Once again, the Colorado judicial system is being asked to consider the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a small business whose owner was asked—in what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to create grounds for a suit—to design a confection celebrating a “gender transition.” The owner, a devout Christian, demurred because of his religious beliefs. In an amicus brief filed on behalf of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and several other organizations, Ian Speir and Howard Slugh consider some of the possible consequences of a ruling against Masterpiece:

While the litigated cases thus far have largely involved artists who identify with the Christian faith, artists of other, minority faiths—Jews and Muslims in particular—will be affected by the outcomes of these cases and the rules they establish.

The First Amendment protects all artists, and that protection is especially important to those with minority or countercultural beliefs. It is not just that the First Amendment tolerates difference and dissent. It ensures that expression is protected from the majority’s proclivity to silence speech and punish those who dare utter it. More fundamentally, it seeks to foster speech pluralism. That constitutional vision, grounded in the unique American creed of individual dignity and choice, requires that individuals, and artists especially, be able to express their beliefs without fear, be able to shape their own artistic messages—what they say and what they don’t—free of punishment and coercion.

When artists create, when they speak up, and when they keep silent, they are contributing to a diverse marketplace of ideas. Many will disagree with their message, and many will be troubled by their silence. That is as it should be.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.