Ep 13 ｜ Two Gay Men + A Christian Baker Walk into a Courtroom
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
184.98294
Summary
In this episode, we discuss the Masterpiece Cake Shop Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig, as well as the First Liberty Institute case against Sam Blackledge, the valedictorian at an Illinois high school who was censored at graduation for making remarks about his faith in his commencement address.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey guys, welcome to episode 13, I think it's, I think it's 13, of CRTV's Relatable with me,
00:00:07.420
Allie Stuckey. For those of you who don't know, this is a podcast that discusses relevant
00:00:12.500
cultural, political, and theological issues from a conservative and reformed Christian
00:00:17.840
perspective. Last week we talked about free speech, what it is, what it isn't, why it's
00:00:23.180
important, and we touched on another part of the First Amendment, which is religious liberty,
00:00:27.860
and that is what we are going to focus on today, at least partly. We are going to discuss the
00:00:34.040
Masterpiece Cake Shop Supreme Court case, which involves two gay men and a Christian cake baker,
00:00:40.240
as well as a lower level case taken on by First Liberty Institute about Sam Blackledge, the
00:00:46.460
valedictorian at an Illinois high school who was censored at graduation for planning to include
00:00:52.260
remarks about his faith in his commencement address. And then I will touch on a couple other
00:00:57.740
topics in the news, including Bill Clinton and Miss America. I will also answer a couple of
00:01:02.500
your questions that you guys sent me. You sent me a ton of really good ones, but I only ever have
00:01:07.320
time for a couple. So I'm going to answer one regarding the morality of birth control that I
00:01:12.200
think I got last week, and then another question involving Catholicism. But first, before I do any of
00:01:18.660
that, I want to point out a mistake that I made on last week's podcast regarding the religious
00:01:22.860
liberty report I cited. I said that Secretary Pompeo released a religious liberty report last
00:01:28.200
week, which he did, but that was not actually the report I read from. I read from the 2017 United
00:01:34.920
States Commission for International Religious Freedom, which is different and also not the
00:01:39.580
most up-to-date report, which is their report from 2018. All of the facts that I read to you are
00:01:44.160
correct, but I somehow, and honestly, I don't know how. I am not careless. I don't know how it happened.
00:01:51.560
I cited the wrong report and said inaccurately who actually released the report, so I apologize for
00:01:57.100
that, but I just wanted to let you guys know. Okay, moving on. Let's get into the Masterpiece
00:02:02.960
Cake Shop Supreme Court case, the ruling of which came out this week. Those of you who have been
00:02:08.360
following me for a while might remember that I made a GoFundMe page last fall to raise money for
00:02:13.900
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, who lost a lot of business due to the bad PR
00:02:19.660
surrounding this case. And on that point, just a note, I've gotten a lot of criticism from people
00:02:25.080
saying, oh, well, that's just the market doing its job. Who cares if he's lost money? Why would you
00:02:29.900
start a GoFundMe page? Aren't you a conservative? And okay, you're right. I am. I'm totally fine and for
00:02:36.680
the market responding however it wants to to service that it deems bad, even if I don't agree that it's
00:02:41.860
bad service. But another part of the free market is that people can give charitably to causes that
00:02:47.000
they care about. And that's what we did with the GoFundMe page. So yeah, don't try to out-capitalist
00:02:51.940
me, okay? I know what I'm doing. Anyway, the case against Jack Phillips was filed by two gay men,
00:02:59.960
David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who went into the cake shop in 2012 to order a cake for their wedding.
00:03:05.380
Jack Phillips said, I will bake you a cake. I will make you cookies. I will sell you brownies. I will
00:03:10.460
make you anything in this whole store. But sorry, I do not make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.
00:03:16.460
Phillips is a devout Christian who believes in the biblical definition of marriage between a man
00:03:20.760
and a woman. He was not rude from what I hear. He did not refuse them service. He just said,
00:03:27.180
for this particular occasion, it would go against my sincerely held religious beliefs to use my
00:03:32.620
artistic expression to render you a cake that celebrates something that I consider to be sin.
