Supreme Court rules for Christian baker

“The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

With these words, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling yesterday regarding religious freedom. What does it mean for us as we engage a culture that is in many ways “hostile” to our “religious beliefs”?

The story in brief

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts, then return to Colorado for a wedding reception. They visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a custom cake.

Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips declined their request, explaining that his Christian beliefs kept him from using his artistic abilities to create such a cake. Over the years, he has declined to create many custom cakes that would display unbiblical messages. He wouldn’t make a cake celebrating a divorce, for instance.

He offered to sell the couple other baked goods in the store, but they declined and filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission decided in their favor and ordered Masterpiece to take steps to ensure future compliance with its ruling. Phillips appealed that ruling and chose to stop making wedding cakes, costing him 40 percent of his business. He has also faced death threats.

The State’s decision was upheld on appeal but reversed yesterday by the Supreme Court. The 7-2 majority found that the Colorado Commission’s treatment of Phillips’s case “violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”

What the ruling means

Russell Moore, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, noted that “this ruling is a win, not only for those…