Christian Baker Supreme Court Case | Rapp Report Weekly 0015 | Striving for Eternity

June 2018 you will get $5 off. That's basically free shipping for the new book

What Do We Believe. Also we are giving away a preacher's Bible.

This is a $200 nice calfskin Bible. Thick paper so you take notes it doesn't bleed through.

It is a great Bible, New American Standard. How do you enter? Well follow Andrew Rappaport on Twitter, Striving for Eternity Ministries on Facebook and what you got to do to enter, go and write a review on iTunes.

The link is in the show notes. Write a review for us on iTunes or email us at info at striving for eternity dot o -r -g and tell us what you like about the podcast, what you don't.

Basically send us a review, what you think about it. Also you can send us topic ideas. That will get you an entry into the contest and make sure to share the

Rappaport. Make sure you're subscribed also by the way, but share it with your friends, encourage them to subscribe. We thank you very much.

Welcome to The Rappaport with Andrew Rappaport where we provide biblical interpretations and applications.

This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian podcast community. For more content or to request a speaker for your church go to strivingforeternity .org.

All right well welcome to another Rappaport. This time, this week I should say, we are going to deal with a little bit of a sensitive issue.

An issue that has been in the news and it is often referred to as the

Colorado Baker case that went to the Supreme Court. Now before we do that we do,

I just want to reach out. There's a podcast out there called Theology Driven. Let me let them introduce themselves real quick.

Welcome to Theology Driven, a weekly mobile podcast in which we explore the open road of life through a biblical lens.

Now it seems that they're they're kind of decided that they're gonna call me out a little bit and we're gonna we're gonna address that but you know they talk serious stuff on their podcast.

Let's let's listen to them talk about well coffee. This is the first time I've had coffee from Zambia and it is

Zambia. It's Zambia bro. Says you. How do you know it's not a soft egg?

Because I've heard everyone, I've heard Vodibachan pronounce it. I've heard Conrad pronounce it.

Vod has got some. Vodi just has a heavy thick voice. James can't even pronounce

Bacchus. Raise your hand if you've been to Zambia. Okay Vodi wins.

So okay they do actually talk some very good theology and serious stuff but they called me out because I did post something that about last week's episode and here's what they said and I'm just gonna address this really quick before we get into our serious content.

Now apparently Andrew Rappaport is giving us a hard time. He teased about it on Twitter but the show hasn't dropped yet so I saw

I don't know what that's all about. He's blaming whatever it was on Chris from Voice of Reason but I don't know

Andrew if you're lumping in with those guys that's that's scary. I think

Chris was on Andrew's show is that right? Yeah that's what it sounds like I guess I guess I guess

Chris was driving. They decided to do a theology mockumentary episode.

So they were driving huh? Interesting. That sounds uh they really do a mockumentary of us?

I don't know we don't know what it is yet because so Andrew Rappaport tweeted I guess this morning or late last night or something he said whatever you know he tagged theology driven and then he said you know it's not my fault

Chris made me throw you under the bus whatever so we don't even know what it is yet. I'm sure it'll be funny.

Hey all I can say is hey Andrew hey listen up buddy we're coming for you all right no matter where you go no matter where you sleep no matter who's there we will find you all right or at least drive near your vicinity.

That's a threat. Yeah we're gonna we're gonna drive we're gonna drive somewhere in the vicinity of New Jersey and we're gonna and we're gonna do an episode about New Jersey.

Well can we just drive on the outskirts cuz I really don't want to go in New Jersey. Yeah I've been there

I've been in New Jersey and no thanks. It's cool though it's it's New Jersey's very similar to a third world country.

Well guys listen if you want to come to New Jersey and find me the challenge is there I mean just remember you know we do things different here in Jersey we may not be allowed to carry weapons you know like you know we have real strict gun control laws but if you want to come after us

I mean it's hard to get out of the state we have special shoes for you they're cement shoes so if you don't mind sleeping with the fishes

I mean you could drive in I just don't know that you're gonna drive back out. I actually he was joking about third world country but actually

I was I was interviewed or introduced when I went to speak at a church and he introduced me as a missionary to the country of New Jersey so he had been a pastor in New Jersey so what we'd like to do is today deal with this court ruling and I have with me

Michael Laffey and you're from Messina Law and you do so you're back you are a that's correct and actually you you teach law business law at my alma mater so we have that in common at least

I didn't wasn't under you when you were teaching there so you're not that old. No.

So real quick give us your background and and so folks can know who you are and a little bit about what the the type of law you do and what

Messina Law practices. Sure I mean my basic practice is a general practice for businesses and nonprofits.

We provide a few full range of legal services for those types of entities but I also do a lot of practice in constitutional law especially with regards to the

First Amendment. I represent the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the state of New Jersey.

I've worked with and provided and had training with the Alliance Defending Freedom and I've worked with a variety of national organizations on free speech and freedom of religion issues.

Free speech that's never an issue with for Christians is it? Unfortunately it is often.

As someone who does I do a lot of street ministry and I do a lot of open -air evangelism and so freedom speech issues come up often and one of the things that actually it is kind of interesting because we usually find out that some of the street preachers know the

First Amendment a little bit better than most police officers it seems. Yes that's probably correct and I have represented a number of street preachers in municipal courts.

