Supreme Court Favors Casinos Over Churches
A ruling by the United States Supreme Court has denied Nevada its constitutionally mandated religious freedom. In the lawsuit, a Nevada church requested that the state’s religious gatherings be held to the same standards as casinos, gyms and restaurants, which can operate at 50 percent capacity. But on July 24, the court voted 5-4 to uphold the Nevada government’s ruling to limit religious services.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and was established by the Constitution. Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” It is the Supreme Court’s responsibility, “as the final arbiter of the law,” to ensure “the American people the promise of equal justice under law, and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
On Friday, July 24, the Supreme Court failed in this responsibility. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” No provisos—not even for a public health crisis.
Justice Neil Gorsuch put it clearly in his dissent:
This is a simple case. Under the governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshipers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.
And yet the Supreme Court voted to support the restrictions Nevada’s government imposed on churches, while allowing much greater freedoms to places of entertainment.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal judges to deny Nevada its First Amendment rights. Ted Cruz tweeted: “John Roberts has abandoned his oath.” Roberts made a very similar stand in May when he sided with liberal judges to rule against a California church challenging the state’s stay-at-home order.
Roberts sided with liberals in multiple cases in June. He struck down a Louisiana law that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. This would have closed all but one abortion clinic in the state, which critics said would violate a woman’s reproductive rights; however, supporters highlighted that this law would provide higher standards and better protection for patients. Earlier that month, Roberts also supported the case that Title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protecting against employee discrimination based on “sex,” also extends to and protects lgbt workers. Also in June, Roberts’s vote blocked the Trump administration from ending the illegal Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects undocumented immigrant children in the U.S.
In 2013, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote:
If the judges are not subject to constitutional law, they are subject to nothing and nobody! … What most people don’t see is that we are destroying the rule of law. … Again, history reveals that empires are destroyed if they fail to establish the rule of law. But the liberal culture often has contempt of history and our Founding Fathers. Liberals foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law. …
This process is sure to lead to anarchy! That is why you and I should be deeply concerned.
The Supreme Court’s recent rulings are leading to the breakdown of the rule of law because they do not uphold the Constitution. This will ultimately lead to anarchy. The Bible is full of prophecies regarding this future. But before that anarchy, God prophesies something else in the book of Kings, which is part of the former prophets.
“For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel. And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash” (2 Kings 14:26-27). Ancient Israel was in a dire situation, but God saved it temporarily by the hand of Jeroboam. The former prophets contain prophecy for our day.
In his free booklet Great Again, Mr. Flurry identifies U.S. President Donald Trump as the end-time Jeroboam God is using to temporarily save America, one of the modern-day descendants of Israel as proved in The United States and Britain in Prophecy, by Herbert W. Armstrong.
Amos 7 also contains a prophecy for America and the end-time Jeroboam. In this passage, the Prophet Amos warns Jeroboam about God’s approaching wrath to come on him and his nation. Amaziah the priest, who conspires with Jeroboam, warns Amos on Jeroboam’s behalf, saying, “O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: But prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court” (verses 12-13).
Regarding this verse, Mr. Flurry wrote in “Is America’s Supreme Court in Bible Prophecy?”:
When in Amos 7:13 Amaziah says “it is the king’s court,” the word “king’s” is a different Hebrew word than when he talked about “the king’s chapel.” It means kingdom. The King James Version margin reads, “house of the kingdom.” Wycliffe translates it, “house of the realm.” This is not a religious entity, it is something else: the nation’s house. It is not something that is following Jeroboam, yet it favors him. It is helping him in some way. What is this referring to prophetically?
I believe this nonreligious entity, the kingdom’s house, is referring to the United States Supreme Court.
This court was designed to guard the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. In many ways, the Supreme Court is over the whole nation. Even the president is subject to it—which is exactly the type of entity that the “house of the kingdom” is referring to.
I believe this prophetic account in Amos 7 implies that there is a conservative advantage in the Supreme Court, one that favors Jeroboam.
The confirmation of conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite the attacks leveled against him, was a major fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Supreme Court cannot be considered conservative today with Chief Justice John Roberts siding more and more with the liberals. Will the Supreme Court become more conservative to fulfill this prophecy in greater detail?
Though God is temporarily saving America, He will not delay the punishment forever. President Donald Trump may be standing for the rule of law, but the people are not. Just like Mr. Flurry said, history has proved that this can only lead to anarchy. Because of the sins of the people, punishment is coming. To understand what is happening in the Supreme Court, please read Mr. Flurry’s free booklet Great Again and his article “Is America’s Supreme Court in Bible Prophecy?”