Dean Bailey, 50, is not afraid to tell anyone he is living proof that ‘sexual orientation’ can in fact be changed. But he prefers to use the word ‘restored’ rather than ‘changed.’
Bailey remembers how from an early age he felt different from other boys. He felt he did not fit in and thought of himself as awkward, out of place. He remembers never feeling treasured or affirmed by his dad who was an alcoholic and who consumed pornography. Bailey believes this began a pattern of turning to other males to find the affirmation he never received from his dad.
When a new outgoing boy began to attend school when Bailey was in grade three, he remembers trying hard to become the boy’s friend. It was during a sleepover at the boy’s house that Bailey was introduced to sexual play, including streaking and oral copulation. The experience not only robbed him of his childhood innocence, but awakened in him a sense of sexual curiosity.
From here, Bailey became preoccupied with images of male nudity and with taking more daring sexual risks with different boys. As he grew older, the sexual acts Bailey performed with other boys became as a source of comfort to him, making him believe he was being loved and accepted. But while such acts would make him feel good for a while, he says they were never able to help him overcome the constant theme of emptiness and brokenness he felt inside. The sexual activities quickly became addictive.
When a schoolgirl refused to go on a date with him that seemed to signal to the now-teenage Bailey that he was not a normal guy. Then, a few years later, a sexually awkward one-night stand with a woman seemed to confirm to him that he did not have what it took to be a man.
Dean Bailey as a young man in the military.
Bailey was now a young man in the military. Although in the meantime he had gotten married, he continued to crave male intimacy and experience gripping same-sex attractions. An intimate but non-sexual encounter with a military male friend whom he greatly admired eventually led to explicit homosexual behaviors.
The encounter severely damaged the relationship Bailey had previously enjoyed with his wife as she felt she could no longer trust the man she had married.
Having experienced homosexual acts, Bailey now struggled inwardly with intense homosexual desires that could only be allayed through carnal gratification, or so it seemed to him. Feelings of insecurity only intensified these inclinations.
His previous homosexual experiences drove him to seek answers to his insecurities through further homosexual encounters. A downwards spiral ensued as Bailey attempted to satisfy his desires, but only saw them grow in intensity the more he indulged them. Looking back, Bailey now realizes how homosexual acts had become an addiction for him.
Bailey credits God for acting powerfully in his life to save him from himself, change his life for the good, and ultimately bring about his deliverance from homosexual attractions. God led him on a journey of trust that ultimately led to the heart of Jesus Christ. Here Bailey experienced the love, acceptance, and affirmation he had always craved.
To put it simply, says Bailey, he fell in love with the person of Jesus. He experienced Him through prayer and through reading the Bible. All Bailey wanted now was to become more like Jesus, more Christ-like. As he began acting more and more on this desire, Bailey noticed a transformation begin to take place in his sexual desires. The homosexual desires began to decrease. For the first time in his life, Bailey began to see himself differently, this time through the eyes of a Savior who — he now realized — loved him unconditionally.
Looking back on his past, Bailey says he now sees that he has been brought out of what he calls the “sexual confusion of homosexual behaviors” to a sexual clarity in mind and heart. He has left behind what he calls the “self-defeating environment of my own, very negative self-image” and moved into an unshakable understanding of his value and self worth as a beloved child of God.
Dean Bailey with his wife Della and daughters Amber and Amanda.
Bailey wrote about his entire journey in his 2011 book titled “Beyond the Shades of Gray.” Most of the book is available online at his website. He speaks publicly about his struggle with homosexuality, telling audiences that homosexuality is a “sexual addiction and dependency,” not a condition to be socially accepted and celebrated. “It is merely one of the many evidences of the broken, spiritual condition of our human race,” he tells people.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews from Texas where he lives with his wife Della and his two college-aged daughters, Amber and Amanda, Bailey spoke about what he has gained by leaving behind the homosexual identity, the role of God in bringing about sexual healing, about his views on the Christian understanding of homosexuality, and about why stories like his are shunned by the mainstream.
The following interview has been condensed.
LifeSiteNews: What happens to someone when they abandon a gay identity? Is the pain, the loss of friendships, and the total switching of inner gears worth it?
