The US supreme court handed down two major decisions that defied what evangelicals hoped President Trump would avoid. 

Its caused a lot of consternation. 

The first ruled that a LGBTQ could not be fired by a fire on grounds of sexual status, regardless of the religious status of the owners. 

The second ruled that a Reno, Nevada, church could not reopen its doors in lock-down, even though casinos remain open. 

But the chief justice cast the deciding vote in favor of the liberal position. 

At face value the first seems at least a reasonable decision, but it did offend conservatives deeply and they felt that Trump's last court appointee, Judge Kavanaugh had betrayed them.

He didn't. They are judges first and must be politically blind. 

They cannot be subjective, but must interpret the law from the perspective of experience, education, case history and worldview. 

The hearings will disqualify an overtly or historically biased candidate. 

As such, their primary bias vests in their interpretation of the constitution and what they believe the drafters of that had in mind.

All judges are blind to subjective considerations, but constitutional court judges exist to defend the constitution above all else. 

They are guardians of that 230 year old social contract.

To that end they are required to weigh competing rights justly. So when a LGBTQ is prejudiced, that must be weighed up accordingly. 

And like it or not, such an employee pays taxes and likely does a fine job, so what he does in his private life is no business of the employer.

I might add that the Mosaic law applied a similar principle. It is silent on many things, but all ten fundamental laws are weighted towards how one man's behavior impacts another's. 

As for the church ruling, well, sure, that challenges me too. 

It is understandable to lock down all public gathering places, but that should include casinos.

However, the state would have argued that Nevada's economy is critically dependent on gambling. It has little else going for it. 

So to close casinos, risked closing the Nevada economy, to which end, in their case, casinos were deemed an essential service. 

The court agreed and differentiated what was for the greater good and essential, from what has a minority benefit and is not essential. 

Both gatherings would be deemed a health risk.

But the state ruled that all public gatherings were cancelled, so to make an exception for a church was to risk sporting and entertainment venues opening as well.

That was not a desirable outcome for the state or the court. 

The spirit of an emergency measure enacted by the state is to minimize risks to the majority of its citizens. 

Church can function, albeit imperfectly, online. Maybe gambling is also possible online, but the casinos employ tens of thousands and support cities like Reno and Las Vegas. 

Well, we can debate until the cows come home. 

The fact is that a Constitutional court must weigh competing rights and the social obligations of state institutions. 

Religious bias is not a factor of decision making. The conservative four judges wrote ruled in favor of the church.

But the decision deferred to the liberal argument, based on principles of law, not subjective sentiment. 

That is an important guiding principle for all just societies. 

Indeed, God is as wise in his justice and lives with a lot of things that will have their day, but must be for now. 

I can only hope that it is a healthy lesson for those who felt that they could manipulate such outcomes through the ballot box. 

Its a bit like expecting God to ensure a sunny day for his own at the expense of the rain that the farmer is also praying for.  

God doesn't work like that, nor do sound governments. 

(c) Peter Missing @ me2u2all.blogspot.com