desist order over the bakery's policy, and threatened fines if Phillips continued to discriminate in that fashion.
Cue the "Christians Are Being Persecuted for Their Faith!" chorus from you, Bryan, on your radio show:
'Would you be willing to do what this baker is willing to do: go to jail rather than violate your religious convictions?'
Note that while Phillips has indeed said he would be willing to go to jail if necessary, no jail has actually been threatened, just fines. In theory, a judge could find him in contempt of court if he failed to comply, which could involve jail time, but that's true for pretty much any court ruling.
Now, Bryan, I do have to admire someone willing to suffer for their convictions — whether that's monetary or even jail time. That doesn't mean I necessarily admire or agree with their cause, or that I think they should get a pass for it. The 9/11 hijackers were willing to (and in fact did) die for their convictions. IRA terrorists faced jail and worse in their bloody campaign against the Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Sure, this isn't a case of someone committing violence against others. It's about baking wedding cakes. But you can't trivialize the magnitude of what Phillips is doing, Bryan, without also trivializing the moral ground he's standing on — it's about baking wedding cakes, not Defending the Faith or Driving Out the Invaders or Fighting a Crusade.
'And, you know, this is something that you think happens in Cuba.'
By the way, Bryan, Cuba has a long history of discrimination against gays. Homosexual activity was illegal until the 90s (a lot of those brave folks who fled Cuba until then were, in fact, gay), and police harassment and social opprobrium are still fairly widespread. Cuba still does not allow same-sex marriage.
'This is something that happens in the Soviet Union.'
Which hasn't existed since 1991, Bryan.
'This is something that happens in Viet Nam, where people get sent to jail, or get sent to prison, for exercising their religious liberty.'
Viet Nam has traditionally (well, under the Communists) been harsh on Christians. Ostensibly the government allows religious freedom, though it exercises a fair amount of control over Christian communities. Foreign missionaries are not allowed in the country.
I couldn't find any information, though, on wedding cake baking policy there.
'I mean, that's how much control the secular theocrats have taken in our culture. The secular theocrats — this is like the Spanish Inquisition, this is the Secular Inquisition. And our secular theocrats have found this man guilty of heresy, guilty of idolatry, guilty of blasphemy …'
Actually, he's been found guilty of illegal discrimination. His professed beliefs have nothing to do with it and, in fact, are legally protected. Heck, if some other baker refused to bake him a cake because of his public religious stand, they would arguably be guilty of the same offense.
'… because he will not agree to the dogma of the secular theocrats. He is a heretic and he must be punished just like the Spanish Inquisition did for those that went astray from the dogma of the Church in their day.'
Really. I mean Phillips is being tortured until he declares his belief in gay marriage? He's literally being burned at the stake? Shocking!
And, of course, hyperbole of the highest order.
But you know, Bryan, it's funny to hear you speak up so stridently against suppression of freedom of conscience by calling to mind an example of … Christian suppression of freedom of conscience.
It's funny to hear you weigh in against state oppression of religious faith when you've argued in the past that Native Americans deserved to have their land taken by Europeans because they were filthy, immoral pagans [1], and that they should have all converted over to the invaders' religion [2]. Or when you've asserted that Muslims that want to immigrate to the the US should be forced to renounce their adherence to Islam. [3] Because that makes it sound like the only "religious liberty" you believe in is Christian religious liberty.
Which, in fact, is what you believe, as you've asserted in the past that the First Amendment "the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion," with you, apparently, getting to judge which Christian beliefs are orthodox enough to be protected (Mormons need not apply). [4]
Which is really funny because the Spanish Inquisition was a state institution (run by the Spanish Crown, using the Church) to … ensure Christian orthodoxy amongst the folks who had been forcibly converted from Islam and Judaism during the Reconquista of Spain from the Moors. Which is pretty much what you've argued for in the past regarding Muslims in the US.
Inquisition for Me, but not for Thee. Ain't that a riot, Bryan?