Bailey: When a person abandons their inward belief that it was homosexual behaviors that define them as a person, then they must set out to rediscover what it is that actually does define their personhood. They must learn to embrace and give those higher human ideals a greater value and meaning within their own character and existence, than they gave to the homosexual addictions which they allowed to dominate their thinking and reasoning in the past.
Is it all worth it? I would answer with an emphatic “Yes, of course it is!” But not everyone will agree with me.
Gay activists, for example, vehemently insist that this journey I've taken is harmful. They have even managed to get bills passed in California and New Jersey which outlaw counseling for persons desiring help toward becoming free from their homosexual behaviors and addictions.
I freely admit that this freedom I've found is a journey that could very well involve a lifetime, rather than a simple transition of just a few short years. “We didn't end up in this mess overnight, and we shouldn’t expect to remove ourselves from it overnight, either,” I will often tell people.
I also acknowledge that this journey will cause some inward conflict, pain and emotional discomfort at times, even when it is chosen as a path. But I do believe that sexual restoration is ultimately a very healthy choice in the end, and not a harmful one. Nothing of extraordinary value is ever going to be easy to achieve, after all. So it is on purpose that I call this journey a “restoration” rather than a change or a conversion.
There is no way to fully comprehend or predict the personal cost, effort and sacrifice involved for any individual, until that person embarks upon this journey by personal choice, by his or her own free will. Society should not be expected to make any accommodations for those who therefore refuse to take this journey, and remain trapped in the self-serving cycle of their own dysfunctional sexual behaviors. Nor should responsible parents be denied the lawful ability to seek out the professional help that their children may desperately need and desire. The reality of this entire issue is that homosexuality is a harmful behavior pattern, and not a human identity or a human “right.”
People often wonder why would the gay activists be trying to outlaw professional means of therapy and counseling for the pursuit of freedom from unwanted homosexual behaviors, if they truly embrace the “tolerance” that they preach? What is it that they are actually so afraid of? I will tell you that what they fear the most is the breakdown and destruction of the inward lies that form the foundation of their own “gay” identity, and everything that the “gay rights” movement has been built upon. That is why gay activists will always insist that this form of dysfunctional sexual behavior is “who” they are. It is the only way for them to remain secure in the falsehood.
LifeSiteNews: What does someone who leaves the gay lifestyle have to look forward to in the years to come? What have you gained the most?
Bailey: I see myself differently. I see other people differently. And I see the world around me quite differently. That doesn’t mean that everything in my life is now blissful and stress-free. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t still feel the human pangs of loneliness and depression on occasion.
But I see my insecurities as identifiable weaknesses that can all be understood and overcome with time, in light of my own proper acknowledgement and truthful recognition of my individual human weaknesses. I now understand that homosexual behavior is not the legitimate answer for the pain that I may still feel inside of myself during rough or low times.
Every human being goes through challenges and pain. But the homosexual ideology seems to reason that this particular challenge makes a person different from everyone else in some way, in much the same way that a person diagnosed with bipolar disorder will often see the world around them as the real problem — rather than themselves — and choose to stop taking their prescribed medication because of that false and distorted reasoning. That is where this whole “gay identity” thought process evolved from.
LifeSiteNews: Your journey seems inherently linked to discovering the person of Jesus Christ in Christianity. People in the culture will tend to write you off as a Christian nutcase because of this. What role has Jesus played in your journey away from same-sex attraction? Do you think Jesus has a role to play in the life of anyone seeking to leave the gay identity behind?
Bailey: Most people assume that, because I do support counseling and professional “conversion therapy” as avenues to consider within this journey, I myself have been through some sort of therapy. But that is not the case. Jesus Christ was my counsellor in every aspect of my own journey. After all, he is referred to as “Wonderful Counselor” in the biblical writings that tell us about him.
God desires to have a personal relationship with me — with each of us — and to become involved in every intricate detail of our lives, in our daily walk and fellowship with him. Christianity is a way of life that reveals God as a loving Father who deeply cares about all that we do as his children in this earth.
I credit Jesus with lifting my spirits during the low points of my journey, and with sustaining me through the high points of it. I credit him with sending the right people into my life at just the right time, so that they could love and support me along the way. I credit him with leading me to the right places when I had inward questions and confusion that I could not overcome with just the faith of a simple “Christian” prayer – and, by the way, I do believe that Jesus wants to know our deepest questions.
