Can Federal or State Governments Force Businesses to Participate with Sexual Sin?
Can Federal or State Governments Force Businesses to Participate with Sexual Sin?
by Jake MacAulay
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case involving Christian bakeshop owner Jack Phillips.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recounts the story that led to the recent events on their website.
“In July 2012, two men came into Jack’s bakeshop requesting a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting only a few seconds, Jack declined the request, saying he could not design cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies. Jack offered to make the couple any other type of baked good or sell them a pre-made cake, but, because of his faith, he could not design a cake promoting a same-sex wedding ceremony.”
However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado said if he’s going to open a business to the public he has to make all services available to everyone in the public.
Mr. Phillip’s attorney rebuffs, “[F]or citizens like Jack Phillips, the court has created a novel exception to the First Amendment — you’re end to believe, but not end to act on those beliefs. You’re not free if your beliefs are confined to your mind. What makes America unique is our freedom to peacefully live out these beliefs.”
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution tells us that Congress can make no law regarding religion, but also it may not infringe on the exercise of that religious belief. In this instance, the unconstitutional threat of both is being advanced. In essence, the government is attempting to force Jack to sin by disobeying his Christian faith.
Founding Father George Mason, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, wrote, “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally created to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”
Beyond religion and the exercise thereof, Jack’s God-given right to contract is also being denied.
Contracts are indispensable to the foundational freedom of choices. Because of this, the Founding Fathers specifically provided in Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution, that state governments could enact no “law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
So you see the Constitution prohibits government from stepping between contracting parties and rewriting their agreement such as “No shirt, No shoes, No service.”
Unfortunately for Americans’ liberty, the government now believes it is a 3rd party in every contract in America.
It is imperative that we understand the government has limited jurisdictions in areas where God has ordained them to protect our individual rights. The homosexuals, in this case, still maintain their rights by refusing to do business with the baker. However, the baker’s rights are emphatically denied when he is forced to participate with what his conscience deems sin.
Make no mistake, homosexual marriage, in fact, is not marriage and God’s Word declares that practicing homosexual intercourse is sin. Therefore, the government cannot force an individual to celebrate or condone someone else’s sin.