Yeah we had in Seaside Heights we have a one police officer he's a Jehovah Witness and it's very interesting every year he gives us a hard time like you know we'll have a group of people in different areas and I'm like oh no you all have to be together you have to be in one area sharing handing out tracts and things like that and it's like what law is that and you know it's just interesting and then we'll call the captain the captain will say you know you can you can continue doing it and but it's interesting that like each year we go through that.

It's not unusual. So this we have this case this was seen as a big case for Christians early on this case of the baker in Colorado who refused to make a specialized cake for a homosexual couple for a same -sex wedding he offered them other cakes from what

I understand he offered to to any of the other non specialized cakes where he wasn't using his his artistic expertise to specifically do this wedding and he and he said that he doesn't do

Halloween cakes and he doesn't do many other types of cakes and part of the thing is also that he goes to weddings and so you know

Brick cuts the cake even sometimes for them and with them and to celebrate with them and he didn't feel he could do that with this one and he got sued and it well made it all the way to the

Supreme Court. Yes. And the thing you know could you give us kind of an overview of legally what this case was about and what were the issues that came up?

Well you know you're right Jack was a Jack was the owner that was his name he was a

Jack Phillips very religious man a lot of different cakes that he won't make he won't make

Halloween cakes he won't make any cakes that denigrate or mock God he has he's refused to make cakes with homophobe but what he views as homophobic statements on them and he explained to these people very clearly that you know look it would violate my religious beliefs my conscience to make you a cake celebrating a gay wedding

I'll sell you any baked goods you want from my store I'll give you names of other bakers who custom make a cake for you you know

I just can't do that for you. That they were not happy with that answer and they filed a complaint with him and the complaint started at the

Colorado Civil Rights Commission where they held a hearing and he lost.

He appealed it all the way through kept losing took it to federal court

Supreme Court decided to hear it and he did win at the

Supreme Court level. Now did he my understanding though is when they went to the Supreme Court they had a choice between arguing for freedom of religion or freedom of speech and he argued for freedom of speech or his lawyers argued for freedom of speech.

That's correct and and that's because the and they they always do make all the arguments so the the freedom of religion argument was in their briefs but the the key argument was freedom of speech and there's a very important reason for that so let me give you a little historical context for why that was done.

Originally if you objected to a law to obeying a law because of your religious beliefs the the law was that the state had to show that they had there was a compelling government interest at stake and that this law was the least restrictive way that they could accomplish that okay if they couldn't show those two things your religious beliefs would excuse you with complying from the law.

In the 90s there was a case employment division versus Smith and it dealt with a gentleman who was denied unemployment benefits because he was fired from his job from taking drugs.

The drugs he took were peyote and they were he was a member of the Native American Church and peyote is a sacrament in that church and that reached the

Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said no no this is an unworkable law the way we've been interpreting it and came up with a new standard and the decision was written by Justice Scalia the late

Justice Scalia and it basically said if if it's a law of if it's a neutral law of general applicability okay in other words it's not targeted at the religious belief then you can't object to it you have to obey it.

The other way you could get around is it if it was enforced in a discriminatory manner that would also be impermissible.

It's interesting to note that this decision was widely criticized by people on both ends of the political spectrum.

It was a very unpopular decision as a result the government passed a

RIFRA law that stands for Religious Freedom Restoration Act and and they applied it to the states which reinstated the old standard well that went to the

Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said federal government you can put that standard on yourself but you don't have any right to force that standard on the states.

The court did allow them to do to do some limited imposition on the state and that resulted in a law we call

RLUPA which just applies to zoning decisions and rules that apply to institutionalized persons prisoners okay so they can still in those two instances the old standard still applies.

The states so a lot of states passed RIFRA laws on their own but not all.

After gay marriage became an issue all of a sudden that became more difficult to do.

That's what happened with the law in Indiana. Indiana was trying to pass one of those and because of political pressure from people who supported gay marriage

Governor Pence at the time now vice president vetoed that because of the political pressure that was being put on the state of Indiana but it's interesting to note that at one time everybody agreed that those laws were were a good thing.

So this non -discrimination law is a law a neutral law of general applicability which would make the freedom of religion argument seem to be a very difficult one to make and that's why they went with the free speech issue.

And because they thought the free speech was going to be an easier one to win the case. That's correct. So they weren't and this is thing

I think some Christians need to understand that when you go before the Supreme Court as a lawyer you're looking to win a case not necessarily make a political statement or make a religious win.

They have a purpose of winning the case. That's correct. So do you think because there's been a lot of discussion on whether this was a a win for religious rights and or not because it wasn't fought over the religious issue as much as it was a freedom of speech issue.

Do you think this was a win for religious rights? Well I do and there's a couple of reasons for that.

One of which is the court didn't decide it on the freedom of speech issue. They kicked that can down the road and and I look that's a very important right also for Christians and we shouldn't minimize that that if they had determined it on the freedom of speech issue that would have been a clear win for for everyone including

Christians. But what the court did instead is they looked at what

Colorado had done and what the Civil Rights Commission had done and they looked at the statements that the commissioners made during the hearing and they looked at the fact that there were other cases where a gentleman had asked bakers to make a cake that had a religious statement on it that was anti -homosexual and he was refused and he argued well they were discriminating against me because of my religious beliefs and the in those cases the bakers won.