The fact is that I don’t know that I could have made such a journey without Jesus walking beside me through it. And I am still on that lifelong journey with him, in spite of what criticisms people will choose to make toward that statement. But I will say this: Jesus has kept the promise he made his disciples, that he would never leave them alone in the journey. I may have felt alone at times. But looking back, I see today that I was never alone.
LifeSiteNews: How do you now see Christian/Catholic teaching on homosexuality? Is it hateful, discriminatory? Is a Christian being a bigot when he says he loves the same-sex attracted person, but hates what he does when he acts on those desires?
Bailey: If by “discriminatory,” you mean, “to be selective in such a way that maintains the Christian integrity of our faith,” then yes, we are certainly “discriminatory.” In fact, I believe that we are called to be discriminatory in that way. But what we are not is hateful—and certainly not as the gay activists regularly accuse and imply to their own, and to the rest of the world, that we are hateful.
We live in a world today where avoiding offense is given a higher standard than the concept we have of love itself. But that is because we have lost our biblical understanding of love, and we mistakenly think that if we truly “love” people, then we will not risk offending them. And many well-meaning, “born again” Christians have adopted the world’s view of making this mistake within their human reasoning.
The gay activists know all of this, of course, and they play upon it well to further advance their movement. They demand “tolerance,” for example, but then they self-justify their own vehement intolerance of Christian beliefs and views by comparing our Christian beliefs to bigotry, and bringing lawsuits to force Christian business owners to support homosexual events in ways that blatantly violate their faith and beliefs within their Christian business ethics.
What Christians do is point to the truth of our broken and sinful human nature, not out of condemnation but because of the depth of Christ’s love within us. Christians can look to Jesus for an example. Was Jesus suddenly being unloving toward the woman caught in the sin of adultery, for example, when he plainly told her, “go now, and sin no more” (John 8:11)? The truth will not always be pleasant to hear or to stomach. But that does not make us bigots for pointing out the obvious.
People need to better understand what biblical “love” actually is. And, as Christians, we need to also offer the solution. We can’t just say, “Homosexuality is a sin,” and then leave it at that. To be honest, I believe that every homosexual already inwardly knows that what they are doing is inherently contradictory to “who” God created them to be. But they need to be reminded of that fact along with the genuine hope that Christ also offers to each one of us, as we turn to him to overcome all of our human weakness and brokenness, not just the homosexual brokenness.
LifeSiteNews: What is the one thing faithful Christians need to keep in mind when dealing with the issue of homosexuality?
Bailey: Christians need to know that this is by no means an uncomplicated issue. But that is no reason to fear engaging it purposefully and directly either. This idea of “live and let live” is not how Christ was in the business of loving people. He engaged them directly, and he never avoided talking about the real “issues” that were involved.
For those people like myself who see the clear distinction between what we were doing, and “who” we are or desire to be, there is a very present guilt and fear of rejection when turning to ask people in the Christian community to help us — to help us to understand our own brokenness and sin in a biblical way that leaves a person feeling loved by Christ, rather than condemned by his followers.
Christians should do this by realizing that homosexuality is just another human brokenness, just like our own individual brokenness in so many ways. There should not be this stigma where some “sins” are acceptable to talk about openly and deal with, while things like homosexuality are not. The Body of Christ should be a place of healing for issues like homosexuality, not a place of fear.
LifeSiteNews: Why do so many people — especially those engaged in the gay lifestyle and those representing left-leaning media — loathe to hear about people like yourself who have left same-sex attraction behind? Do they fear something about your experience? What?
Bailey: What they fear about people like me is that our existence and credibility only destroys the very foundation of their own beliefs about themselves, and the reasons behind their own immoral behaviors.
LifeSiteNews: What do you think is really at the heart of the push for homosexual “marriage.” Who is behind this push? Is it really same-sex attracted persons fighting for ‘equality’ or do you think this group is being used by someone else for some other purpose?
