You can read the entire Constitution, top to bottom, and never find the words “same-sex marriage.” The freedom of religion, on the other hand, is right there in black and white. But guess which one Americans are fighting for their country to recognize?

For baker Jack Phillips and hundreds of Christians around the country, it’s been shocking to watch 226 years of religious liberty disappear in the fog of a 2015 court decision. But, as FRC’s Travis Weber points out, this is exactly the crisis conservatives warned about when five Supreme Court justices decided to redefine marriage — and with it, how our country handles the God-given freedom to believe and live according to those beliefs. And now, ironically, the group struggling most with how to handle this predicament is the same court that created the problem in the first place.

Since Obergefell, scores of conflicts, involving businesses, service members, employees, wedding vendors, nonprofits, schools, and even churches, have exploded across a country that was told same-sex marriage “wouldn’t affect you.” Chief Justice John Roberts wasn’t the only one who predicted that 2015 wasn’t the end of the battle for marriage — but the beginning of the fight for freedom. “Today’s decision,” he warned, “creates serious questions about religious liberty. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.” On Tuesday, justices heard the first major reckoning of that ruling, struggling intently on where to draw the line in the new and possibly final frontier they created.

“If [making a cake is] artistic expression under the First Amendment, the justices wondered at argument, who else might be? Is the florist, wedding invitation designer, makeup artist, hairstylist, dessert artist, or chef? These individuals need First Amendment protection too now due to the threat of Obergefell,” Travis writes. “Yet if they are found to not be engaged in expression and granted First Amendment protection, they are all at risk of being forced to lend their creative talents to same-sex wedding ceremonies. The Court must now deal with having to protect all of them — and more — in light of its decision in Obergefell.”

For Christians, though, it’s all the more maddening to be hauled to court by the anti-faith Left when you see that it has no trouble embracing the freedom to believe when it comes to its own agenda. The hypocrisy is astounding. Far-left fashion designers like Sophie Theallet had no problem refusing to dress First Lady Melania Trump — but where are those cries of “discrimination”? Christians turn down a job order and they’re threatened with thousands of dollars in fines and six months in jail! I’m fine with designers declining to dress the Trumps — but I’m not fine with the double standard.

Or what about the pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer, a publicly traded company that announced last year that it was clamping down on the distribution of its drugs for lethal injections? “With Pfizer’s announcement, all FDA-approved manufacturers of any potential execution drug have now blocked their sale for this purpose,” explained The New York Times. “Executing states must now go underground if they want to get hold of medicines for use in lethal injection.” More than 20 American and global drug producers say they have moral objections to the death penalty and are refusing sales to corrections agencies. These are multinational, multi-billion dollar companies — yet somehow they have a right to conscience when people like Jack don’t? And ironically, the same party applauding their conviction is the one throwing bakers, florists, and nuns under the bus.

Like most conservatives, I may disagree with Pfizer and Theallet, but I support their right of conscience. No one should be forced to give up their constitutional rights to do their job. Instead of singling out conservatives for punishment, it’s time to apply the same freedom to everyone. The Left cannot continue to light a same-sex unity candle with the match it’s taking to the First Amendment. Tolerance is for everyone — or it isn’t tolerance at all.

Originally published here.

Moving the U.S. Embassy Was a Capitol Idea

It shouldn’t be controversial when a president follows the law — but not every president is Donald Trump. When the administration promised to make good on a 22-year-old promise to Congress, no one should have doubted that this White House would. But even now, a year after keeping his word on every major policy within his power, the world still seems surprised by Donald Trump’s sincerity.

That much is clear in the 24 hours since the White House announced its plans to do what four presidents haven’t: move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, its eternal capital. World leaders are hysterical, claiming that it would hurt a non-existent peace process (a ridiculous claim, since keeping the embassy where it is hasn’t exactly resulted in a Middle East kumbaya). Here in the U.S., liberals like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews are apoplectic. “It’s the Christian evangelicals down there [in the South] with their crazy ideas about Israel which is, I don’t know, mythical. They don’t understand the situation over there, how tricky it is ethnically and tribally. They don’t care because it’s a religious belief. Trump is playing into that this week you watch him.”

Trump is not playing into anything but Congress’s own decree! In 1995, the House and Senate passed a law — not a recommendation or a resolution or a sense of the Senate, a law — insisting that America move its embassy to the Israeli capital. For over two decades, presidents have ignored it, kicking the can down the road every six months allowing others to dictate American foreign policy. Enter Donald Trump, who decided the United States would not be held hostage by a hotbed of extremist violence. “While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise,” he told reporters, “they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.”

Christopher Ruddy probably put it best when he said, “People are waking up to the fact that the president doesn’t see grays and doesn’t like pastels. He is very proud that he’s fulfilled so many campaign promises, and the embassy decision is another.” For his evangelical base, it’s a monumental step forward in a relationship with Israel that very nearly came undone under Barack Obama. To Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and the world — this is a sign of good faith between two nations with a special relationship.

Ironically, lost in all of the “controversy” is also this crucial point: Both parties have asked for the move — repeatedly. In fact, it’s one of the few issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree. At a time when very few values overlap, a Jerusalem embassy was a key point in both parties’ political platforms. Just this May, the Senate proved it, unanimously passing (90-0) a resolution affirming its support of the 1995 law. “It’s very fitting,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said at the time, “that the Senate passed this resolution 50 years to the day of the start of the Six Day War. The semi-centennial of the reunification of Jerusalem is an important milestone for Israel and Jewish people across the globe.”

Of course, like most politicians, when it comes to actually backing up those words with action, some lose their will. Fortunately, not where Donald Trump is concerned. He continues to work toward the goals he outlined in the campaign. And we — and a grateful Israel — applaud him.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.