So looking at those two things and the fact that the Colorado commissioners a couple of them had made very disparaging remarks about Jack's religious beliefs the court held that these laws were being enforced in a discriminatory manner in Jack's case and that's why

Jack won. I remember after that when this case actually started and he first got in trouble or first you know they if this lawsuit started there was someone that went into 13 different Muslim owned bakeries with hidden camera asking to make a same -sex wedding cake and he was chased out of most of them one literally chased out by a broom.

The Muslim owner told him to get out he didn't leave right away the guy grabbed the broom and chased him out and it was interesting just to show how there does seem to be a double standard that we're seeing in our country with with Christians right now.

Well I don't know if those cases were brought to the commission and how the commission would have dealt with them and you know these were secular bakeries that this this gentleman went to asking for religious cake.

But but those were also within the the same Commission right? Yes. And so I mean in that case there there is a here someone that's for religious reasons is being denied.

Right. Where someone else is being sued because he he and he and part of the thing was he didn't say okay

I'm not giving you anything I'm denying you all service. That would have been discriminatory.

But in this case he just said I'm not gonna I'm not gonna exercise my freedom of expression to something and add my artistic ability to something

I disagree with religiously. Right so as the decision came down it was it was 7 -2.

Yeah. So five of the justices found both justifications not only the the denial of these other cakes but the discriminatory statements made during the hearing as evidence of discriminatory intent.

Two of the seven justices relied just on the statements of the commissioners and they felt that the cakes in the other cases were a different situation and that the commission was right in that instance to hold that those cakes could be denied.

So there was a concurring decision by two of the justices Breyer and Kagan but really what you had the seven majority on was the issue that these comments by the commissioner poisoned the well so to speak.

Yeah and and you said some of this they kicked down kick the can down the road. Yes. And so we're still gonna be dealing with this issue

I think. Oh yes we are. I mean Justice Kennedy said a lot of things and that left the door open but we're not sure how wide the door was left open.

So if you'd like I can read a few statements from the case. So the laws and the

Constitution can in some instances and in some instances must protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage or protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.

While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons and inquire in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker's refusal to provide service.

If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning, that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.

In defining whether a baker's creation can be protected these details might make a difference.

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim, a baker's refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but include certain religious words or symbols on it, are just three examples of possibilities that all but seem endless.

And so that one there is basically the issue that was brought up right because he did offer them other cakes, in this case he offered him other cakes, he offered him other people they could go to, he didn't deny them service outright.

Right. But he just wasn't gonna make a specialized cake. That's correct and so there's language in this case that that kind of tries to I guess you could say soothe both sides of the argument but it kind of it does and it gives both sides something to hang their hat on.

So a lot of this is still up in the air what's gonna happen with the next case and I think

I think the Supreme Court did this intentionally that way. You know

I think they wanted to first of all word the case in a way that they could get the most justices to agree on this issue.

I think that Kennedy was trying to promote some understanding between the opposing camps.

Do I think that that's going to work? No. I think we're going to see more of these cases and I think we're going to see you know that the court's going to have to wrestle with some of these issues.

And look there's a lot of politics in how the court decides cases. They want to get as many people to agree to a decision as they possibly can.

They want as much agreement as they can possibly get and for that reason they often decide cases like this one very narrowly.

They feel that that makes the decisions less contentious and they feel that it protects the integrity of the court to do it that way.

Yeah and they get to pick which cases they're gonna hear. Yes. Which does affect things. It does.

I had previously interviewed J. Warner Wallace. I don't know if you know who he is.

He was a cold case detective for 20 years. Yes I'm familiar with his book. The joke that you know we kind of had was he's never lost a case which sounds really great until you realize that on cold cases they only take the cases that they have good evidence and know pretty much are gonna win.

So it's really it's it sounds really impressive and he's like yeah but they really only take cases they're really sure they know the outcome that you know they want the out they know the outcome is gonna win and they take that.

And often the you know a judge will will vote to deny what they call cert to hear a case because they realize that they don't have enough votes to get the outcome that they want.

Yeah. So there is a little bit of politics and not just straight law all the time. Oh there's politics in everything.

Unfortunately. Yeah there was a case and I don't I don't remember all the details so I don't even remember which state it is and I don't even know if it's been settled.

I remember there was a case where two women had gotten married they went to a jeweler and had rings made they even wrote a very nice review of the jeweler and sometime after they got back from their honeymoon they had gone in the store and they saw a sign in the store that was encouraging people to vote for a traditional definition of marriage which was on the ballot and the two ladies had claimed that they they felt that tainted their rings and they sued him wanting the money back for the rings and mind you they wanted to keep the rings but they wanted the money back because they felt his sign tainted their whole wedding after the fact and I remember hearing about this because he his argument was look they even wrote a great review it's

I didn't deny them any service whatsoever and I think that they had the last

I had heard I think he had lost that but it was it was being appealed but I didn't hear more what that is but I think we're gonna see more things like that oh yeah and there's there's already cases knocking around I mean there's the

Baronelle case out of Washington State which involves a florist who was in the same position as Jack in that case they're hoping that the

Supreme Court will take that case it's on their docket to consider whether or not they're going to hear her case she lost at the state of Washington and if the

Supreme Court doesn't take her case my understanding is that she's likely to be put out of business you know is that the case where if I'm thinking the same one where she actually she did even hire people that were practice homosexuality oh yeah she she had homosexuals working for she'd made flowers for this guy in the past she said she would continue to make flowers for them she just said as Jack did