Bailey: It is clear to me that a seeming majority of homosexuals actually do believe and adhere to a personal inward ideology that they are fighting for some sort of distorted “equality.” Albeit, their idea of equality could more accurately be described as homo-fascism, because of the way it has become an agenda of forced acceptance and inclusion within our society.
Spiritually speaking, however, I believe that Satan is the ultimate deceptive force and mastermind behind not just the marriage aspect of their agenda, but also behind the entire distortion that somehow managed to turn a dysfunctional human sexual behavior into a “civil rights” cause.
(PHOTO: THE CHRISTIAN POST)Men and women who left gay and transgender lives march to the White House with the Freedom March on May 5, 2018.
A new study is challenging the American Psychological Association's contention that therapies for unwanted same-sex attraction are harmful.
The study, "Effects of Therapy on Religious Men Who Have Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction," which was first published July 23 in The Linacre Quarterly, finds that sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), often derisively called "conversion therapy," improves the mental health of participants. Researchers surveyed 125 male residents of the United States. The men, mostly Christian, were at various stages of experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction. Some were sexually active while others were abstaining from sex.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents were Christians from a variety of traditions; 13.6 percent identified themselves as "non-denominational Christians"; 5 percent said they were Roman Catholic; 28 percent were Mormons; and 9.6 percent were Jewish. 55 percent of the sample reported that they attended religious services weekly.
Fifty-four percent of the participants were single; 46 percent were married; and the sample had about the same number of those who were homosexually active as abstainers. Over 80 percent reported they had some degree of depression and suicidality at the beginning of therapy.
Nearly 70 percent of respondents self-reported "some to much" reduction in their same-sex attraction and their behavior and an increase in their opposite-sex attraction and behavior.
The study counters the assertions and recommendations of the APA that efforts aimed at reducing same-sex attractions are unsafe and damaging to mental health and well being.
Of all the SOCE techniques represented, over three-fourths of survey participants endorsed as especially helpful, with ratings of "extremely," "markedly," and "moderately" the following: "developing nonerotic relationships with same-sex peers, mentors, family members, and friends"; "understanding better the causes of your homosexuality and your emotional needs and issues"; "meditation and spiritual work"; "exploring linkages between your childhood and family experiences and your same-sex attraction or behavior"; and "learning to maintain appropriate boundaries."
Survey participants also reported improvements "in self-esteem and social functioning, and similarly decreases in suicidality, substance abuse, depression, and self-harm. Before therapy, they had experienced an average of three of these problems. The changes had apparently lasted for a median of nearly 3 years, for those post–SOCE. The degree and intensity of the initial conditions are not known and are self-reported, nor are they on established psychometric scales."
"For this survey group, contrary to the null hypotheses, SOCE is neither ineffective, nor harmful, conflicting with APA findings. On the basis of this survey, religious clients could be told that some degree of change is likely from SOCE, and positive change in suicidality, self-esteem, depression, self harm, substance abuse, social functioning should be moderate to marked. Also contrary to the null hypotheses, social pressures do not predominate as reasons for entering SOCE, and effect sizes are not clearly less than for standard psychotherapies," the study concluded.
In 2009, APA formed a task force to study the issue. It concluded that telling patients with unwanted sexual attraction that they can change could harm their mental health.
In 2015, Barry S. Anton, then-president of the APA stated that "[s]o-called reparative therapies are aimed at 'fixing' something that is not a mental illness and therefore does not require therapy. There is insufficient scientific evidence that they work, and they have the potential to harm the client."
"APA has and will continue to call on mental health professionals to work to reduce misunderstanding about and prejudice toward gay and transgender people."
Yet the authors of the study maintain that the survey is further evidence that APA should reconsider their stance of discouraging men from seeking therapy for their unwanted same-sex attraction.
George Carneal Jr., author of From Queer To Christ: My Journey Into The Light concurs. Carneal spent 25 years living and identifying as a homosexual but has been celibate for over 10 years and says same-sex attraction no longer controls him like it once did.
"The APA's claim that 'sexual orientation change therapies should not be used because they are probably ineffective and may cause harm' is an opinion. There are countless success stories from LGBT individuals who would beg to differ," he said in an interview with The Christian Post Monday.