00:03:38.620
He didn't think anything of his interaction, apparently, until, of course, Mullins and Craig
00:03:45.040
sued him. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, accusing Phillips
00:03:50.700
of violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The state of Colorado ruled in favor of Mullins and
00:03:55.740
Craig and said, no, Jack Phillips, you must make gay wedding cakes no matter what your religious
00:04:01.160
convictions are. Well, this case made it to the Supreme Court, who is supposed to determine whether or not
00:04:06.660
Phillips is protected by the First Amendment to choose to not make this cake due to his religious
00:04:11.720
views. And they did and they didn't. So this was a 7-2 ruling in Phillips' favor, meaning that, yes,
00:04:20.120
technically, this means that Phillips' First Amendment rights prevailed. I tweeted as much when
00:04:25.040
it happened that this is a great day for the First Amendment, and I believe that. However, others on both
00:04:30.880
sides of the aisle would say that it was not a great day for the First Amendment, and I will explain
00:04:34.880
why, because I also partly agree with that. You've probably read headlines calling this a, quote,
00:04:40.140
narrow ruling, even though it was a large majority who ruled in favor of Phillips. But what they mean
00:04:45.440
by narrow is the scope of ruling, not the number of justices in the majority. So here is why people
00:04:53.020
are saying that it is a narrow ruling. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Justice Kennedy was
00:04:58.540
nominated by Reagan and has written the majority opinion for quite a few major cases, like Planned
00:05:03.820
Parenthood v. Casey, Obergefell v. Hodges, which was the case that ruled that gay people have a
00:05:09.540
fundamental right to marry. He has been a swing vote in quite a few cases. A lot of conservatives
00:05:14.480
don't like Kennedy. A lot of people say that he's not a good justice, but he wrote the majority. He
00:05:19.640
wrote what people are calling the very narrow majority opinion of the court on this masterpiece
00:05:24.660
cake shop case. And that's because the opinion Kennedy wrote did very little to actually secure the
00:05:29.820
rights of religious people from being forced to compromise their religious values to appease the
00:05:34.900
gay community or any community. The main reason Kennedy ruled in favor of Phillips, according to
00:05:40.260
his written opinion, was not necessarily because of his First Amendment rights to bake cakes that align
00:05:45.500
with his conscience, but because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the state of Colorado were
00:05:50.660
hostile towards Phillips and his religion in the original case, proving themselves to be biased.
00:05:55.940
Um, as Kennedy notes in his opinion, the state of Colorado said that Phillips, his faith is
00:06:01.040
despicable, implied that it was just rhetorical compared his religious belief to justifications
00:06:06.220
for Jim Crow and the Holocaust. And this treatment Kennedy said, and I think rightly so proved that
00:06:11.560
Colorado and the Civil Rights Commission was not neutral as they were supposed to be to Phillips's
00:06:17.200
faith and made moral judgments that they should not have made and certainly should not have
00:06:22.480
affected the ruling. Um, so here's why conservatives in particular though, are calling that a narrow
00:06:28.000
ruling. Kennedy didn't have much to say about Phillips's right to bake the cake based on his
00:06:32.380
religious views. Uh, the contention was with, like I said, how the court treated Phillips, which
00:06:37.080
doesn't lay very much groundwork for future rulings to protect religious people from being forced by the
00:06:42.660
government to provide a particular service that contradicts their faith. It had more to say about how the
00:06:48.360
court handled the case than the case itself. Some people, uh, particularly conservatives are going
00:06:53.540
so far as to say that this ruling did and said nothing about religious freedom. And I disagree with
00:07:00.140
that. While I do think he certainly could have gone further to emphasize Phillips's first amendment
00:07:04.960
rights. I do still think that Kennedy very obviously regarded religion in this opinion, um, as something
00:07:11.240
that should be taken seriously, that should be respected as something that should never act as a deciding
00:07:17.280
factor in a person's honesty or decency when it comes to rulings. Uh, he called out the clear
00:07:22.600
anti-Christian bias in the Colorado courts and reproved the state courts for not respecting
00:07:27.680
Phillips's religious freedom. So I don't think that this case did absolutely nothing for the first
00:07:32.680
amendment. It did highlight the wrongness and the unconstitutionality of a court ruling against a
00:07:37.660
person because they believe someone's faith is either insincere or inherently bigoted. I think that is at
00:07:43.900
least somewhat of a win on the religious freedom front. Um, but the majority opinion by Kennedy
00:07:50.800
didn't cover the important topic of free speech protected by the first amendment in this case,
00:07:55.120
but justice Thomas, a conservative justice joined by Gorsuch, uh, wrote a concurrence that while
00:08:01.320
obviously it agreed with the ruling that the court came to added breadth to it by discussing the issue
00:08:07.660
a free speech. Uh, basically Thomas emphasized that no law, obviously we know by the first amendment,
00:08:14.460
uh, no law a state makes can abridge free speech and artistic expression qualifies as free speech.
