In 2012, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado declined to design a wedding cake for gay couple, Charles Craig and David Mullins.
As these things tend to go, “Craig and Mullins filed a civil rights complaint and won, first before an administrative court judge, then before the state Civil Rights Commission, and finally before the Colorado Court of Appeals,” according to USA Today.
Nevertheless, Phillips persisted. Now, the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case.
On Friday, Jack Phillips appeared on The View with his attorney, Kristen Waggoner, of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
During his time in the viper pit, Phillips was challenged on multiple fronts by the hosts, none of whom appear to have even a cursory understanding of the scripture.
One of the more audacious exchanges came when co-host, Paula Faris, said to Phillips:
I know that you’re a Christ-follower, and Jesus was even criticized by some of his followers for hanging out with the lowest of the low, and the tax collectors and the sinners. Did you ever ask yourself what would Jesus do in this particular situation? Instead of denying them, do you think maybe Jesus would have said I don’t accept this but I’m going to love you anyway? Do you think that maybe that would have had a more powerful testimony?
After applause from the audience, Phillips calmly responded: “It still doesn’t answer the question: Would he have made the cake? And I don’t believe he would have because that would have contradicted the rest of biblical teaching.”
This prompted Joy Behar, biblical scholar, to say: “Oh, come on. Jesus would have made the cake.” Following more applause, Behar continued: “You can believe the Bible and everything, but Jesus, that’s a deal-breaker. Jesus is gonna make the cake.”
Behar later claimed somewhat facetiously that she was simply “speaking for Jesus right now.”
First, let’s tackle Paula Faris’ straw man — it’s an important one. A common response to any Christian who makes a judgment based on biblical precepts is to harken back to Jesus “hanging out with the lowest of the low, and the tax collectors and the sinners.”
Christ did “hang out” with these people. Mark 2:15-17 states:
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Christ didn’t eat with sinners because he approved of their sins; he ate with them because, like the physically sick, they were spiritually sick, and they needed a physician. People like Faris often use the “but Jesus hung out with sinners” argument. However, the text states that Christ met with sinners because he knew how spiritually ill they were — the clear implication being that he disapproved of their ways.
On to Behar, the prophetess. She claimed that Jesus would have baked the cake. She offered no reasoning as to why she believes this — although one can deduce her thought process based on her history. Behar likely holds to the progressive trope that Jesus was all about love, and because of that, he would do anything for anyone.
However, Christ himself condemned many sins. He had no qualms about “judging” those who were turning their backs on God. In fact, Christ himself said in Matthew 10:32-36:
Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law…”
In that proclamation, Jesus was telling his followers that believing in him and following his teachings would be divisive. Those who became followers of Christ would be turned against their non-believing relatives.
The precepts of Christianity are steadfast and, in an increasingly secular world, they may appear cruel. As such, people like prophetess Behar pick and choose what scripture they want to believe, and discard the rest, creating a pseudo-faith in their own image, a Frankenstein’s monster they call “spirituality.”
Jesus loved sinners as he loved all mankind, but he never shied away from judgment, nor was he unwilling to proclaim what was and was not sinful behavior. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect; it’s a fantasy created to soothe progressives who cannot accept scripture as it stands.