"Harm doesn't come from a therapist who operates with compassion and a desire to help a client who is seeking help. Harm comes as a result of being told we have to live with these unwanted desires and have no hope of change! In my case, therapy was an important part of my journey but real change happened when I truly surrendered my life to Christ," he said.
A Canadian man who claims he identifies as 100% male legally changed the gender on his identification documents to female in order to save over $1,000 on car insurance.
The Alberta man, identified only as David to protect him against possible legal consequences, wanted to buy a brand new car and knew that his insurance costs would be high, due to his age (early 20s) as well as a collision and a ticket or two he had on his record. Still, the $4,500 a year quotation he got from an insurance company was even higher than he had anticipated, so he started thinking of ways of bringing the costs down. At one point, he asked the insurer what the cost would be for a woman in his exact situation and learned that his annual bill would be about $1,100 lower. That got him thinking…
“I was pretty angry about that. And I didn’t feel like getting screwed over any more,” David recently told CBC News, on condition of anonymity. “So I asked them to change my gender on my auto policy, and she’s like, we can’t do that.”
Luckily, David, who was 23 at the time, learned that it could actually be done, but he had to have his gender changed on his birth certificate and driver’s licence before it could be reflected on his insurance policy. So he proceeded to do just that.
After doing some research, the young man found that all he needed to do was tell his doctor that he identified as a woman, or that he’d like to identify as one, and ask him for an official letter which he would later send to the Government along with a request for the gender change.
“It was pretty simple,”David said. “I just basically asked for it and told them that I identify as a woman, or I’d like to identify as a woman, and he wrote me the letter I wanted.”
A few weeks after shipping the doctor’s letter and some other paperwork to the Government, he received a new birth certificate indicating that he identified as a woman. With the new ID, he was able to change the gender on his driver license as well, and finally get a $91 monthly discount on his insurance policy.
“I was quite shocked, but I was also relieved. I felt like I beat the system. I felt like I won,” the Canadian told CBC. “I’m a man, 100 per cent. Legally, I’m a woman. I did it for cheaper car insurance.”
David said that he is aware that the method he used are supposed to be used by people who need to change their gender to reflect who they really are, and emphasizes that he didn’t do it to show how easy it is for anyone to change genders or ridicule the LGBT community. He just wanted cheaper car insurance and this legal loophole allowed him to get it.
Steve Kee, a spokesman for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, told CBC that he had heard anecdotal reports of people legally changing genders to bring down the cost of their car insurance, but he doesn’t know how widespread the practice is. He also pointed out that people who do this sort of thing expose themselves to potential repercussions.
“If you’re going to declare on any document, you need to be truthful,” Kee said. “If not, you’re making a fraudulent claim. This could impact you for any future insurance application that you make, or any other aspect of your life.”
Há poucos dias o Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos chegou a uma decisão no caso de um pasteleiro do Colorado que se recusou, por objecção de consciência, a fazer um bolo para o casamento homossexual de dois homens. Infelizmente, o tribunal não decidiu sobre o facto de o pasteleiro, ou qualquer outra pessoa numa posição parecida, ter direito, ao abrigo da Primeira Emenda, de seguir a sua consciência num caso como este.
O tribunal limitou-se a declarar que o tribunal dos direitos civis do Colorado, que tinha decidido punir o pasteleiro, tinha revelado um preconceito antirreligioso indevido ao chegar à sua decisão. Podemos esperar, por isso, que esta questão apareça novamente diante do Tribunal num futuro não muito distante, a saber, se a cláusula de “livre exercício” da Primeira Emenda protege lojistas que se recusem a fornecer bens ou serviços porque estão honestamente convencidos de que seria pecaminoso, ou imoral, fazê-lo.
No mundo anglófono a questão dos direitos de consciência religiosa data de há muitos séculos, remontando talvez aos Lollardos (seguidores do padre revoltoso John Wycliffe) no Século XIV. Foi formulado de forma clara no Século XVII quando, entre outros, Roger Williams e o seu amigo John Milton argumentaram que os indivíduos, desde que em tudo o resto sejam cumpridores da lei, têm direito a obedecer às suas consciências, ainda que essas consciências estejam erradas. Na geração depois da independência essa visão tornar-se-ia quase universal nos recém-fundados Estados Unidos.