00:08:21.920
Jack Phillips is an artist and in being forced to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding,
00:08:26.060
he would have been through expressive speech, condoning the gay marriage that he religiously opposes.
00:08:31.940
Uh, here's how Thomas worded it forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same
00:08:37.500
sex marriages requires him to at least at the very least acknowledge that same sex weddings are
00:08:43.600
weddings and suggest that they should be celebrated the precise message. He believes his faith forbids,
00:08:49.760
uh, the first amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to bear witness to these facts
00:08:55.160
or to affirm a belief with which he disagrees. Uh, he based much of his argument off of a 1995 case,
00:09:01.620
Hurley, the Irish American gay lesbian and bisexual group of Boston, which ruled that private
00:09:07.140
organizations are permitted to exclude groups. If those groups communicate, uh, messages contrary
00:09:12.480
to the one, the organizing group wants to convey. So in this particular case, it was a parade that was
00:09:18.200
allowed to exclude this gay group because to force them to include the group would have meant that the
00:09:23.240
state was forcing them to express something that they didn't want to express. They said that a parade,
00:09:28.140
the court said that a parade is a form of expression. And in the same way, Thomas is arguing,
00:09:32.540
so is a cake. Now, of course there are opposing views on this. The majority opinion said that
00:09:37.940
Colorado treated Phillips differently from other bakers in previous cakes who also refused to bake
00:09:44.140
cakes that offended them. That's why they said, Hey, Jack Phillips wasn't treated fairly. Look at this
00:09:48.860
previous cases. Um, there were these three cases in which bakers were asked to create a Bible shaped
00:09:53.560
cake that explicitly stated homosexuality is a sin. And those bakers refused yet they were not sanctioned by
00:10:00.220
the Colorado civil rights commission. Um, so they concluded that this, the court concluded that this
00:10:05.820
was a violation of Phillips first amendment religious expression rights. However, the dissenting argument
00:10:11.840
by Ginsburg and Sotomayor said that this case was different, uh, because Phillips refused to perform
00:10:19.460
a particular service to the customer based solely on their identity, not write a particular message that
00:10:24.820
he didn't like, um, HuffPo, which I know they are crazy a lot of the times, but they summed up the
00:10:30.120
dissent pretty well. Uh, they said there's an important difference between a bakery that refused
00:10:36.940
to make a cake for anyone with anti LGBTQ language on it and a bakery that refused to make a cake for
00:10:45.200
someone in particular, which they would have made for others because that someone was a member of the
00:10:51.000
LGBTQ community. While the former is not discrimination, the latter is that's what HuffPo says.
00:10:56.600
But in my opinion, it all goes back to whether or not you believe that the making of a cake is
00:11:01.620
religious expression or, uh, just any kind of expression, which is exactly why Thomas's
00:11:07.040
conclusions make more sense and hold more water. In my opinion, the Kennedy's do who really focused
00:11:12.000
on how the courts disrespected Phillips's religion, not how the case itself affected his religion,
00:11:17.420
religious expression and free speech. That is why people are saying that this was narrow. Um,
00:11:22.540
of course though, the reaction to the ruling by many on the left is absolutely absurd talking about
00:11:30.500
how this is a step back, how discriminatory this ruling is against gay people who just want to love
00:11:35.540
who they want to love. No, it's, it's actually not. It's really not. Kennedy is the guy who wrote the
00:11:42.740
majority opinion on the case that ruled that same sex marriage is a fundamental right. He is down with
00:11:48.120
the LGBT community. So this is not about that. Gay people can love who they want to love in this
00:11:52.860
country without fear of punishment, but they via the state should not be able to force someone to
00:11:57.900
communicate a message through their artistic expression that the artist does not agree with.