I can't use my artistic talents my God -given artistic talents to celebrate something that I believe goes against God's will and you know she was taken to court by the state of Washington in this case for that and has lost every step of the way in Washington and now her only hope is that the

Supreme Court takes her case and you know the Supreme Court's going again have to struggle with some of these issues now did she did she have to shut down her business yet or she sold she's still in business at this point yes now did

Jack he was being fined or something yeah he was he was fined he had to attend non -discrimination classes or what

I would call you know re -education classes but he did stop selling wedding cakes to anyone so that he wouldn't be put in this position which obviously hurts his business yeah and is he still doing that then he's still not doing any wedding cakes

I don't know since this decision came out what has happened with him and you're saying re -education so my background being

Jewish having grown up a generation after the Holocaust you we would go through in Hebrew school and we would end up having where we basically relive the

Holocaust often I mean we would be taught about it the the teachers didn't want us to ever forget and it's hard for some

Christians to understand I tell people I remember I remember the the teachers lining all the kids up I was maybe at the time 10 years old 11 years old and they lined all of us up and the one teacher just did like a machine gun went through and she's like that's what

Jesus Christ the Christian God would do to you and that's I was that was how I grew up thinking Jesus Christ wasn't exactly someone

I was in year two but but it was a thing always what amazed me about the

Holocaust and even to this day I read anything I can get on it is even within these countries where the

Germans were executing Jewish people the citizens just couldn't believe it was happening they put it out of mind oh we're too civilized that was the phrase that always amazed me the

Germans were like we're too civilized for this to be happening and it was this slow progression of events where first the

Jews weren't allowed to practice law they weren't allowed to be in political office they couldn't be teachers any anything that influenced the next generation and we're seeing that a little bit even

Bernie Sanders had publicly stated that someone couldn't shouldn't be qualified for public office because he thinks

Islam is wrong even though Islam would think Christianity is wrong but you know it's like just we don't look at that and it was like okay can't be in public office there's people that are being told they can't they they shouldn't be able to practice law if they don't accept same -sex marriages and it's this slow progression that I see it really mimics what happened in Nazi Germany and it was a re -education that was it was everyone had to you had to carry or you know keep the the party line or you were in trouble well and that's one of the that's probably the most helpful thing about this case is if you have had a good majority of the justices sign on to an opinion that says you can't denigrate the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman you know that's a protected view and and I think it's very important that the court did state that and that is probably the most important thing that's come out of this case for Christians yeah yeah

I mean I think I don't think this is gonna be end of it though as you had said no no I mean there's already been a case out of Arizona that was decided after this case involving wedding invitations people who make wedding invitations who challenged

Arizona's non -discrimination law they did what's called a pre -enforcement action you know in other words you shoot they sued before the hammer was dropped on them and the

Arizona Appeals Court has said no no no this situation is different than Colorado and they hung their hat on the language in the case that favors their view mm -hmm to find that you know the state of Arizona can you know force you to make invitations for a gay wedding you know it's an interesting thing because I think the law is supposed to try to be fair to all people and and one of the things

I think people don't usually think about they talk morality law is morality

I mean you're saying this is right and this is wrong so it is the it is the instituting of a moral system and if we're gonna say something's right and wrong we it has to be you know what at least we believe it should be fair to all and I think in what we're seeing is there seems to be and I'm trying to generalize so it's not gonna be in all cases but there seems to be an intolerance of people who practice homosexuality who are pushing that agenda

I would last week or weekend weekend before was in Ohio and we're we do a conference there every year and we've been doing it for eight years and this is the first year that happened to fall on the day where they had a gay pride parade now the parade ended at three o 'clock and we went out there at about five o 'clock so we were there after the the event but just us being there and one lady even said the fact that I was standing there with a

Bible in my hand was offensive and meant that I shouldn't be there and that the only reason

I was there was for their gay pride parade and and I was like we've been coming here for eight years seven of those years we never had that we come to the same place to evangelize in all those years and the thing that really struck me is how intolerant they all seemed that they just got done having a parade to publicly show their views and yet me standing there with a

Bible had to be stopped there's no question that that the

Christian viewpoint on homosexuality is viewed by the homosexuals and and their their allies as despicable and that you know it's not good enough for them to have gained the rights that they have gained but they want to eradicate any any thought that homosexuality is not moral yeah it's clear that that that that is the eventual goal it's it's it's really the intolerance from the tolerant crowd right

I mean they're the ones asking for tolerance it was interesting because I was open -air evangelizing for two or three hours and there were others there as well that were doing it before so we were there for a couple of several hours but I had four people come up to me afterwards to apologize for their behavior in the way they were speaking to me when

I was doing the open -air once I stopped they want to come over privately and apologize and it was interesting because one thing that I kept bringing up over and over again

I purposely did not bring up the issue of homosexuality because I realized there be a bunch of people that were still there from the parade and I don't need to they kept bringing it up and I kept pointing out wait a minute

I'm not bringing this issue up you are I'm not judging you I'm asking you if you ever lied and I'm look that's

God's standard we shouldn't lie we shouldn't steal we shouldn't murder right I'm just giving you what

God's standard is I'm not judging you I'm letting you judge yourself and it was interesting how over and over again

I kept having to point out that they were being intolerant of my views and that if you know

I even said to one of them I said look do you want people to be tolerant of you and she said yes and I said well don't you think then you of all people should be tolerant of other people's views as you like not if they disagree with mine it was like well there you go

