The United Methodist Church has defied mainline Protestant history by saying “no” to the sexual revolution in a crucial vote.

The news came as a result of action at the St. Louis meeting, there was a special general conference of the United Methodist Church—the last mainline Protestant denomination that had not fully surrendered to the LGBTQ revolution.

By a narrow vote of delegates, the denomination voted to uphold biblical standards of sexual morality, the historic teachings of the United Methodist Church consistent with 2,000 years of church history defining marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman.

The narrow vote does not once-for-all answer the future direction of the denomination. But it does point to the strains within just one church that are untenable and unbearable. They cannot last.

But the big news is this: A major, mainline denomination has said “no” to the sexual revolution.

Let’s see how the liberal power structures in that denomination and in others respond.

Earlier this year, the nation’s highest court handed down a decision in the case of Jack Phillips, the baker from Colorado who had been found guilty by the state’s Civil Rights Commission of having violated the rights of LGBT persons by refusing to create cakes with certain messages.

The result was a seven-two decision in favor of Jack.

But now Jack—after the US Supreme Court victory—has some of the very same folks coming back for him again.

Alliance Defending Freedom—the group that successfully defended Jack Phillips all the way to the Supreme Court—is representing him again.

What you haven’t seen reported much is that this is—to put it succinctly—a scam. His opponents in Colorado have made a crusade out of pestering him with outrageous cake requests and then complaining to state officials when he refuses.

The issues here are much bigger than just Jack Phillips.

Hoping for clarification on California AB2943, Dennis Prager turns to State Senator John Moorlach, a Republican Judiciary Committee Member who voted against the relatively unopposed bill, which prohibits “helping anyone with unwanted same-sex desires or gender confusion.”

Townhall Review – May 12, 2018

Congressman Mike Gallagher talks with Hugh Hewitt about President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal. New York Times columnist Bret Stephens and Hugh Hewitt look at the Iranian reaction. Michael Medved examines former President Obama’s reaction complaining that the pullout was a “serious mistake” and accusing Trump of being “so misguided.”  As President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un get ready for their upcoming meeting, three hostages held by North Korea were released and Mike Gallagher celebrates that news. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley speaks with Hugh Hewitt about the rapid-fire federal judge confirmations. Michael Medved looks at how the low unemployment has created new employment problems for some cities…not enough workers. Dennis Prager has his take on the prom dress controversy and how the young lady who posted innocent pictures of her dress had no idea the storm it would create. Michael Medved looks at the reworking of school history textbooks to include the historical contributions by the LGBT community.

The California Assembly has yet again adopted legislation that makes an undeniable infringement on religious liberty.  Assembly Bill 2943 would make it fraudulent and illegal to offer in any way to have anything to do with a change in sexual orientation, or for that matter, an individual’s sexual identity.

The Alliance Defending Freedom says, “the breadth of this censorship is staggering.” David French at National Review described it as, “extraordinarily radical.”

Part of the radical nature of this legislation is the fact that it now elevates sexual identity to something that is beyond question.  In other words, those who are pushing for the moral revolution, especially on LGBT issues, are setting out to eradicate, even by force of coercive law, anyone who would represent any worldview that would stand in their way.

New York Magazine recently published an article entitled “180 Minutes with Desmond is Amazing. He’s a ten year old drag performer and he’s cooler than you.”

This was accompanied by a full page photograph of a ten year old boy dressed out in drag; a photograph that under any other circumstance would likely be identified as skirting right up to the limit of child pornography.

The “cultural elites” behind such messaging are not just trying to change moral beliefs, they are trying to transform moral instincts at an even more basic level.

New York Magazine wants you to know that this ten year old drag entertainer, ‘Desmond is Amazing,’ is cooler than you, but in this context ‘amazing’ and ‘cool’ are two words that show the complete moral insanity of a society.

California’s travel ban, forbidding the expenditure of state money to travel to states that have policies they don’t like, is what I call bully federalism.

You may remember federalism, the idea that state and local governments retain considerable power in our federal system. Under the 10th Amendment, states can fight back and defend their powers against Washington.

But California’s federalism is not defending against federal power, it is offensive in nature, seeking to force its policies onto other states.

California doesn’t want state officials—or even university students—to travel to states that do not agree with its policies on LGBT issues. With the 6th largest economy in the world, California has the economic power to be a bully.

Do we all have to be like California? Is California the only state that gets things right? Is there no respect for the laws of other states, as seems to be called for by the “full faith and credit” provision of the Constitution?

No one likes bullies.