Today the Supreme Court hears maybe the many critical free debate and eremite leisure case in the lifetime. It’s time to urge and to pronounce up.
We’ve talked a lot on BreakPoint over the past few months about Christian cake engineer Jack Phillips. Well today, Tuesday Dec 5, he has his day in court. This morning, the Supreme Court will hear verbal arguments in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
And John Stonestreet and we are asking you to pray. John, in fact, is outward the Supreme Court today, where he is speaking at a convene for Jack and for the free debate and eremite leisure rights.
If you live nearby DC, you can attend the convene in person from 8 AM ET compartment noon. If not, greatfully join in probably at the Facebook page of the Alliance Defending Freedom. We’ll couple you to it at BreakPoint.org.
Now the contribution of the case are flattering true forward:
As John has told you, Phillips is an artist who designs master cakes. His business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, is an countenance of his faith. So when a same-sex couple asked him to tradition pattern a cake for their same-sex wedding, Jack declined, but he then offering them any cake or other product in the store. For the record, Jack has refused business before. Due to his eremite philosophy he won’t, for example, pattern Halloween cakes or cakes that applaud divorce.
At any rate, the couple was murderous and hauled Jack before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which fined him and systematic Jack and his employees to go by a “re-education” program.
Jack has given given up tradition marriage cakes, a decision that has cost him 40 percent of his business.
Those are the facts. And we can't exaggerate the significance of what’s at stake. Will Christian artists, Christian business owners, have the leisure to attend in the open block but abandoning their Christian conviction? Or will the state enforce them to use their talents and livelihoods to support that which violates their faith?
Given authorised precedents, Sharif Girgis, essay at The Public Discourse, says that despite what you’re conference in the media, Jack has a clever case.
“For some-more than seventy years,” Girgis writes, “the Supreme Court has pronounced supervision can’t force you to say, do, or make something that carries a summary you reject.” For example, the Court has ruled that the supervision can’t enforce Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag.
Girgis argues that “[f]orcing Phillips to custom-design and create same-sex marriage cakes is compelled speech: it forces him to create an fluent (artistic) product carrying a summary he rejects . . . [and] it does so but portion the form of seductiveness that the inherent law would consider a legitimate … justification for interfering with anyone’s free speech.”
So, Girgis concludes, “Colorado’s decision violates Phillips’s First Amendment rights.”
Now friends, we must urge that the Supreme Court concludes the same thing. Please, today, right after you hear this promote or review the transcript, urge that the Court will defend Jack’s right to free debate and to use his faith.
Pray generally for Alliance Defending Freedom profession Kristin Waggoner, who will be making Jack’s case before the Court. And urge also for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who may very good be the pitch vote. He has been a champion of LGBT rights, but he has also ruled against the supervision constrained speech.
And if you are able, join with John at the request convene currently by visiting ADF’s Facebook page from 8 AM to 11 AM this morning . . . or join the twitter fest on Twitter by following #JusticeForJack.
And please, share Sharif Girgis’s essay with people you know. We will have it for you at BreakPoint.org
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Thank you for praying.
Jack Phillips’s (and Our) Day in Court: Freedom of Speech, Religion, at Stake
Read some-more about the Masterpiece Cake Shop petition and what is at the heart of this leisure of debate case by checking out the resources related below. And then greatfully urge for knowledge and clarity for the Supreme Court justices as they hear this critical case and come to a decision.