By: Allen West – allenbwest.americanewshub.com – December 4, 2017

King Henry VIII declared himself head of state and head of church, establishing the Church of England. Therefore, those who were not members of the Church of England were persecuted. And we must remember that King Henry wanted to accommodate his own personal behavior — divorce — so he created his own religion to facilitate that. Hence why our Founding Fathers did not want a state-established religion that would accommodate a specific agenda, or persecute those who did not accept the state sponsored religion. That’s why Thomas Jefferson wrote of the concept of separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist convention, although it is not codified in any of our founding documents. There is no law stating separation of church and state; that’s a gross misconception sadly and widely believed.

What our Founding Fathers wanted was for the state, the government, never to establish itself over what they saw as a very important individual right, their faith, their personal relationship with God the Creator…who grants us our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And interestingly enough, the very first individual right in our Bill of Rights is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, our very first, First Amendment right is the freedom of religion.

However, we’re about to see a very important challenge to that individual right. The upcoming Supreme Court case involving a Denver, Colorado bakery shop owner could set a precedent in America that will remake the definition of “freedom of religion.”

As reported by Fox News, “It started over five years ago with a simple request for a wedding cake. And now, after wending its way through the system, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is finally having its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. Many legal experts believe it will be the most significant case of the term. 

It involves a clash of our rights as citizens, as well as our ideals. Two of the most precious rights Americans possess are freedom of expression and freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. Both are enshrined in the First Amendment. 

It began in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, who owned the Masterpiece Cakeshop, to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage. Phillips refused, saying he didn’t wish to promote a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission decided against Phillips, declaring he had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its policies, give its staff training on discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for two years on steps taken to comply with the order. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Last year, Phillips petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the Colorado ruling violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.”

Let’s put emotions aside and analyze this case in a very simple perspective. The seminal question that we must face is whether or not individual sexual behavior can be classified as a civil right. The issue here is not whether Mr. Phillips refused service to Craig and Mullins. What Mr. Phillips refused was to render his services for a specific ceremony that was not in concert with his religious faith and beliefs. If Mr. Phillips had stated that his business did not serve gays and lesbians, I would be the first to say he was wrong. But now it would appear that the state, the government, has established a belief that is seeking to persecute those who do not conform.

In other words, we’ve come full circle to do exactly what Jefferson wished not to have happen in America. In essence, we have the state creating a right based on its ideological agenda and is forcing compliance — that is exactly what the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had done to a private sector small business. The state is mandating conformity in full dismissal and disregard of the religious beliefs of an individual American citizen.

What this case is all about is the government redefining freedom of religion as freedom of worship…and they will decide the extent, and scope of what defines “worship.” What the state of Colorado has told Mr. Phillips, and the Christian faith community, is that we will accept your freedom to worship in certain places, namely your place of worship, in the church. However, in the free marketplace of ideas, your faith is rendered irrelevant when it comes against the agenda of the state…oh boy, that is dangerous.

We already had Hobby Lobby challenge the Obama administration on the contraception mandate of Obamacare. The owners of Hobby Lobby are Christians, they refused to follow the government mandate because it violated their freedom of religion…Hobby Lobby won the case. And if you’ve forgotten, the Obama administration was also challenged by the Little Sisters of the Poor on the same unconstitutional mandate.

Just as Henry VIII created the Church of England for his own personal agenda, so is the progressive socialist left creating their own “religion” — their ideological agenda. And they’re using the onerous and powerful platform of the state to impose their will…and I might recommend, unconstitutionally.

Doggone, it would appear that the ol’ 14th Amendment’s equal protection under the law clause applies to everyone that agrees with the left’s agenda…and the Judeo-Christian faith heritage doesn’t. That is not discrimination, but the left has declared it so.

Let’s remember that fella, Colorado multimillionaire Tim Gill, who said that “we must punish Christians.” Funny, no one called Gill out on that statement…guess there’s no equal protection for Christians, huh? So, who decides what is a freedom, or when a freedom becomes discriminatory? Now, look, I’m not a lawyer, certainly not a Supreme Court Justice, but this ain’t that hard to understand and rectify. There has been a First Amendment right to freedom of religion long before someone came up with having a same sex relationship as a civil right. And who were those somebodies that came up with the latter assertion, who now believe it trumps a First Amendment right?

Like I stated earlier, Mr. Phillips didn’t refuse service due to the fact that Craig and Mullins were gay, a same-sex couple. He refused to participate in their ceremony…and in the free market, you can just go elsewhere and get your cake made, right? Or is the real reason for this case is to persecute Christians and forcibly make them conform to the new religion, the ideological agenda of the left?

And then there are those trying to make this a real civil rights issue and make the comparison to the Civil Rights struggle of blacks.

Christopher Carbone writes at Fox News, “Will the Supreme Court case about a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple lead to a decision similar to the court’s 1968 ruling in the case of South Carolina’s Piggie Park barcecue? For some civil rights advocates, the parallels between the two cases are clear. 

When two African-Americans parked their car at a Piggie Park drive-in in August 1964 in Columbia, South Carolina, the waitress who came out to serve them turned back once she saw they were black and didn’t take their order. In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing “any integration of the races whatsoever.” 

Federal judges dismissed Bessinger’s claim. “Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens,” U.S. District Judge Charles Earl Simons Jr. wrote in 1966.”

I love it when folks try to compare sexual orientation and behavior to race. If there’s one thing you can immediately notice about me when I walk into a room it’s that I’m black. Unless someone openly states their sexual orientation, well, who knows…and another very interesting point, an individual can change their sexual orientation…it’s kinda hard for me to change. And trust me, I ain’t doing what Michael Jackson did.

Again, any comparison to the Piggie Park case is delusional and deceiving, as the Declaration of Independence states that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” America had a tough time rectifying itself to that founding principle, but we did. And again, Mr. Phillips did not tell Craig and Mullins that he was not going to serve them…he specifically stated that his religious belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman…an accepted societal fundamental for how long? Yep, the modern King Henrys have decided to change everything to fit their own ideological agenda.

I support civil unions. But, as we reported to you previously with the student group at the Catholic university, there is a state-sponsored persecution of folks who disagree with the redefinition of marriage. The real issue going before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with a cake. It has everything to do with whether the state can create its own ideological agenda and forcibly mandate the conformity of others in complete disregard of their stated Constitutional rights and freedoms. If the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Phillips, yep, just like Robert Bork’s book said, “We Are Slouching Towards Gomorrah”…and as Tim Gill gleefully pronounced, Christians will be punished.

The means may be different, but the results are the same…whether it happens in the arena in Rome, or it starts in the Supreme Court. Nero demonized Christians, and so it is happening in our America.

Source: ALERT: Supreme Court to hear case that should have every Christian concerned | Allen B West