00:12:02.720
No matter what you think about the actual ruling of the case, no matter what you think about Kennedy's
00:12:07.220
argument, the point is this, we should not have to live in a country where the government can not
00:12:11.740
only tell you that you cannot conduct your business in a way that aligns with your sincerely
00:12:16.400
held religious beliefs, but also that you have to use your talents, your artistry, your expression
00:12:23.320
to convey a concept idea or message that directly contradicts what your faith teaches. I mean, is that
00:12:29.820
what we want? That is censorship. Remember Jack Phillips did not refuse them service. He said, I'll make you
00:12:37.680
anything but a wedding cake. He's not discriminating against them. He is discriminating, if you will,
00:12:44.740
against the specific act of marriage between two people of the same sex, which is simply living
00:12:50.320
according to the Bible, which he happens to follow very closely. So for anyone saying that Phillips is
00:12:55.920
a bigot for not condoning same-sex marriage, I say he's no more of a bigot than you are.
00:13:02.400
You don't agree with his lifestyle. He doesn't agree with yours.
00:13:05.320
See, here's the thing. So many non-religious progressives expect Christians and religious
00:13:11.140
people to fall in line with their set of morals. And if we don't, we are the mean bigots. Like,
00:13:16.640
they don't understand why we take the Bible seriously, why we have a set of biblical principles
00:13:21.120
we adhere to, because they don't. But what they don't realize is that they are just as much zealots
00:13:27.320
as any Christian. They are just as adamant about the correctness of their own religion as we are.
00:13:33.620
They demand tolerance. They demand inclusion. They demand acceptance. They demand we latch onto
00:13:38.040
their definitions of love and hate. They are the actual bigots. They are the ones who think that
00:13:43.600
they are better than Christians because of their set of beliefs. I don't think that I'm better than
00:13:48.260
anyone because of my Christian beliefs. I just want to adhere to the Bible. I'm pretty sure them
00:13:52.900
believing that they're better than me because they believe something different than what I believe
00:13:58.340
is the definition of bigotry. Nevertheless, though, Phillips won. He was treated in a hostile
00:14:03.760
manner by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. His religious views were respected by the Supreme
00:14:08.240
Court. It affirms that we still respect as a rule people's religious views in the court of law,
00:14:13.500
even though it may have failed to fully ensure religious people's right to express themselves in
00:14:18.140
a way that aligns with their faith in the public sphere. No doubt we will be seeing
00:14:22.760
more cases like this, I think, in the years to come. I do believe that Christians are under
00:14:28.260
attack. I think that we will continue to be under attack. It will continue to be hard for Christians
00:14:34.000
to speak out about and live out their faith, especially in the face of the sexual revolution
00:14:38.540
that's been happening over the past 10 years. We will incessantly be labeled as bigots for believing
00:14:43.680
in biblical marriage, and we have to stand strong and stay faithful and most of all know that our hope
00:14:48.240
isn't in the courts or in government, but in Jesus's return and his ultimate restoration of all
00:14:53.720
things. Now, moving on to our next case that has not yet made it to the Supreme Court, the case of
00:14:59.820
Sam Blackledge, co-valedictorian at his Illinois high school, where his school censored his religious
00:15:05.480
statements before he delivered his long-planned commencement speech. I interviewed one of the
00:15:10.060
lawyers on the case from First Liberty Institute, and here it is.
00:15:14.000
Keisha, thank you so much for joining us. If you could tell us quickly who you are and what you do.
00:15:20.380
I am Keisha Russell. I am the Associate Counsel at First Liberty Institute in Texas,
00:15:25.120
and we are the largest legal organization that's dedicated exclusively to protecting religious
00:15:31.680
And tell me about this Sam Blackledge case. That's the case that I am fascinated in right now.
00:15:38.040
So Sam was the valedictorian for his May 2018 class at West Prairie High School in Illinois.
00:15:46.800
He was asked to give the valedictorian address, and just minutes before his speech, they told him
00:15:52.900
that he would have to remove all the references to his faith and religion out of that speech if he
00:15:58.520
Okay, so he couldn't talk about the thing that's probably most important to him, even though he had
00:16:04.000
earned the right to do that by being valedictorian, and they didn't tell him until the very last
00:16:11.000
Well, Sam gave the speech to the school officials earlier that day, assuming according to the
00:16:17.720
criteria that they asked. And they told him right before he was going to deliver it that he couldn't
00:16:26.300
Did they tell him why? Is it a rule that he failed to follow?
