Mediaboss Marketing

What if you were faced with a challenge to your faith by the full weight of politics, culture, and popular opinion? What if your entire livelihood came down to one choice between right and wrong? This is whats happening to my friend Jack Phillips, a baker. He is happiest when he has flour on his face and a wedding cake to decorate.

For years I was in a mens Bible Study with him. He is quiet, simple and completely without guile. We never knew that he would one day be at the forefront of the culture wars.

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided to take up his case.

Jack and his decades-old business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, are under tremendous fire. If you dont knowthe story, Jack was approached four years ago to make a cake for a gay couple who were wed in Massachusetts but had come home to Colorado. Jack said no. He politely told them it was against his belief, as a Christian, and he couldnt make the cake.

The State of Colorado Attorney Generals office filed a formal complaint. Even though the state didnt legally recognize the marriage (at the time), they are coming down on Jack for not catering to it. He was fined and his employees were forced to undergo reeducation training.

The question is simple. Should a private business owner be able to live out his faith and not violate his core principles, even when they go against popular culture? In America we used to be able to be different, to be protected.

It should be noted that Jack has also turned away cakes requested by those who want explicit language, violent images, and even Halloween themes. So he is an equal opportunity advocate for righteous living.

If Jack is forced to make gay cakes, would we also expand this logic to other businesses? Would we make a Muslim Halal butcher sell pork chops? Would we make a Jewish butcher sell bacon? Would we force Indian vegetarian restaurants to sell hamburgers?

And one other issue that screams out to me. Some are demanding respect and acceptance. But what about respect and acceptance for Jack Phillips and his strongly held beliefs?

Do we now force Quakers to take up arms and join the military? Should we force Jehovahs Witnesses to take blood? Should we take the hijabs away from Muslim women? If nothing else, our country was founded on the ability to live out your beliefs.

This is not Jack persecuting homosexuals. He would sell them anything, including a cake. He just wouldnt decorate it with those words. This is society persecuting Jack for his faith.

As David French writes in National Review,creative professionals should never be required to lend their unique talents to express any form of message they dislike. Dont make black lawyers oppose civil rights, dontmake liberal fashion designersdesign clothes for conservative politicians, anddont require racists to design cakes for interracial couples. Some people use liberty wisely. Some people abuse liberty for immoral ends. But we cant limit liberty only to the wise and just.

Many of you are small businessmen. What if you were faced with a similar dilemma? Or what if your employer asked you to do something that clearly violated your faith? Would you risk your livelihood for your position?Unlike too many of us, hes willing to turn away money if it goes against his principles.

Pray for Jack. Hes a good man, soft spoken, and not one for controversy. Hes not a crusader. Hes not a firebrand. Hes a simple baker who loves God and wants his business to reflect his principles. Hes an unlikely hero if Ive ever seen one. I need him to know that hes not alone. Locally, we are standing with him, giving him encouragement. The withering assaults of those on the other side are brutal.

All of this has me thinking. How deep are my convictions? Could I stand firm in my faith if my job were at stake

Continue reading here:
How a simple baker ended up at the front of the culture wars - Patheos (blog)

The new case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.

This has always been about more than a cake, Mr. Mullins said. Businesses should not be allowed to violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love.

Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment its protections for free expression and religious freedom overrode a Colorado anti-discrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake.

David Cortman, one of Mr. Phillipss lawyers, said the case concerned fundamental rights. Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they wont create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government, he said.

In 2015, a Colorado appeals court ruled against Mr. Phillips. Masterpiece does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law and serving its customers equally, the court said.

In a Supreme Court brief, Mr. Phillipss lawyers said he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients. But his faith requires him, they said, to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.

Thus, the brief said, he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.

The brief said Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig could have bought a cake from another baker and in fact easily obtained a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery.

In response, the couples lawyer wrote that it is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.

In a second development concerning gay and lesbian couples, the Supreme Court reaffirmed on Monday its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, ruling that states may not treat married same-sex couples differently from others in issuing birth certificates.

The majority decision was unsigned. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented.

The case concerned an Arkansas law about birth certificates that treats married opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex ones. A husband of a married woman is automatically listed as the father even if he is not the genetic parent. Same-sex spouses are not.

The case, Pavan v. Smith, No. 16-992, was brought by two married lesbian couples who had jointly planned their childs conception by means of an anonymous sperm donor. State officials listed the biological mother on the childrens birth certificates and refused to list their partners, saying they were not entitled to a husbands presumption of paternity.

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled against the women, saying that it does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 United States Supreme Court decision, listed birth certificates among the governmental rights, benefits and responsibilities that typically accompany marriage.

