Don't Defend Jack Phillips Based on Free Speech Rights

Bob Enyart has been buying his cakes for years now, since the persecution began, from Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop. With God's help, we'll continue buying them as long as Jack can bake them. However, his defenders representing him before the U.S. Supreme Court are shooting us in the back. Their already-backfiring defense only furthers the homosexual agenda. Jack's lawyers have argued that because designing a wedding cake is art, equivalent to speech, that therefore on the basis of our free speech rights, Jack cannot be compelled to make a wedding cake for homosexuals. (Jack himself, though he is a bona fide hero, has accepted this misguided defense.) This defense further legitimizes the homosexual agenda. For example, a house painter is considered a laborer, not an artist. If he doesn't want to spend a week inside the home of a homosexual, that should be his right as much as it is any person's right not to affirm any lifestyle he knows to be grotesquely immoral, including prostitutes, jihadists, child pornographers, or homosexuals.

Meme showing Jack Phillips stick figure being beaten to enforce the homosexual agenda

* August Update: Words Are Not Violence, a great article by Josh Craddock, surveys the widespread claim of liberals that politically incorrect words equate to physical violence and should be treated and even prosecuted as such. Thanks Mr. Craddock for this important warning. Also, consider that free speech is not so much a "constitutional right" (though it is, that is not its source, and if it were, it wouldn't be a "right", because then it could likewise be taken away) as it is a God-given right, which no majority, no government, and no political process can ever justly take away. So as we've long taught here on KGOV, use of the very phrase "constitutional rights" actually undermines our rights. How? Millions of people do not know where our rights come from, and many of those think they come from the government, or from the majority. Of course, if that were true, they can be taken away, which would mean that they were never "rights" to begin with. Words have meaning, and bring powerful implications with them. An accurate and safe description is, for example: "Our God-given right to life, recognized by the 5th amendment..."