The decision handed down this week by the Supreme Court of the United States, expanding the sex discrimination clause of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the categories now of LGBTQ, is going to be one of those decisions that will have massive and dangerous impact as a precedent.

It’s going to go down as one of those decisions in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States that will set the trajectory for our culture. And that is very lamentable.

To argue that sex discrimination in 1964 had anything to do with the letters LGBTQ is irrational and it is intellectually dishonest. It’s sad that two conservative justices joined the majority in this case, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion after all. Justice Samuel Alito in dissent got it exactly right when he said that what the court did this week is not to judge, but rather to “legislate.”

And that is not what the Constitution calls upon the court to do. It’s a sad day in American constitutional history, and it sets the stage for even more sad days in our future.

In a recent interview with the Financial Times, legendary investor Warren Buffet criticized businesses for imposing their own political framework on the rest of society. At first glance, this may come as a surprise: Buffet is himself a politically active liberal. But even he can see that “woke capitalism” has gone too far.

As an investor, he’s been consistent in supporting businesses that put shareholders first. The shareholders, after all, are the owners.

Carbon neutrality, LGBTQ activism, sustainability and other forms of virtue signaling are just corporate perks—the private jets of a business class that craves social validation … validation not for being rich, but for being woke.

Such indulgences might win them points in their social set and with elite media, but not with their owners.

If they want to do it, they should at least do it on their own dime.

Dennis Prager laments Chick-fil-A pulling funding from Christian organizations that believe in Biblical marriage.

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.