A cannabis church (It’s California) keeps fighting for freedom of worship.

Another Christian baker wins what may be a temporary (It’s California) First Amendment victory in her fight to stay in business, even though she declined to create a one-of-a-kind, artistic wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

What connects these two stories? That was the topic at the heart of this weeks “Crossover” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which was recorded this week while I was on grandfather duty. This post is a day late because I’ve been driving back to East Tennessee and it’s really hard to write in a car in cross winds on the High Plains.

The connecting link in the podcast is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 — or RFRA for short. This was a crucial piece of liberal (in the old sense of the word) church-state law backed by a stunningly broad coalition of religious and legal groups during the Bill Clinton administration. Try to imagine: There were only three “nay” votes in the U.S. Senate. Would that happen now? Clearly, the answer is “nay.’

These days, many reporters act as if “RFRA” was some kind of dirty, four-letter term that cannot be spoken in elite newsrooms. If you want some additional info on this syndrome, click here (“Covering a so-called 'religious liberty' story? Dig into religious liberty history”) or here (“Religious Left returns to RFRA: Washington Post explores a crucial Florida abortion showdown”).

The key is that RFRA doesn’t guarantee a victory for citizens who claim that their First Amendment rights have been violated. RFRA states that people have a right to argue that case and that — following some guidelines that have developed over the years — courts have to take these arguments seriously.

So let’s start with this Religion News Service headline: “Shuttered cannabis church takes fight to reopen to California Supreme Court.” Here’s the overture:

A cannabis church in Southern California — which was shut down by the county of San Bernardino over accusations it was illegally functioning as a dispensary — is taking its fight to reopen to the state Supreme Court, arguing that it uses cannabis for religious healing.

After the case was dismissed by a lower court, attorney Matthew Pappas petitioned the California Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct. 20) on behalf of April Elizabeth Mancini, a minister of the church. …

Jah Healing Kemetic Temple of the Divine Church, which has its primary place of worship in Big Bear, California, claims it’s Christian and “believes that the fragrant cane ingredient of the holy anointing oil described in Exodus 30:22 is cannabis,” according to the petition.

The church is part of the Sacramental Life Churches, an organization with an ecclesiastic form of government led by a board of ministers. It had a central place of worship, ordained ministers, regular Sunday services and “a distinct form of religious practice, literature about its beliefs and books of scripture.” …

So what is going on here, in terms of this church making a RFRA claim? I would point readers to two solid clues in this RNS report. First there is this:

[The church] received a notice of violation and later a citation at a previous location after a code enforcement officer “saw a sales room inside the church” for cannabis, according to The San Bernardino Sun. It was also raided by San Bernardino sheriff authorities after residents complained about its present location. Authorities found jars stuffed with cannabis and cannabis-infused drinks and edibles, the news agency reported.

For decades, courts have jumped into issues of faith, worship, medicine, etc., when there are issues of (1) profit, (2) fraud or (3) clear threats to life and health. In this case, it appears that authorities are looking at the SALE of cannabis.

Then there is this crucial passage:

The [church’s] petition argues that the county has never had a problem with churches that bless wine or ayahuasca as sacraments, yet “it has consistently and regularly surveilled, entered-into, and interfered with the JAH church resulting in the Church’s closure,” the petition reads.

That will be an interesting argument and, if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, church-state experts will be pondering this historical differences between the sacramental use of cannabis and, well, peyote (think centuries of Native American rituals). Have there been any other Christian bodies in the past that have shared this cannabis church’s biblical interpretations and then its rituals? History matters.

Then there was an article at The Hill with this headline: “California baker wins case over same-sex wedding cake.” Here’s the crucial church-state material:

Kern County Superior Court Judge J. Eric Bradshaw ruled that California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment failed to show Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by intentionally discriminating against the couple.

Miller had refused to make a custom cake for Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio in 2017 for their wedding and referred them to another bakery, court filings show.

The judge ruled that baking the custom cake falls under “artistic expression,” so Miller’s First Amendment protections to free speech supersede the state’s interest.

The word “custom” is crucial. Also, did Miller refuse to sell the couple other cakes that were already on display?

That would be a crucial question to ask, as it was in the cases involving baker Jack Phillips (“Colorado fine-tunes legal campaign against Masterpiece Cakeshop owner”). Another crucial point: I would bet the bank that Judge Bradshaw also noted that Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio had plenty of other options, in terms of finding a baker who would symbolize their beliefs artistically in a special cake.

Finally, let me turn the RFRA arguments around, in a (recently tweaked) parable that I have shared several times here at GetReligion. The inserted italics mark crucial issues that tend to surface in these kinds of cases.

… Let's say that there is a businessman in Indianapolis who runs a catering company. He is an openly gay Episcopalian and, at the heart of his faith (and the faith articulated by his church) is a sincere belief that homosexuality is a gift of God and a natural part of God's good creation. This business owner has long served a wide variety of clients, including a nearby Pentecostal church that is predominantly African-American.

Then, one day, the leaders of this church ask him to cater a major event — the upcoming regional conference of the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. He declines, saying this would violate everything he stands for as a liberal Christian. He notes that they have dozens of other catering options in their city and, while he has willingly served them in the past, it is his sincere belief that it would be wrong to do so in this specific case.

In terms of the government forcing artists to express views that are not their own, try this wrinkle that I offered during “Crossroads” this week.

What if, rather than a gay Episcopal catering company owner, we were dealing with the owner of a company that created t-shirts, websites or some other content-rich form of media? What if the ex-gay Pentecostals demanded that this Episcopalian create shirts or online materials that backed their cause?

Wait, a website creator being forced to violate his or her conscience?

Hold that thought. It’s time to wait for another major U.S. Supreme Court decision (or another case in which the justices punt). These stories are not going to go away until there is another clarifying ruling (or multiple rulings).

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.

FIRST IMAGE: Screen shot from coverage by ABC News Channel KERO. Click here for the full report posted on YouTube.