Of course, what's being discussed here is hardly about religious orthodoxy (even "secular religion"). Colorado has (along the same model as the 1964 Civil Rights Act) a "public accommodations" law. Public accommodations are (to quote Wikipedia) "entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers." Private clubs and religious institutions are excepted.
In other words, if you open a business to the public, it's a public accommodation.
Under Colorado law, public accommodations cannot discriminate in services or customers based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or (since 2008) sexual orientation. In other words, a restaurant can't serve "Whites Only". A publicly available meeting hall can't refuse to rent to Jews. A store can't only sell brief cases to men, not women.
And in the case of a bakery, it is considered discrimination to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple the same as if it was refusing to bake a wedding cake for a Christian couple, a Mexican couple, or a Black couple, even if the baker has a religious opinion about such marriages. "I don't believe God meant for the races to be mixed" is no more a legally defensible reason to refuse service than "I don't believe God meant for two men to get married."
Now, obviously, that can raise some conflicts for owners of such public accommodations, such as a bakery that makes wedding cakes. They may very well have very profound feelings about mixed-race couples, or perhaps mixed-religion couples, or about the legitimacy of certain religions and what it means to be married under them … or that a marriage where one or both of the parties is divorced is, in the eyes of God, adultery, and therefore against one of the actual Commandments … or that Christians are a blight on humanity and therefore to support their marriage and subsequent breeding is an offense against the Universe.
What's a baker to do, Bryan?
The decision is pretty straightforward. You can decide that baking a wedding cake is not a religious act, and doesn't represent a personal faith sanction and support of the particular union taking place (any more than making a birthday cake is a particular religious endorsement of the birthday celebrator's personal life). Or you can quit.
Or you can pay fines for violating anti-discrimination laws.
That's not discrimination. And it's not the "inquisition." It's the compromise we all deal with in living in a society, even one that prizes, rightfully, religious liberty and freedom of conscience. A strong religious conviction is generally not a "Get Out of the Law Free" card. A Quaker doesn't get to withhold 19% of their federal income tax because they have a religious conviction against war and the military. A Rastafarian doesn't get to grow and smoke marijuana without worrying about a DEA drug bust, even though they consider it a sacramental herb. A worshiper of the Aztec gods doesn't get to kill human beings, even if that's what this week's ceremony calls for. A pastor doesn't get to drive 80 mph through a school zone just because he needs to get to church for a service. A Muslim baker doesn't get to refuse to bake wedding cakes for non-Muslims, even if he thinks that other religious are false and such unions sinful.
'And they're getting ready to send him, I mean, he is at risk of being sent to jail. And he says, "I'm willing to go there, if that's where you send me." So this is secular theocracy out of control.'
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." — Matt. 5:11-13
If Phillips wants to consider this religious persecution, he is as free to hold that belief as he is the belief that he's abetting a sinful same-sex marriage by baking them a cake (any more than the gas station they fill up at on the way to the chapel is abetting said marriage, or the McDonalds they stop at for a bite to eat that morning, or the Safeway that sells them paper plates and napkins for the reception). But that doesn't exclude him from the law any more than anyone else is excluded from it, and his choices are to follow it, pay the fines, decline to pay the fines and suffer further penalties, or choose another line of business where he doesn't have to feel religiously committed and supportive of what the purchasers of his product do with it.
Previous Bryan Fischer zaniness noted above:
[1] https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2011/02/08/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-evil-injun-edition.html
[2] https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2011/02/15/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-good-injun-edition.html
[3] https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2011/04/09/nobody-expects-bryan-fischer-to-be-a-dolt.html
[4] https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2011/09/29/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-mormons-are-lucky-we-graciously-let-them-practice-their-weird-religion-edition.html … and Fischer's most recently espoused view on what "religion" means in the First Amendment: http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147490466&tab=video&video=2147541883
More on public accommodations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
More on the case: https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop
See more on Fischer's broadcast: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-colorado-bakery-owners-have-become-victims-secular-inquisition#sthash.S7aaU9Qf.dpuf
Full Fischer show: Secular theocrats want to send Christian baker to jail for heresy