A quick review is necessary of the case I’ve made, some will be new, but I believe these are the underpinnings of any defense.

• The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the dignity of homosexual couples. This means they are ultimately arguing that it is discrimination to treat homosexuality and homosexual marriages as inherently inferior to heterosexual ones.
• The next battle will be then for those involved in the wedding industry. Based on the reasoning above, we will almost certainly lose this battle.
• One of the issues brought up in the Supreme Court was the question of Universities, specifically the Bob Jones case. This hints that Christian universities are likely to be the next major battle. It is at this point that I think we should start setting up legal defenses.

Those in the wedding industry will soon be in a position where they will either need to make a choice between whether they will offer incense to the emperor, or face financial ruin. It may be wise to escalate any discussions of those photographers and bakers to the Supreme court now, though I consider these losing efforts.

The real key for the next major battle may be the BJU tax case. I disagree firmly with my alma mater’s previous position. Many evangelicals can perhaps understand Bill Clinton’s dilemma J William Fullbright, a member of the Old Left, and a segregationist who was a mentor to Clinton. Segregation makes no sense from a Christian perspective but it was defended by early premillenialists, on the grounds this led to the church of the anti-Christ by reversing the separation of the nations at Babel. I’ve dealt with that issue elsewhere. Whether or not modern Evangelical’s would condone BJU’s reasoning (which most would not) the key issue was that the question of BJU’s dating policy was ruled not to be exempt even if religiously motivated. As such, loss of 501(c)3 status might have additional issues rather than the cost of maintaining an institution. If I remember correctly, the right of churches and other religious organizations to base hiring decisions on their doctrinal statements is contingent on this status.

There are a number of routes available, but this must be left to the lawyer’s to discuss. Possible avenues to explore might be rewriting University charters placing them under the confines of an individual church, requiring church membership to attend. In most cases, this would simply mean a student would need to transfer their church membership upon admission.

Secondarily, we should likely invite lawyers to look over a church’s constitution and statement of faith to make them “judgment proof.” There have been cases in the past involving Christian counseling and church discipline, and if I recall correctly, the wording of the church’s papers were crucial in some of those cases.

In all cases, Christian businesses, parachurch organization etc., should consult lawyers to make sure they do what they can to protect their rights.