The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
In June of 2018, Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips almost had his day in the US Supreme Court. Almost, because short of hearing Mr. Phillips case, the Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that the lower courts in Colorado had been openly hostile towards Mr. Phillips because of his strong expression of Christian faith, backed up in his refusal to create a custom cake for a same-sex “wedding.”
Christianity has always held that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin, and St Paul’s writings on this topic in Romans Chapter 1 explain such behavior as both the culmination of rejection of God and the ultimate insanity of the fallen human condition. While there are “Christians” in the world that think that in some magical way this no longer applies, it still does. The efforts to redefine Christian teaching were never taken in council with the Lord himself, after all.
The Supreme Court handed Mr. Phillips a victory based not on the actual situation of whether or not a Christian believer should be required to go against his faith principles in business, but because the evidence of clear prejudice on the part of the super-liberal Colorado lower courts was essentially tainting the case.
To that end, not long after Phillips resumed his business, a Colorado attorney decided to set up Mr. Phillips again, this time by asking him to bake a cake that would be “in celebration” of someone getting a sex change.
The language was in American Newspeak, of course, “gender transition”, making the definitive matter of sex as pliable and malleable as changing a red lightbulb for a blue one, but such is the language of liberalism. Body parts are interchangeable for these people apparently.
Mr. Phillips of course declined the request on the same grounds: Christianity teaches us that this is ludicrous fantasy at best, and a completely outrageous and damaging act in the full reality.
However, this was the setup. The attorney knew this would happen, and set the situation up so that it would happen to create another drama and more trouble for Mr. Phillips. One News Now reported on this:
“Jack declined that request,” notes Campbell. “Because of his religious beliefs, that was not something he could help celebrate – and as a result the state made it clear they were coming after him again they thought he was violating the law by not creating that cake.“
In response to that renewed effort to prosecute Phillips, he and his attorneys at ADF filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado to get the state to stop prosecuting him. Then came Tuesday’s announcement that the state of Colorado was dropping its case.
Why did Colorado drop the case? Actually for the same reason the first attempt failed. Mr. Phillips countersued, as we see above, on the grounds that the State of Colorado was openly hostile to Jack’s religious views just as before. As the case proceeded, it became more and more clearly evident that this was so:
“The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them,” said Attorney General Phil Weiser (D-Colorado) in remarks published by The Washington Times. “Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws.”
Campbell found that comment revealing. “To me, that’s one of the attorney general’s reasons for why he decided to stop prosecuting Jack Phillips,” he tells OneNewsNow. “We think that one of the other things that influenced his decision is that, as our federal case went forward, we kept finding more and more evidence of the state’s hostility towards religion.”
As recently as last week, ADF found that two current commissioners of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had publicly stated that they agreed with prior comments… [from the first case]
“Those comments said that religious freedom is a ‘despicable piece of rhetoric’ and compared the religious beliefs and attempt to protect the religious freedom of people like Jack Phillips to arguments made by slaveholders and Nazis and those sorts of comments were explicitly endorsed by two of the current commissioners,” explains Campbell.
“That sort of evidence, which, again, we had found significant amounts of evidence of anti-religious hostility, it was just continuing to mount. And I think personally that that was one of the things that influenced the state to give up on its prosecution of Jack.”
So once again, Jack is off the hook. After the State dropped its case against him, he (also possibly acting in alignment with the Christian belief that lawsuits are abhorrent matters, upheld in many very traditional Christian confessions), he also dropped his case against the State.
Again, this is a technical victory, and the only result that really will persist is that those that persecute Christian lifestyles will have to try a different vehicle than the courts, at least in Colorado.
But this also brings up another theme mentioned in title of this piece, that being the act of the “setup.” This is not the only way it is done. Sometimes it is done by generating fake news for the press to report as real.
During the interval of time before President Trump’s noteworthy speech at CPAC in 2017, some anti-Trump activists and a Huffington Post writer among them, passed out small Russian tri-bar flags with the name “TRUMP” emblazoned on them.
Why? Ostensibly to try to “prove” that President Trump has some sort of shady relationship with Russia.
It did not work, though to be sure, one very sad aspect may have been that the people receiving the flags did not recognize them as Russian. After all they have red, white and blue on their flag also!
The present time setup is a little more mundane looking but it has two prongs – Michael Cohen’s series of interviews and hearings under oath before a House Oversight and Reform Committee, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler’s 81 letters requesting “information” into every aspect of the President’s life. Actions like this generate news because they are visible, but they are not news themselves.
But the idea of doing things like this to create and support a narrative, not to report the news, but to foment political activism, is far beyond ethical bounds for journalists, as it was far beyond ethical bounds for an attorney to try to set Jack Phillips up for a new lawsuit.
What is also amazing is that this is not called out for what it is and then stopped.
Instead, it is swept under the rug and essentially accepted. Each time it is, the truth becomes harder to see.
This is, once again, the hallmark of what much of American and Western media have become (as well as that of other countries too – everyone has players like this). Perhaps it is because relatively little happens every 24 hours, but broadcast news happens all of those 24 hours now, so people need something to report?
More likely it is exactly what was stated above. The media thinks it is the activator of change. In the majority most of that “change” is towards globalism, progressivism and anti-Christianity / anti-traditional values about family, country and God.
Spotting these setups and calling them out for what they are has become extremely important.