00:16:30.520
No, it wasn't a rule he failed to follow. They said they didn't want the graduation to
00:16:34.960
turn into, quote, a religious ceremony because of the references to his faith and his speech.
00:16:42.040
He gave the speech in a redacted form. So there were quite a few paragraphs that he had to eliminate
00:16:48.040
from the speech. And he was very upset about it. But he gave the speech and he wanted to respect
00:16:54.100
their wishes and not be, you know, insupportant.
00:16:57.020
Yeah, I think anyone would be upset about that after all of that hard work. He obviously was
00:17:03.200
because he reached out to First Liberty Institute. And what have you guys done for him?
00:17:07.260
So we wrote a letter to the school district explaining the Constitution and that Sam was
00:17:14.220
well within his rights to express his religious beliefs and his graduation speech. And we asked
00:17:22.460
them to amend their policies to properly reflect what the Constitution allows and also for them to
00:17:38.540
Okay. Do you expect them to respond anytime soon? I mean, I don't really know what the norm is for
00:17:46.020
Well, we've asked them to respond by July. So they have some time to think about it and figure out
00:17:52.740
what they want to do. We hope they'll respond. We can't guarantee that they will. But no matter what
00:17:58.840
they do, we're committed to protecting Sam and students in that position in the future. So we'll do
00:18:04.460
what we have to do in order to make the message clear.
00:18:06.700
And what does that entail? Say they say, no, we're not going to do that. Or they just don't respond by
00:18:14.260
Well, we escalate the matter. And that can include a few things. I can't say exactly what it would
00:18:19.940
entail, just because I'm limited to what I could say about it. But you know, we're willing to take
00:18:24.580
it all away if we have to. So we're hoping that they will be amenable to our request.
00:18:31.420
And these kind of cases that you guys work with, are schools typically, are they typically compliant
00:18:37.160
in these kind of things? Or do you guys get a lot of pushback?
00:18:39.900
It depends on the school. Yeah, it definitely varies. You can't put it in one category or
00:18:46.820
another. We're hoping that they'll fall into the category of the school districts that have in the
00:18:51.420
past been, you know, just very apologetic and gracious about it and willing to move forward.
00:18:56.980
Yeah, that's the goal. I mean, you guys probably don't want to have to take it to
00:19:00.820
the Supreme Court. But you know, you will if you have to. Will you explain what exactly
00:19:07.900
religious liberty, freedom of speech, the First Amendment means? Because it gets conflated with
00:19:12.860
all these other speech issues that we have going on in the media. Tell us what it actually is and
00:19:18.880
what it is not. So, you know, religious expression, freedom of speech, those things are pretty widely
00:19:24.660
protected. So I'll sort of narrow it into the context of school, public school in particular.
00:19:29.520
So private religious expression by students is fully protected.
00:19:34.900
And what is private religious expression versus public?
00:19:38.440
So and what I mean, I mean, private speech, meaning a speech that is attributable to a student
00:19:44.620
and they're allowed to express that speech in public. So I'll make that clearer.
00:19:49.580
So, yes, there's cases that say that neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional
00:19:53.660
rights at the schoolhouse gates. That means just because a student goes to school,
00:19:57.280
that doesn't mean that you can now squelch their freedom of speech. Okay, there are certain
00:20:02.040
instances where schools are allowed to censor speech if it's lewd or profane or something like
00:20:06.760
that. But religious speech is completely protected. And students are allowed to share their faith with
00:20:12.180
their classmates and in public and school and at graduation ceremonies. There's a Department of
00:20:17.640
Education got some guidelines on that on their website that have been there since 2003
00:20:23.020
that state that as long as students are selected with neutral criteria and the student's speech is
00:20:30.860
they have primary control over the speech, they're allowed to give it in public and the school should
00:20:36.200
So can you explain the difference between this happening at a public school, which Sam's school
00:20:42.080
is public, versus this happening at a private school? If I went to a Christian school and I was
00:20:47.780
valedictorian and I wanted to go up there and say there's no such thing as God, the private Christian
00:20:52.880
school would be able to tell me, you know, you can't say that because they're private, right?