I mean I said I'm tolerant of you I'm not telling you how you have to live I'm just telling you that you're gonna be accountable for how you have to live but I'm saying that to the person who lies the person who cheats the person who commits adultery person who murders all of us are gonna have to be accountable to God for how we behave and and that's why the free speech component of this case was was also very important and you know that one of the things that was made clear in your arguments is that look we're not saying that anybody can refuse to serve someone just because they're gay you can't refuse to serve them in a diner you can't refuse to you know serve them in your store we we agree that that it's the law and that that law is constitutional what we're saying is that you can't force people to use their expressive gifts their artistic gifts to affirm a message that we disagree with that's all we want is the right to to disagree and not be forced to accept your viewpoint it was interesting

I think just this week the CEO of Twitter was shamed into apologizing because he went to a

Chick -fil -a yes and it's like Chick -fil -a is a restaurant they serve food if he happens to like the food but but this seems to be the bullying tactic that we've seen over and over you know threatening the

NFL if they don't allow anyone to use whatever bathrooms they want you know threatening states with with economic reprisals it's just it to me it seems like a bullying tactic that is being played over and over well

I agree I mean I think it's very sad day for America when you know you not only can't eat at a restaurant because you might disagree with the viewpoint of the owner or the person who runs the business but it goes even beyond that is if that somebody does eat there that person also deserves to be shamed so I it's just it really is a sad day for this country that we've come to that yeah and I'm gonna play a commercial and after that I'm gonna tell you about case well it's not case because they didn't sue but what happened when it was reversed and there was

Christians who were denied service or actually kicked out of a place because the owner was homosexual ding -dong

Jehovah's Witnesses ding -dong Mormons Christian are you ready to defend the faith when false religions ring your doorbell do you know what your

Muslim and Jewish friends believe you will if you get Andrew Rappaport's book what do they believe when we witness to people we need to present the truth but it is very wise to know what they believe and you will get

Andrew Rappaport's book at what do they believe dot -com can you prove that God is a

Trinity can you prove that Jesus is God can you defend the Christian faith and what is it that Christians truly believe the new book by Andrew Rappaport what do we believe will answer those questions and more some people just don't understand what the church is today but this book will go through the history and meaning of the church and what's more important than to understand man's sinfulness and God's salvation get your copy at what do we believe book .com

or at the striving for eternity org store so there was a group that is very active in in the abortion ministry

I don't actually agree with this group I actually think they're a cult but but nonetheless

I think they have the right to hand out their literature as they were doing they came into a coffee shop and in the coffee shop they ordered their coffee they went upstairs where the coffee shop has a place for people to sit and talk and they were kind of just debriefing just relaxing after a day of ministry and they weren't handing out any literature and all of a sudden the owner looked had seen their shirts and realized it was the same group that was handing out the leaflets outside of the store and he came up to kick them out and they actually started recording and they they said you know have we handed out any literature in your store he said no have we have we disturbed your clientele in any way no you know have we brought up our religious views or any views you know he's and he said

I I don't want you in my establishment because of your views and then he was started to talk about you know would you be okay if I did certain things with my boyfriend in front of you which was really the intolerance he's trying to force it his view on them and yet tell them that they're being intolerant and they ended up leaving but it was just interesting how when the tables were turned there was no media on that they couldn't get any media to even look at that and pick that up and say wait this is sort of a discrimination case where they were actually kicked out specifically because their beliefs on abortion where did this happen what's the

I forget what I think it might have been Texas I'd have to double -check well they they should have sued for religious discrimination yeah they're the way they are they

I don't know if they did or not I doubt it just knowing that organization but they they were more prime they might do it if they think they'll get more publicity they're very big into publicity but but it is a thing where in their case it was there because it was able to identify the shirts they're wearing with things like with the leaflets but I do think that there are times where Christians are are starting to feel a little bit more and more of this you know basically the suppression of our culture to say hey almost

I kind of think of this as the reverse of where we were in the 70s and 80s where when homosexuality was supposedly it was you were in the closet and you know it was it was something to be hidden and it was something where the way we'd hear about it is hey we just want the right you know to do we want our bedrooms you why should you bother us with what we do in our own bedrooms that was the argument and people said yeah but you won't stay in the bedrooms and they haven't and the gay pride parades were some of the arguments bill made to say see you're not staying in the bedrooms and it went from I recently was teaching how to evangelize people of the practice homosexuality and one of the things

I said is that they view homosexuality son that was a cross that or sorry was a curse that became a cross to bear but now they see it as a crown to be celebrated and they want all of us to celebrate it but it's not just the celebration of it it's almost as if that now where they say they were in the bedrooms now they want to shove us and say you got to only be in the church you can't be in the public square save that for the church reserve that there like we can't go out in public or you know

I was wearing a religious t -shirt and someone came up to me and had said you really shouldn't wear that in public

I was you know just in a story you know picking up some coffee and it was like you know you shouldn't wear that public you should reserve that for the church

I haven't even said anything my shirt was what said it but it seems like they've come out of the closet now they want to put us in it yeah and and let's be clear it's not just people who practice homosexuality it's it's people who are atheists and and you know various other groups who are who in essence feel threatened by Christianity and yes they would like to see us pushed out of the public square why do you think that is why do you think

Christianity out of all religions or all views they'd want to do that with well

I think it because at one time it was the most powerful religion in the

United States and it has had a huge influence on the culture and and a culture that they don't agree with and that's why they view it as as something that needs to be suppressed