Na América existe uma longa tradição de permitir que os fiéis de confissões religiosas pacifistas (como os quakers, por exemplo) obedeçam às suas consciências quando estas lhes pedem que evitem o serviço militar. Durante a guerra do Vietname o estatuto de objector de consciência era frequentemente atribuído mesmo a pessoas que não pertenciam a uma religião pacifista – como por exemplo católicos ou secularistas rigorosos – desde que apresentassem argumentos convincentes de que tinham uma convicção sincera de que seria para elas imoral participar nesta guerra em particular.
De tal forma acreditamos na importância da consciência, ainda que esta esteja errada, que temos estado dispostos a tolerar objectores de consciência, mesmo quando está em causa o destino da nação.
Mas essa atitude de tolerância parece ter mudado. Muitos americanos acreditam hoje que a lei deve obrigar pessoas como o pasteleiro do Colorado a violar as suas consciências. E não é por o destino da nação estar em perigo. Nem é porque de outra forma este casal homossexual teria de passar sem bolo de casamento, uma vez que podiam facilmente ter obtido o que queriam noutra pastelaria ou podiam até ter comprado um bolo não personalizado nesta pastelaria em particular.
Fico pasmado com esta falta de noção sobre a importância da consciência. Estas pessoas não compreendem que o direito a obedecer à consciência é um direito humano fundamental? Talvez o mais fundamental de todos? Estas são geralmente as mesmas pessoas que pensam que o aborto e as relações homossexuais são direitos humanos fundamentais. Mas não pensam que exista um direito fundamental a obedecer sinceramente à consciência? Incrível. Em que mundo estamos a viver?
Mais me espanta que esta gente não compreenda que a consciência é um importante bem social. Todos ficamos mais bem servidos quando os nossos amigos, vizinhos e concidadãos prestam atenção à voz das suas consciências. Claro que existem consciências demasiado rigorosas, e isso não é algo a encorajar, mas o mal social causado por uma consciência demasiado rigorosa não é nada comparado com o mal provocado por consciências demasiado lassas. Uma sociedade desencorajar a liberdade de consciência é uma loucura. Mas há dezenas de milhões de americanos dispostos a fazer precisamente isso para tornar o mundo mais seguro para bolos personalizados para casamentos homossexuais.
Jack Phillips, detentor de consciência
Porque é que alguém chegaria ao ponto de desvalorizar a consciência?
Vejamos, o que é a consciência? No sentido tradicional do termo (uma tradição que remonta alguns séculos na língua inglesa) é vista como uma faculdade de conhecimento moral. Não conseguimos conhecer o bem e o mal da mesma maneira que conhecemos coisas do mundo material, isto é, através dos nossos sentidos (vista, audição, toque, etc.). Mas não se preocupem, para além destas faculdades sensoriais, temos a faculdade de conhecimento moral. Normalmente chamamos a isto consciência (embora também tenha sido conhecido como sentido moral).
Muitos secularistas humanistas (ou pós-cristãos, como também podem ser chamados), não acreditam que exista um sentido não-sensorial que nos forneça conhecimento moral. Todo o conhecimento, alegam, vem dos sentidos. As convicções que não vêm dos sentidos não são, por isso, conhecimento, mas sim sentimentos, preconceitos ou caprichos. Quando as pessoas dizem, “a minha consciência dita que devo fazer isto, ou aquilo”, o que estão mesmo a dizer – deste ponto de vista – é “os meus sentimentos, preconceitos ou caprichos ditam que devo fazer isto, ou aquilo”.
Mas se a consciência não passa disto, então não há grandes razões para que seja reverenciada. Se é possível alcançar algum bem social obrigando as pessoas a ignorar as suas consciências, então que se obrigue.
A maior parte dos que acreditam apaixonadamente no casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo serão provavelmente humanistas seculares ou pós-cristãos, que por sua vez tenderão a acreditar que não existe nada que se pareça com uma faculdade especial de conhecimento moral, isto é, qualquer consciência que mereça respeito e protecção legal. Quem é que pode ficar surpreendido, então, com o facto de os grandes defensores do casamento homossexual não se sentirem incomodados com a ideia de impor castigos legais a pasteleiros que, por razões de consciência, recusem fazer bolos para estes casamentos?
