Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian Baker: A Day in Court

In the TV series "The Story Keepers," Ben the Baker and his wife Helena faced the threat of persecution everyday as they shared the stories of Jesus Christ in Roman times.

Now, another Christian baker received a victory from the U.S. Supreme Court defending his First Amendment rights.

In a 7-2 decision earlier today, the justices ruled in favor of Colorado Baker Jack Phillips, who had refused to serve a homosexual couple who sought to buy a wedding cake from Phillips’ bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop. Their decision overturned a Colorado court ruling that stated Phillips discriminated against the couple in question.

The justices found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exercised anti-religious bias against Phillips when the commission ruled against him. Their decision means that the government can’t be hostile against a person’s religious beliefs.

However, the Supreme Court ruling stopped short of deciding whether a business—privately or commercially owned—can refuse service to LGBT couples.

Prior to the Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Philips faced death threats and persecution because he refused to go against his beliefs and values.

Now, my family owned a small business that sold educational products for children. We didn't care what our customers’ social, political or religious beliefs were. That wasn’t important. What we cared about was providing good quality service to every person who ordered from us or was interested in buying our business products.

But there has to be caution in this Supreme Court ruling.

Here's why: If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Colorado Civil Rights Commission, then that would have opened the door for other businesses and organizations (including colleges) to be sued on the basis of discrimination.

It wouldn’t matter what the organization’s reasons were. If someone thought they were discriminated against, then they could sue that organization or persons involved. Why limit it to sexual orientation? Anyone could make a case from their relative point of view if given the chance.

Then there's the issue of artistic expression. It isn't just artists (i.e. painters) that have that right. Anyone who creates any written or physical art is free to create whatever they want. This includes writers, photographers, artists, musicians, sculptors, and yes, bakers.

Artistic expression is important in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because the work an artist does reflects his or her personal beliefs.

For example, atheist Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" is full of the author's anti-Catholic bias. Do you really believe he would write a book that's pro-Catholic if someone offered to pay him to?

And why shouldn't Kathy Griffith or the people behind “Shakespeare In The Park” be sued by millions of Americans for portraying the death of President Donald Trump in their "creative" work? And not just sued, but condemned for their beliefs?

The battle over free speech and religious liberty will continue long after this case is decided. Small and privately owned businesses should be protected because they don’t have the resources a commercial enterprise does.

That’s something the United States and the Supreme Court will have to address going forward.