I think it also is it makes them guilty you know it makes them feel guilty they know that you know it says they're wrong right

I mean even Hitler he he ended up creating his own Christianity he created his own Bible so it was like biblical

Christianity was outlawed but he still wanted to use it mm -hmm that was actually one of things that struck me at this gay pride parade how many of the people practicing homosexuality told me they were

Christian or they grew up Christian that was heartbreaking you know I think a lot of them having after talking with him

I think a lot of them were reacting to their Christian upbringing or their parents and like this was the the best way to rebel against their parents in the most extreme way but it is something where I look at this and looking at this specifically this case

I don't know that this is a win for religious rights as much as some

Christians are trying to make it well as I say it's it's it's really it's really hard to say what's gonna happen in the future based on this case but the case has set forth some propositions that are very helpful to our arguments and and we so you have seven justices not not all of them conservatives who have signed on to an opinion that that says hey you know people have a right to this viewpoint and and you have to treat this viewpoint like with respect like you should treat all viewpoints so I think in that respect it's very helpful

I mean it's always a win when when a believer is is allowed to follow his conscience you know

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that you know sort of chastise the rest of the court for ignoring the free speech issue and did a very good job of laying out why that free issue should have free speech issue should have been decided in this case and decided in favor of the

Baker and and Justice Kennedy is the one who wrote the the

I guess the majority argument right yes and he's but he's also what had written the one that that legalized same -sex marriage a lot of people bringing that up yes and you know

Justice Kennedy said when he wrote Obergefell that you know this doesn't mean that people who disagree with this have an illegitimate viewpoint and he's stuck to that so you know that's that's helpful but as I said we're not still not you can never be sure exactly where everybody is on these issues it's going to depend on depend on the facts of the cases that come before the court unfortunately

I'm not sure we're ever going to get a bright line rule I think a bright line rule would have gotten some people angry but eventually would have been the best thing to happen now what is a bright line rule well if for instance they had decided that you know they given set for the rule that would have governed in in every case that came after this so for instance if they had adopted judge

Thomas's reasoning that look this is you know or anything artistic that you're doing is speech and you have a right to say no

I'm not going to use my artistic talents to communicate a message

I disagree with and that that that does not violate the anti -discrimination laws that would have been a bright line rule and that's what he's advocating and you know

I mean speech is more than just words that's clear

I mean the Supreme Court as Justice Thomas points out has found that nude dancing is an expressive activity that gets

First Amendment protection well if nude dancing gets First Amendment protection why shouldn't artistic cakes or a person who does artistic flower design or uses their artistic talents to design wedding invitations you know these are clearly expressive activities and people should not be forced to to express in an opinion that they disagree with and that is what we're arguing is happening in these cases is that these people are being forced to use their talents to express a an idea that they not only disagree with but that violates their conscience yeah and and this is

I mean I really think where we're headed unfortunately as a culture is we have a group of people that in their mob mentality are trying to force their view on everybody while arguing that they people need to be tolerant of them which is just it's just an interesting

I remember reading the book 1984 and one of the things that struck me as being completely ridiculous was the idea of I believe he caught was called doublespeak where words would have totally different meaning opposite meanings in some cases but if this is what the government said this is the new meaning everyone had to adopt it and I was like that would never happen now we have you you know a teacher just recently a

Christian teacher who had been I guess he he resigned and then tried to get his job back but then fired because he wouldn't refer to a student by the name that by the pronoun that they wanted and to avoid that he he referred to him by their last name so he didn't use a pronoun at all but even that was offensive supposedly and disrespectful because the student want to be recognized a certain way and it's just interesting how now the culture is deciding no everyone has to sit you know things like a boy and a girl

I mean these are scientific things this is biology right and and yet now it's like all that language tossed out all these things that seem like such common sense and we're it's really like 1984 it really you know he was ahead of his time it really can happen well

I mean look we we are never all going to agree on these issues in a lot of other issues but what we should be able to disagree on is that everyone agree on is that everyone has the right to disagree and and even people that disagree with us should should understand that you know when when cases like this are decided against the individual you're giving the power the government a power that could come back and bite you one day that you could be forced to violate your conscience and and the people that that oppose this need to think about that yeah it was interesting

I was in I was doing some evangelism open -air evangelism in Union Square in New York City during the time when we had the the

Occupy Wall Street movement and it was very interesting because they were probably the most aggressive people

I've ever tried to evangelize until this gay pride parade but the interesting thing with them is that one of the guys ended up saying you know because they were trying to call the police on us and have us shut down and and try to stop us from being able to share the gospel and one of one of their own people said look if you denied them their freedom of speech to say what they believe you'll end up denying us that same freedom because once you remove freedom of speech it goes by who's ever in control of that speech who's ever controlling what you're allowed to say that gets to decide and he was trying to say that to his own folks there if you deny them their freedom of speech that could turn around and remove ours that's absolutely right yeah so let's play a commercial here and I want to get back to how this has been represented in the media looking for strategies that will help you engage in meaningful conversations with members of the

Mormon Church well if so take a look at sharing the good news with Mormons a new book produced by Harvest House publishers and edited by Mormonism Research Ministries Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell sharing the good news with Mormons includes 24 helpful essays from two dozen

