Like most Christians, I rejoice that the Supreme Court rightly decided for the Christian baker.
But the problem remains the same: why does this country look to unelected lawyers in black robes to determine what is right and wrong? Who are they to tell anyone whether or not they can refuse to bake a cake for someone whose message they find offensive to their sincerely held religious beliefs?
Antonin Scalia, in his dissent in the infamous Obergefell v Hodges ruling legalizing “same sex” marriage, wrote:
“…So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
To give nine elected and unaccountable lawyers the power to decide such issues is what has helped plunge this country into the abyss of moral relativism and wickedness. While we rejoice in this ruling, we mourn the others legalizing abortion, sodomy based “marriage,” the posting of the 10 commandments made illegal in public schools, etc.
Never did our founding fathers intend for the Supreme Court of the United States to usurp and supplant the will of the people expressed through laws made by our elected representatives. That we wring our hands in anticipation of how the “Supreme Court will rule” on issues of national importance shows how far we have sunk as a republic.