In its unsigned opinion, the majority said on Monday that the Arkansas Supreme Court had erred in failing to apply the 2015 decision to birth certificates. Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment, the opinion said. As we explained there, a state may not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

Arkansas uses birth certificates, Mondays opinion said, to give married parents a form of legal recognition that is not available to unmarried parents. It continued, Having made that choice, Arkansas may not, consistent with Obergefell, deny married same-sex couples that recognition.

In dissent, Justice Gorsuch said the court had acted rashly in not asking for briefs and argument on the question presented in the case.

To be sure, Obergefell addressed the question whether a state must recognize same-sex marriages, he wrote. But nothing in Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question addressed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the childs birth certificate, Justice Gorsuch wrote. Before the state supreme court, the state argued that rational reasons exist for a biology-based birth registration regime, reasons that in no way offend Obergefell like ensuring government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship or susceptibility to genetic disorders.

In an opinion that did not in any way seek to defy but rather earnestly engage Obergefell, the state supreme court agreed, Justice Gorsuch wrote. And it is very hard to see what is wrong with this conclusion for, just as the state court recognized, nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with many analogues across the country and throughout history, offends the Constitution.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Cake Case Takes Court Back to the Culture Wars.

Read the original post:
Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage - New York Times

By John Gallagher

The Democrats had pinned a lot of hopes on the special election in Georgias sixth congressional district. The seat, which was held by now Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, has been reliably Republican for years; it was the seat that Newt Gingrich held when he was in Congress. But Democrats thought that the high number of college-educated voters in the district made it ripe for capitalizing on uneasiness about President Trump.

Of course, that was wrong. But there was an ample sign that the district was never going to flip for a socially liberal candidate. And thats the districts history.

The district encompasses the northern suburbs of Atlanta, including a chunk of Cobb County. In the early 1990s, Cobb County was one of the chief battlegrounds of the culture war. In 1993,the County Commissioners passed a resolutionto openly and vigorously supports the current community standards and established state laws regarding gay lifestyles. The vote was greeted by Amens from the audience, and a pastor held a sign outside of the commission chambers that read Praise God for AIDS.

The vote resulted in a national controversy, butit was hardly a surprise.A portion of the interstate running through the county is named for a former John Birch Society leader. In the 1980s, the town of Kennesaw passed a resolution requiring all residents to own a gun. Even as the country expanded as Atlanta itself grew, the county maintained a distinctively conservative flavor.

The impact of the Cobb County resolution was more than symbolic, much to the countys detriment. As a sign of disapproval, the Olympic torch bypassed Cobb County on its way to the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, and the Olympic volleyball game was moved to a different venue.

Eventually the county moved on to other issues, but it has never entirely rid itself of its homophobic past. The county commissioner race in 2012replayed the issue,as one of the pro-resolution commissioners sought to return to office. (The former commissioner, Bill Byrne, said he regretted his vote, because he has a lesbian daughter. He lost anyway.) A state legislator from Cobb introduced a religious liberty bill last year thatwould have repealed conflicting laws,otherwise known as nondiscrimination protections.

In short, a good chunk of the sixth congressional district was never going to be fertile territory for a Democrat like Jon Ossoff. Moreover, Republicans did their best to tar Ossoff as a rabid liberal,tying him to Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco values.San Francisco loves them some Jon Ossoff,a man in one ad intoned.

Most of the media played these ads as tarnishing Ossoffs carefully cultivated moderate image. But the ads were also a dog whistle. For religious conservatives, San Francisco is synonymous with all things gay. San Francisco has long been used by the religious right as shorthand for a modern-day Sodom, and we all know who put the sodomy in Sodom.

So ultimately, Ossoff was probably fighting a losing battle all along. (He wasnt an ideal candidate, but the winner, Karen Handel, was pretty inept herself.) Democrats will debate for months to come whether a different platform and different candidate could have convinced more voters to turn out. But the lesson of the election may be something entirely different: the culture wars are lingering, and they are still defining our political landscape.

This article originally appeared on Queerty

__

Do you want to be part of ending sexism, racism, and homophobia?

__

Photo credit: Getty Images

Go here to see the original:
The Special Election in Georgia Shows that the Culture War and Homophobia Aren't Over Yet - The Good Men Project (blog)

Among the stranger sights in Portland political unrest in recent months: the alliance of the Multnomah County Republican Party with the movement of nationalists, militia men and racial provocateurs known as the "alt-right."

An anonymous threat to attack the GOP in an April community parade led to the parade's cancellationand to claims that the party was harboring white supremacists in its midst.

Multnomah County Republican Party chair James Buchal speaks at a June 4 free speech rally in Terry Schrunk Plaza. (Tom Berridge)

A new GOP fundraising letter shows that Buchal is taking the rhetoric further: He's asking Republicans to donate to the local chapter to battle "threats of Leftist violence."

