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.

If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons, the war in Gaza, let alone the protests on college campuses, will seem like a minor complication. Jonathan Schachter fears that this danger could be much more imminent than decisionmakers in Jerusalem and Washington believe. In his view, Israel seems to be repeating the mistake that allowed it to be taken by surprise on Simchat Torah of 2023 and Yom Kippur of 1973: putting too much faith in an intelligence concept that could be wrong.

Israel and the United States apparently believe that despite Iran’s well-documented progress in developing capabilities necessary for producing and delivering nuclear weapons, as well as its extensive and ongoing record of violating its international nuclear obligations, there is no acute crisis because building a bomb would take time, would be observable, and could be stopped by force. Taken together, these assumptions and their moderating impact on Israeli and American policy form a new Iran concept reminiscent of its 1973 namesake and of the systemic failures that preceded the October 7 massacre.

Meanwhile, most of the restrictions put in place by the 2015 nuclear deal will expire by the end of next year, rendering the question of Iran’s adherence moot. And the forces that could be taking action aren’t:

The European Union regularly issues boilerplate press releases asserting its members’ “grave concern.” American decisionmakers and spokespeople have created the unmistakable impression that their reservations about the use of force are stronger than their commitment to use force to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to enforce its own sanctions comprehensively: Iranian oil exports (especially to China) and foreign-currency reserves have ballooned since January 2021, when the Biden administration took office.

Israel’s response has also been sluggish and ambiguous. Despite its oft-stated policy of never allowing a nuclear Iran, Israel’s words and deeds have sent mixed messages to allies and adversaries—perhaps inadvertently reinforcing the prevailing sense in Washington and elsewhere that Iran’s nuclear efforts do not present an exigent crisis.