Utah State Sen. Mike Lee (R) And The Mormon Church File Amicus To Discriminate Against LGBT People

The Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, have filed briefs in a case pending before the Supreme Court in support of a Colorado baker who refused to serve a gay couple.

In 2012, Jack Phillips, the owner of Denver-based Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to consider baking a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig. The men married in Massachusetts and wanted to buy a cake from Phillips for their Denver reception. Phillips said that serving the couple would violate his religious faith. Colorado at the time recognized gay and lesbian couples with civil unions, not marriage.

The couple sued, saying that Phillips' faith does not give him a right to discriminate, and a Colorado court found that Phillips had discriminated against the men under Colorado law. After the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, Phillips turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment protects his religious rights.

The Virginia-based Christian Legal Society filed its brief on behalf of the Mormon Church, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Orthodox Jewish Congregations and others, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

“Now that the court has protected the liberty of same-sex couples, it is equally important to protect the religious liberties of conscientious objectors,” the amicus brief states.

Lee was among the members of Congress who also filed a brief in the case.

He also released a statement on his website in support of Phillips.

“More and more, the adherents of this [secular, progressive] creed seek to use the power of government to steamroll disfavored groups,” Lee wrote. “So they force evangelical caterers to bake cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. … And they force nuns to purchase contraceptive coverage. And sue religious hospitals that won't perform abortions or sex-reassignment surgeries.”

“Now that the court has protected the liberty of same-sex couples, it is equally important to protect the religious liberties of conscientious objectors”

It's mind-boggling how they are so completely oblivious to the fact that the first had to happen in direct response to the persecutional abuse of the second part of that statement by Christians.

Granting them a special right to discriminate for "religious" reasons would completely negate the reason the law was passed in the first place, not to mention the near irreparable damage it would cause for all minorities faced with the oppressive might of theocratic dogma and hypocrisy given unbridled reign.