00:20:58.760
Yes. And the difference is that the Constitution protects us from government action. And there's
00:21:05.120
instances where it does apply to private entities. But in this particular situation, the First Amendment
00:21:10.940
protects you against government action. So a private school is not government. A private school is private.
00:21:16.520
But public school, high school, like the one Sam goes to, they're a government entity. So they're not allowed
00:21:24.400
Are you guys seeing an increase in the infringement on religious liberty at public schools?
00:21:31.600
Increase? I would say yes. I think it sort of seems to go with the trends in the public sector. So right now,
00:21:41.080
a lot of religious views are in contention with the views in the public sector, with secular views. And so it just so
00:21:48.480
happens that Christianity and the tenets of the Christian faith sort of require you to be more vocal at times. And that
00:21:55.140
sometimes can, you know, cause a lot of conflict, particularly in schools. And then you have school officials that are
00:22:00.900
trying to reduce that conflict in some ways, or in some cases, stay out of the possibility that someone is
00:22:09.020
going to charge them with establishing religion in some way, just because they allow a student to say
00:22:14.080
something. But allowing a student to say something is not endorsing religion. That is allowing the student
00:22:20.800
to express rights that there are viewpoints that they have that are totally protected under the Constitution.
00:22:26.140
So it's very different. Yeah. I mean, the First Amendment doesn't condone speech. It just allows
00:22:31.200
you to express speech or express your religious views. And I don't know about you, but I just get
00:22:36.760
a little bit worried when I see what's going on on college campuses and even in high schools,
00:22:41.120
how quick we are to censor speech, not just Christian speech, but any kind of dissenting viewpoint.
00:22:47.700
And to me, I mean, that's what America was founded on. So do you guys worry about this upcoming
00:22:53.340
generation not knowing how to properly debate and take on an opposing idea without just shutting it
00:22:59.800
down completely? Yeah, that's our hope is that you will get to the place where we understand how
00:23:04.600
important it is for us to have this kind of discourse, especially in educational institutions
00:23:08.660
and public and schools at all levels from elementary to the university level. It's really important that
00:23:14.840
we encourage that kind of conversation so that these students who end up in some cases running the
00:23:19.800
country will be able to tackle these issues in a way that is constitutional and is, you know, according
00:23:26.940
to all the premises that we founded the country upon. It's important, I think, that we continue to
00:23:32.380
champion that and continue to advocate for that kind of freedom. Yeah. And I think what people need to
00:23:38.260
realize, and you guys do a good job of, I think, emphasizing this, is that this is not a conservative
00:23:44.260
or liberal issue. People, a lot of times, I think they associate the First Amendment with, oh, conservative
00:23:50.280
Christians just trying to protect their viewpoints, when that's not true. I think it's, the First Amendment
00:23:55.940
was set up to protect all kinds of opposing ideas, and it shouldn't be a right or a left issue.
00:24:02.440
Unfortunately, it's become that, don't you think? I think so. And like I said, I think because the fact that
00:24:09.520
religion oftentimes is in contradiction with a lot of secular viewpoints right now, it becomes difficult
00:24:16.420
to see that just because someone doesn't agree, just because someone's religion is maybe in
00:24:21.760
contention with secular viewpoints, that doesn't mean that that needs to be silenced. We need to
00:24:25.900
encourage that kind of conversation and just realize that people are allowed to have those
00:24:30.460
different views, and that's why we live in America, and that's why it's so great, because we're allowed to
00:24:34.760
express those views without government retribution. Exactly, and that's what you guys are here for.
00:24:40.020
So what do you guys hope will happen in the realm of religious liberty, particularly as it pertains
00:24:45.360
to public education in the next five years? Well, I think, and going back to what we talked about
00:24:51.600
earlier, Ali, that we would love to see, you know, educational institutions respect the First
00:24:57.200
Amendment completely to allow full conversation and discourse about all of these topics, especially the
00:25:03.940
controversial ones, so that we can get our students prepared to have these dialogues in Congress or
00:25:09.720
to be able to vote in a way that they're informed and they can bring something to the table in the
00:25:15.000
future. I think it's going to be really difficult to do that and to have a well-informed population if
00:25:19.760
you squelch viewpoints just because they're not popular.
