Well, Praise the Lord! He is Free Not to Bake the Disgusting Cake!
Freedom! Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins can bake their own cake and have their own blasphemous (sodomitic) wedding? That, in itself, given our historic Christian jurisprudence, would be some wild liberty gone perverse in the Land of the Free! But that wasn’t even the issue. It was much worse.
This was the legal issue: may the “couple” compel a baker to bake them a cake in honor and celebration of their blasphemy? That was the question before SCOTUS. And, thanks be to the God of mercy as well as justice, the ruling came down from the High Court in favor of the abused, Godly baker.
Liberty for the perverted to engage in the “same-sex” immoral behavior is one thing. But forcing citizens to participate in the celebration of such perversion is yet another.
Mr. Huffenberger called for “respectful dialogue on tough political issues” (Wilmington News Journal, 10 May, 2018). Indeed, he admonished his readers that “avoiding talk about them” is a “walled-in” approach, which – we are invited to presume – is something not good. The “tough political issue” he never mentions, but he references the Congressional Civility and Respect Caucus. Decriminalized sodomy (a 21st century phenomenon; see Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), is the issue. And, behind that ancillary issue is the larger one: the relevance and propriety of the Law of God.
Likewise, Judge Mike Daugherty calls for civility, exhorting us against “saying awful things” and reminding us that the baker was “never mean” (“Wedding Cake and Simply Being Nice,” WNJ, 6 June, 2018). He concluded his column with the exhortation: “Please be polite. It matters.”
I wonder who it is who calls for such peace and civility? The “culture war” winners or the losers? It is usually the winners of revolution who wish to maintain the status quo and it is in their interest to call for peace and civility. Sodomy and abortion and liberty from “male domination” (a.k.a. Biblical order for the family) are the accomplishments of the Left (and my oh my how they want to keep the peace now!).
Hmm. That wasn’t the case back in the day when the revolutionary Left of the 70s was campaigning for the overthrow of Law – liberty to have sex outside marriage and murder the evidence (and then, since that wasn’t enough, liberty to have perverted homosexual sex). The peaceful King crowd enjoyed the shadowy threat of some back-up in Malcolm X. Indeed, there was plenty of liberty of “expression” as well – to burn buildings and protest like hell.
Regardless of the manner of speech, I would rather be more direct about the enduring issues at hand: Lawlessness (derived from Godlessness) which has left us with “legalized” sodomy and abortion. Not good things. And not necessarily things to be peacefully tolerant of for so long.
But now that the revolution is over and the victory of the Lawless Left is won, there is a call for “respectful dialogue”! Indeed, once in power, the victors would like the counterrevolutionaries (the Christians – who love the Law and, therefore, despise Lawlessness) to “keep it cool”!
Here is the dialogue we need. What ought those who believe in the Law of God and the enduring civil and statutory relevance of the Big Ten advocate concerning their fellow citizens who identify as sodomites? Must they bake the cake or may they refuse? Must they tolerate damnable sodomy? Or may they refuse to tolerate it? It matters.
It matters whether I, as a citizen, tolerate what I know to be an abomination – behavior which invites the judgment of a righteous and angry God upon a people who despise His Law.
So, as a good and tolerant citizen, just what am I bidden to tolerate from my liberal, kind, open-minded (and, we must say, Lawless) friends? Sodomy between consenting adults? Sodomy between adults and consenting children? What are the limits of such libertinism? When does sexual activity become a matter of public concern?
When may the authorities say, “You must bake that disgusting cake!”?
When is it not one’s choice not to be “nice”?