Christian apologists scholars and pastors pick up your copy at the Utah Lighthouse bookstore or order directly from mrm .org

and you can also get that at striving for eternity org go to the store I do have a chapter in that book on open -air evangelism there's 24 different authors 24 different tactics and ways to reach out specifically to Mormons but a lot of those tactics work for for everyone

I mean there's my buddy Matt slick has a chapter on the reliability of scripture that works for atheists

Mormons alike but there's many tactics in there that if you want to evangelize you can pick up a lot of things in there and learn different ways to evangelize different people and so it's a privilege to be part of that we will be that book was was we rushed that book through the publisher to have it ready for Manti and if you're in the area of Utah next week actually this week from when this drops

I'll be at Manti miracle pageant with a bunch of other Christians we have a conference going on there and we're going to be evangelizing the thousands of Mormons that go to that pageant so you can be praying for us if you can't make it there

Mike let me ask you this one of the things I picked up when I first saw the the announcement of this court case was the phrase that kept being said that it was a narrow decision and now

I immediately picked up on that because I know when the the I'm trying to remember the name now that the same -sex marriage over fell over fell the

Oberfeld decision it was it was said in the media that was a majority or overwhelming majority and it was essentially how they they referred to as an you know when it was a case that the media wanted it's overwhelming or it's a majority decision now this was a narrow decision but it's not narrow in the voting right

I mean the Oberfeld decision was a 5 -4 vote where this was a 7 -2 vote we would think that seems like a larger difference for this one more of a majority voted you know in this one for the

Baker in Colorado but people are the media is using the word narrow in it specifically in the way this court case was done differently the way that people when they just read the headlines is understanding it

I hadn't noticed that I guess it kind of depends on what what media you look at but why even noticed it in Fox News mentioned it was interesting because they said in one paragraph in a 7 -2 decision and the very next paragraph they just said it was a narrow decision well yeah

I mean it and I guess there are two ways to look at narrow I mean narrow is you know a 5 -4 decision is a narrow vote you know the reason in this case they got a 7 -2 was because they decided it on a very narrow issue yes so like you know

I guess the two different ways you can use that word narrow when you're talking about the Supreme Court properly used here the narrow is not speaking of the the number of votes one way or the other right actually we have a very you know

I mean seven is a large majority yeah I don't remember seeing too many Supreme Court cases that came out with seven well there used to be a lot of them years ago but you know since I guess the 90s where the courts been much more divided so there's been many more 5 -4 decisions which is why

Justice Kennedy has so much power because he's the guy who usually goes one way or the other and in a lot of these cases he's the deciding vote yeah and I don't know maybe

I'm wrong on this maybe it's just that you know all people usually think history starts with their birth but it just seems like the the

Supreme Court's become more politicized now than in the past maybe it's just I pay attention to it more now

I mean you didn't when I was younger you go back to the Roosevelt Court well okay you know that was that was very divided you know he even tried to pack the to pack that by adding a couple more justices you know and it's true but there have been long series of years where the court has been more coherent one way or the other but yes since since I mean it's

I think it started in the 70s with the with the Berger court where the decisions started to get more narrow not narrowly decided but the votes became much more narrow and it's just gotten worse and worse and you know that all boils down to though a fundamental difference between the two wings of interpretation how things should be interpreted and that's really what drives the division in the court more than anything else do you think because as we try to wrap up do you think there's anything specific or anything you want to share with folks anything that you think is important from this case for Christians to be aware of you know

I I think that Christians should take heart that the court has said that your views are entitled to respect and that the government especially in in adjudicating your claims has to treat those viewpoints with respect and and I think the other takeaway from this is that you know you have to stand up for your rights and and when your rights are violated you have to be ready to go to court to defend those rights and you know sometimes you'll lose and sometimes you'll win but if if you don't even get in the ring then you're definitely gonna lose yeah you can't you can't win if you don't get in the game right so so I know you probably don't listen to the rap report podcast regularly but I'm gonna ask you to play a game with me but don't worry all the pressure is on me and not you so for folks who know this game spiritual transition game so this is a game where the way we play this is you're gonna give me something from the natural world and I am going to have to transition live to the spiritual so whatever you give me

I have to somehow take whatever you give me and transition to the gospel the reason we play this game is a lot of Christians find it easier to share the gospel when the conversation gets into the spiritual realm the trouble that many have is how to transition there and so we play this game to try to help people realize that with practice we can all transition from almost anything to from the natural world to the spiritual world so give me anything on your mind and we'll see how

I do vegetable gardening now this one's actually an easy one for me because I actually do vegetable gardening and there's one thing about vegetable gardening that as long as you don't have a patio garden that is that drives me nuts and that is the weeds there's something about the weeds weeds if you do any weeding you have to keep on top of that you you know it's not the sort of thing that you can let it go now

I do a lot speaking in the summer one year I had great tomatoes they were looking great until I went away for two weeks and the weeds overtook the garden in two weeks and my tomatoes were gone weeds are a thing where you can't just grab them and yank them out because then the roots you know are still there and they actually grow deeper and now you have more of a problem because they're they have a better foundation they're deeper rooted in the ground you have to go almost grab them individually and pull them out from the root one by one and you guys stay on top of that I whenever I'm doing that it always is an illustration of me as something else and that's the illustration in my life of sin the fact that it's something that everyone struggles with and it's just you have to stay on top of that you can't just say okay