"Republicans have been losing the culture wars for a long time, but violent attacks against freedom of speech and assembly by Republicans may mark the last battle in the culture wars," writes Buchal. "The rise of a totalitarian Leftist culture that rejects the First Amendment and permits no disagreement on fundamental political disputes threatens the end of American ideals. Their propaganda is simple, evil and wrong: they call any and all patriotism a form of bigotry."

Dueling rallies trade jeers on June 4. (Joe Michael Riedl)

He repeats his plan to hire Oath Keepers as security guards, and claims that protests by antifa are making Portland a dangerous place for conservatives. "Organized bands of masked thugs who call conservatives fascists or Nazis are rising rapidly within the city," he writes.

And Buchal says the Multnomah County GOP is running out of moneyas a direct result of left-wing intimidation.

"Most recently, we lost the restaurant venue where we were able to hold our membership meetings without rental fees," he writes, "because of the threat of Leftist violence."

Buchal tells WW he has yet to successfully recruit new active members from the protests or bring in money from the letter.

Buchal says he doesn't identify with the alt-right, or support protesters looking for a fight.

When asked about growing fears in Portland about the threat of violence from right-wing extremists and neo-Nazi groups, he said that was nonsense.

"Projection is a classic psychological phenomenon," he says. "In the city of Portland there's no cultural hostility toward Democrats, and I don't see any threats of violence against Democrats."

His letter says the June 4 rally, held in the wake of two murders on a MAX train allegedly committed by a white supremacist, offered "positive messages."

"We saw many young people who are sick and tired of being called racists and white supremacists for standing in support of Western civilization and cores conservative principles like the rule of law," he writes.

Street preachers hold the Christian flag at a right-wing free speech rally in Terry Schrunk Plaza on June 4, 2017. (Tom Berridge)

Read the original here:
Multnomah County Republicans Raise Funds By Alleging "Threats of Leftist Violence" - Willamette Week

The Democrats had pinned a lot of hopes on the special election in Georgias sixth congressional district. The seat, which was held by now Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, has been reliably Republican for years; it was the seat that Newt Gingrich held when he was in Congress. But Democrats thought that the high number of college-educated voters in the district made it ripe for capitalizing on uneasiness about President Trump.

Of course, that was wrong. But there was an ample sign that the district was never going to flip for a socially liberal candidate. And thats the districts history.

The districts encompasses the northern suburbs of Atlanta, including a chunk of Cobb County. In the early 1990s, Cobb County was one of the chief battlegrounds of the culture war. In 1993, the County Commissioners passed a resolution to openly and vigorously supports the current community standards and established state laws regarding gay lifestyles. The vote was greeted by Amens from the audience, and a pastor held a sign outside of the commission chambers that read Praise God for AIDS.

The vote resulted in a national controversy, but it was hardly a surprise. A portion of the interstate running through the county is named for a former John Birch Society leader. In the 1980s, the town of Kennesaw passed a resolution requiring all residents to own a gun. Even as the country expanded as Atlanta itself grew, the county maintained a distinctively conservative flavor.

The impact of the Cobb County resolution was more than symbolic, much to the countys detriment. As a sign of disapproval, the Olympic torch bypassed Cobb County on its way to the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, and the Olympic volleyball game was moved to a different venue.

Eventaully the county moved on to other issues, but it has never entirely rid itself of its homophobic past. The county commissioner race in 2012 replayed the issue, as one of the pro-resolution commissioners sought to return to office. (The former commissioner, Bill Byrne, said he regretted his vote, because he has a lesbian daughter. He lost anyway.) A state legislator from Cobb introduced a religious liberty bill last year that would have repealed conflicting laws, otherwise known as nondiscrimination protections.

In short, a good chunk of the sixth congressional district was never going to be fertile territory for a Democrat like Jon Ossoff. Moreover, Republicans did their best to tar Ossoff as a rabid liberal, tying him to Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco values.San Francisco loves them some Jon Ossoff, a man in one ad intoned.

Most of the media played these ads as tarnishing Ossoffs carefully cultivated moderate image. But the ads were also a dog whistle. For religious conservatives, San Francisco is synomous with all things gay. San Francisco has long been used by the religious right as shorthand for a modern-day Sodom, and we all know who put the sodomy in Sodom.

So utlimately, Ossoff was probably fighting a losing battle all along. (He wasnt an ideal candidate, but the winner, Karen Handel, was pretty inept herself.) Democrats will debate for months to come whether a different platform and different candidate could have convinced more voters to turn out. But the lesson of the election may be something entirely different: the culture wars are lingering, and they are still defining our political landscape.

Excerpt from:
The special election in Georgia shows that the culture warsand homophobiaaren't over yet - Queerty