00:25:23.200
You said well-informed, and I think that's the thing that people are lacking is just proper
00:25:28.200
information. I know that my followers always ask me, where do you get your information? So tell us
00:25:33.300
about the resources that you guys have so people can just know what their rights are.
00:25:37.920
Yeah, absolutely. So firstliberty.org, you spell out first, F-I-R-S-T, and we have some protection
00:25:44.080
kits there. Under resources, you can see the First Amendment rights, the religious liberty rights for
00:25:49.940
students and teachers in public schools. We have a kit that provides all that information and explains
00:25:56.160
what you're able to do and not do and what schools are able to do and not do. We think it's important
00:26:02.560
that people look at these things and they know they're right so that they can identify when
00:26:10.800
Well, thank you for everything that you guys do. I think it's so important. It's probably
00:26:14.920
increasingly important, and I appreciate you taking the time to inform me and inform my audience about
00:26:20.940
the Blackledge case, and I look forward to continuing to follow that.
00:26:24.740
Well, I look forward to talking to you again, Allie. Thank you so much for what you do.
00:26:29.480
So we will continue to follow the Sam Blackledge case like we heard in the interview. A public
00:26:34.200
school is in some ways an extension of the state and cannot, under the First Amendment,
00:26:38.240
stifle speech it doesn't agree with. Okay, I was going to talk about Bill Clinton and Miss America,
00:26:43.540
but I would rather get to your question, so I'll just sum it up really quickly. Basically,
00:26:47.460
Bill Clinton won't fully own up to taking advantage of Monica Lewinsky because he's gross.
00:26:51.700
And on Miss America, it's apparently no longer going to be a thing to judge girls based on their
00:26:59.840
appearance. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, yes, inward beauty is far superior,
00:27:05.120
and I do agree with taking away the swimsuit portion because I personally think it's objectifying.
00:27:10.500
I know people have different views on that. I just don't see a good justification for it. But
00:27:16.040
on the other hand, there's nothing wrong inherently with beauty, and I know pageant contestants who are
00:27:21.440
kind, smart, talented, virtuous, and are beautiful. They're the whole package, and I think that's
00:27:26.040
great. It is a beauty pageant. I just think that they went too far in saying that the exterior won't
00:27:31.980
matter at all. I feel like now they purposely won't choose pretty women, and that's not fair. It just
00:27:38.260
won't be a pageant, period, which is maybe the direction that we're going in, and I'm okay with that.
00:27:43.980
I have friends whom I love that have done pageants, but I personally don't see really what
00:27:50.980
good. They contribute to society. So in my personal opinion, it's fine if they are no more.
00:27:57.460
Okay, to your questions. One great question that I got. Birth control. Moral or not? This is a
00:28:04.920
difficult question, I think. It's a little complex. Also, I don't necessarily recommend listening to
00:28:10.540
this if you're a guy. I mean, you can, maybe, but especially if you're like related to me, and you're
00:28:16.320
a male, and you're not my husband. I don't know. Kind of freaks me out knowing that you're listening,
00:28:20.340
but I want to answer this question because I think it's good. On the one hand, I think God is
00:28:24.560
sovereign, and you will get pregnant when he wills. Obviously, we're talking about in the context of
00:28:28.520
marriage here. Maybe the advancement of modern medicine is a gift of common grace to women who
00:28:33.660
are married, having sex, but are not in school. They're in low-paying, or they are in school.
00:28:39.840
They're in low-paying jobs. They're not in a position to care very well for children.
00:28:44.140
I certainly know godly women who use birth control, and their relationships with Jesus
00:28:49.560
are genuine. I don't think that them using birth control means that they don't trust God. It just
00:28:54.920
means that that's where they are in life. I also know people who have been in very difficult
00:29:00.940
circumstances, who have been poor, who have been in school, who have gotten pregnant, and everything
00:29:05.700
has turned out great for them. It was hard, but it worked well. My parents, case in point,
00:29:10.960
when they first got married, my husband and I personally are not and have not ever been.