I'm just gonna ignore it at a big level you have to deal with individual things and pull it out from its roots and get it at the root of it and deal with it there not just at the at the consequence level and and most people want to deal with the consequence like as long as I don't see the weeds they're not really there meanwhile their root system is getting a firm foundation sin does the same thing with us we if we don't if we don't dig it out from the root it may we may not see that at the surface level because we've got rid of the consequences but it's still there and the the biggest thing about sin is there's a consequence to sin and that's eternal damnation that there's actually a

God who we're gonna be accountable to but you know what that God has a remedy for sin he himself came to earth dine on a cross as a payment of sin that we could be set for he actually paid the fine that we owe and we could actually be forgiven and have mercy that's how

I guess I would transition quickly from a vegetable garden to to the gospel and and folks listening you may have a different way of doing it but practice that and you won't find it difficult to share the gospel at different times so how

Mike how can folks get in touch with you if they if they end up having issues maybe maybe they're out evangelizing then they first amendment issues come up how can people get a hold of you you know to get legal counsel and advice if they have a case that's coming up well my email address is em

Laffey that's la FF is in at Messina law firm calm and my cell phone number 7 3 2 6 4 2 6 7 8 4 okay and I'll put

I'll put the email in the show notes so you'll be able to get that there and you know you you've taken a number of different types of cases but you defend

Christians quite often yes and you know you do you work for or do you do cases for the

American Alliance yes I've been local council present them on a number of cases the most notable one was the

Ocean Grove case where Ocean Grove was sued for not allowing a gay wedding on their pavilion but I've also received training from them and they've helped me with some other cases that I've handled on my own

I've also done work with some other organizations over the years the Rutherford Institute I've done a little work with I've done a little work with the

Pacific Justice so Jay Sekulow's organization

I did a little work with years ago so I've been doing this now since about 2000 for about 17 years it's to me it's the enjoyable part of my practice

I enjoy dealing with these issues wrestling with them so please if you feel you've been discriminated against contact me yes and I think more more and more

Christians are going to need to reach out to legal counsel for different issues and you know it's it's a blessing knowing there are

Christians that are practicing law and can help and defend other Christians you know not just to be fair with what the law is but knowing that we have someone that we agree with and will spend eternity with also defending us here in the temporal courts well one other thing

I would like to mention occurred to me when you said the Alliance Defending Freedom if there are any pastors out there listening okay the

Alliance Defending Freedom has started a church alliance and you can join the church alliance there's a fee associated with it but what it does is it provides you with legal counsel for your church if there is a religious issue where you have to defend yourself against some type of discrimination claim your church has to defend itself against some type of discrimination claim so if you're a pastor out there

I would strongly urge you to go to the Alliance Defending Freedom's website and and look into the church alliance the church alliance okay

I will get that link and I will put that in the in the show notes as well so for pastors

I encourage you to do that we're gonna need to be defending ourselves against this this culture unfortunately we are no longer in a

Christian culture we are in a becoming a very anti -christian culture folks who are regular listeners to Rappaport you know

I've said this before but I think another Holocaust is coming it's just not gonna be with the

Jewish people I think it's gonna be in America with Christians and I think that you know I say often that what people get into power with they stay in power with and we're gonna

I think that whoever follows Trump I could be wrong not a prophet but I just think we're looking at history whoever comes after Trump is probably going to be very left -leaning and probably will get in very much more support by the homosexuals than Obama had and by that he's gonna stay in power by giving that and I think that we're gonna see a very big push that way and it's it could be scary well you know

I don't know if you're right about that or or not Andrew but you know and you know these things

I'm wrong yeah these things can be very scary but what

I guess what we always have to remember is that we we know how this story ends that's right we know who wins in the end yeah and and you know

I mean that's the whole thing people sometimes get confused what striving for eternity means I think we mean striving to work our way to heaven it's not it's after we're

Christians we strive to have that eternal mindset because the reality is this is not our home we're passing through as Peter says we're we're just you know our citizenships in heaven we're just pilgrims in this earth and we're not guaranteed a pleasant life here on earth but we are guaranteed that we'll be a

Christ for all eternity that's the thing that I think when we go through these things we have to remember many

Christians get very tied up in the politics and the cultural issues and we need to remember that God has has redeemed us and saved us and our mission is to go and make disciples if people don't know

Jesus Christ and that the first part of discipleship is to evangelize and then once they once they know

Christ well he says teach them everything we should teach them everything he's taught us and so that would be what we should be doing so I hope that that folks who have any legal issues that you would you would reach out to Mike and I'll have his email in the in the show notes for you reach out to him get the advice even even if you're unsure about things there are some people that don't want to take the battle

I know of personally of someone who they actually saved a website from being shut down it was going to be shut down and they ended up putting a petition to try to save this website from being shut down now this is for a very specialized business and and so what ended up happening though is because this one individual is very vocal about her

Christian views a bunch of people that practice homosexuality came and attacked the website because the website thanked her for saving their website and everything with this petition and they promoted her own website promoting her business and every all they had thousands of people demanding that this website take down their thanks to her because of her

Christian values and she contacted me it was just yeah I had given her your name and an email because I you know

I said contact her and she's just like you know what I just I don't want to I don't want to deal with it it's so much and and that's the reaction a lot of Christians have they just don't want to take that fight my challenge to her and to others is contact you and you pick up that fight you know because if we don't if we let them keep pushing us and pushing us eventually there's there is no fight because they just take over you know so folks if you if you have a concern legally