Trata-se de um ponto de vista comum, mas é um ponto de vista comum que ameaça directamente o núcleo moral de cada um de nós.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Christian Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex marriage when the ceremony violates his religious principles.
Monday’s 7-2 decision reversed a Colorado court’s ruling against baker Jack Phillips, who in 2012 refused to bake a cake for gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins.
The decision focused on the initial ruling against Phillips from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and left untouched the broader issue of whether professionals who oppose same-sex marriage can be compelled to provide goods and services for those ceremonies, USA Today reported.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” the majority opinion said, noting the broader battle in which this case was one part. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” Kennedy wrote, according to The Hill.
“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
The case presented “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services,” Kennedy wrote.
“The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment,” he wrote.
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Kennedy said Colorado failed that test.
“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions,” Kennedy wrote.
Kennedy noted that the case does represent a collision of rights, according to The Washington Post.
“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws,” he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”
Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority along with Justices Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.
Phillips had lost every round of his lengthy legal fight until Monday. Phillips said the question was not about the customers but rather about violating his own principles.
“It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience,” he said, according to Fox News.
The Trump administration supported Phillips’ legal claims.
Tags: Colorado, homosexuality, religious freedom, same-sex marriage, Supreme Court
Escritor, jornalista, conferencista de política internacional, sócio do IPCO, webmaster de diversos blogs
O deputado alemão Steffen Königer, católico de 45 anos e pai de duas crianças, deixou em ridículo a presidência do Parlamento regional de Brandenburgo, nordeste da Alemanha, segundo narrou o site “Religión en Libertad”.
Empresário, Steffen especializou-se em Psicologia, Ciências Políticas e História. Em outubro de 2014 foi eleito deputado pelo partido AfD [Alternative für Deutschland, Alternativa para Alemanha], agrupação oposta à tirania antifamília e antipropriedade privada imposta pela União Europeia, superestrutura ditatorial que está favorecendo agora a invasão dos muçulmanos.
Em 9 de junho votava-se uma proposta do Partido Verde, de extrema-esquerda, favorável à “Campanha pela aceitação da diversidade sexual e de gênero e a autodeterminação contra a homofobia e a transfobia (sic!) em Brandenburgo”. A iniciativa visceralmente anticristã incluía o reconhecimento de mais de 60 sexos diferentes (sic!).
Steffen subiu no estrado para emitir seu voto contrário à imoral proposta.
Antes de emiti-lo, começou a saudar a todos os presentes com linguagem inclusiva, como aconteceria se o projeto fosse aprovado.
Ele deu início então à saudação correspondente a cada uma das dezenas de identidades sexuais propostas, as quais não são de sua invenção, mas dos ‘ideólogos de gênero’. E esclareceu posteriormente que poderia ter lido ainda mais uma centena de outras, relativas a novos ‘sexos’.
Em certo momento, Dieter Dombrowski, o vice-presidente da Câmara que presidia a sessão, talvez cansado pela intérmina saudação, interrompeu Steffen, perguntando-lhe o que ia dizer.
Steffen lhe respondeu então que ainda não tinha terminado o cumprimento inicial de praxe. Boa parte dos presentes caiu na gargalhada.
E prosseguiu com a saudação protocolar a cada um dos “sexos” propostos pelos “verdes”.
Completado o intérmino cumprimento, ele anunciou simplesmente que seu grupo votaria contra essa proposta ecologista.
O vídeo viralizou, obtendo rapidamente centenas de milhares de visualizações em Youtube.
O absurdo da proposta “verde”, que agia como porta-voz da Revolução Sexual, ficou exposto em todo o seu ridículo.
Deixarão com isso os “verdes” e os “ideólogos de gênero” sua ofensiva contra a família?
Acreditamos que não, pois eles recusam a razão e o bom senso. Só parecem ouvir os abstrusos e desesperados bramidos que emergem das profundezas sinistras da irracionalidade anárquica que odeia Deus.
Vídeo da posição de Steffen Königer (legendado em inglês):
60 “gêneros diferentes”. A aliança “Verdes”-LGBT em ridículo num Parlamento alemão:
Vídeo da posição de Steffen Königer (legendado em espanhol):