00:29:17.220
That said, I do think it largely depends on your heart, and this was a lesson that was very hard
00:29:22.560
for me to hear when I first heard it. The Bible says that children are a blessing, and if you view
00:29:27.480
children as an inconvenience to your life, as something that you are putting off because you
00:29:32.940
want to accomplish some arbitrary checklist, then that is wrong. Now, I think that there's something to
00:29:38.680
be said for spending time with your husband when you first get married. We've been married for two
00:29:43.240
and a half years, and we don't have kids yet, and I'm very thankful for the time we've spent together,
00:29:47.060
but without getting into a lot of detail, we will see what happens in the near future, but I don't
00:29:53.180
want to, nor do I think it's right to put off kids just for your career. I say that as a career-oriented
00:29:59.780
person. Also, a note on birth control. Some birth control prevents fertilization. Some prevents
00:30:05.660
implantation, which means that a fertilized egg would not be able to survive in the uterus because
00:30:10.800
of the birth control pill. So depending on your view, that could be seen as an abortion, but it
00:30:16.160
depends on the birth control pill, so just make sure that you check into that. You don't want to be
00:30:20.260
accidentally, you know, making a moral decision that you didn't mean to make. Someone asked me this
00:30:26.580
question on Instagram, which is basically where I get all my questions, which I hope is a joke because
00:30:31.220
it made me laugh, but I'll take it seriously because I've been asked about this a lot. The
00:30:35.240
question is, when will you reject the heresy of Protestantism and join the one holy Catholic and
00:30:40.040
apostolic church? And that would be why I am not Catholic. I'm just kidding. I have friends that are
00:30:46.360
Catholic. I know a lot of very godly Catholics, so please don't say that I'm anti-Catholic. You have
00:30:53.120
your reasons, you Catholics out there, that you're not Protestant. I have my reasons that I am not
00:30:58.620
Catholic and I love you regardless of that. So please allow me, without calling this an attack
00:31:04.460
on Catholicism, let me tell you why I personally am not Catholic. Because I do have beef with
00:31:11.160
Catholicism, obviously, or else I would be Catholic myself. And my basic beef with Catholicism is
00:31:16.360
essentially the beef that Martin Luther and Protestants throughout the ages have had with
00:31:20.380
Catholicism. And that is, even though at its core, Catholicism believes that Christ is the only
00:31:25.320
means of salvation, it just puts too many obstacles in the way of the truth that, quite frankly, I don't
00:31:30.640
believe are biblical. The confession, the Our Fathers, the Hail Marys, they're not biblical. And they put
00:31:36.580
priests and people, Mary was just a person, by the way, in place of Jesus, who is our only intercessor.
00:31:43.060
I don't need a priest to forgive my sins. Jesus did that for me. I don't need Mary to intercede on my
00:31:49.020
behalf. Jesus did that for me. I don't need to pray to the saints. I pray to Jesus. Also, Catholics today
00:31:56.140
and their freedom to read the Bible, to interpret scripture, etc., can be owed to Martin Luther and
00:32:01.560
the Protestants who protested because the Catholic Church's hierarchy suppressed lay people, made them
00:32:06.900
pay indulgences to secure their salvation, and prevented them from their own personal relationship
00:32:12.040
with Christ. And while, like I said, I know awesome, godly Catholics and some not-so-awesome,
00:32:18.460
not-so-godly Protestants, that said, the Catholic friends I had in college had no idea that you could
00:32:24.840
have a relationship with Jesus on earth. It was like mind-blowing to them when I talked to them
00:32:29.540
about this. They thought that if you were just good, if you did the sacraments, went to mass,
00:32:33.160
confessed your sins, then you're good. You're fine. Catholics have done, by the way, though,
00:32:39.720
a heck of a lot of good. Charities, hospitals, so many organizations dedicated to humanity are run
00:32:44.880
by Catholics. Pro-life organizations run by Catholics. And that should not be overlooked.
00:32:49.660
There are plenty of Protestants, like I said, who are not really Christians, just as there are many
00:32:54.200
Catholics who are not really Christians. And to me, as long as you believe that it is by grace,
00:32:59.740
through faith, in that alone that you are saved in Christ, then you are a Christian. We can have our
00:33:05.520
liturgical differences. It's when we have serious theological differences about what
00:33:09.700
saves you that I get, that I have a more serious conversation. Anyway, that is all for now. I
00:33:19.800
love y'all. Email me, Allie at the conservativemillennialblog.com. Follow me on social media
00:33:24.200
if you would like. Leave me a nice five-star review if you would like. Share this with your
00:33:28.420
friends if you would like. Okay. Love y'all. Have a great week.