NEIL: THE SUPREME COURT BY 7-2
VOTE TODAY SIDING WITH A
COLORADO BAKER REFUSING TO MAKE
A CAKE FOR A SAME-SEX COUPLE
ARGUING IT WENT AGAINST HIS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
I SPOKE WITH THIS BAKER, JACK
PHILLIPS IN 2015 WHEN THIS FIRST
DUSTED UP.
>> MY CASE IS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO FORCE ME
TO VIOLATE MY PERSONAL FREEDOM,
CREATE A CAKE FOR A CEREMONY ANY
THAT I HAVE OBJECTIONS TO.
NEIL: YOU WON'T MAKE A CAKE FOR
GAY WEDDING?
>> CORRECT.
NEIL: YOU WILL NOR A
HETEROSEXUAL ONE?
>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE NOT MAKING WEDDING CAKES.
THAT HAS TAKEN A GOOD PART OF
OUR BUSINESS AWAY.
NEIL: WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT
THREATS AND PORTRAYED AS
RELIGIOUS FREAK WHO IS, ALL BUT
A RACIST, HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU
FEEL?
>> THERE ARE COMMENTS BY PEOPLE
WHO DON'T KNOW ME, WHO HAVEN'T
TAKEN THE TIME TO COME INTO MY
SHOP TO GET TO KNOW ME.
THEY'RE MAKING ASSUMPTION THAT
IS WHAT I AM.
THAT IS STILL BESIDE THE POINT.
WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS, AS
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN I DO HAVE
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
NEIL: ALL RIGHT.
THAT WAS WHAT WAS AT STAKE HERE
AS THIS WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO
THE SUPREME COURT.
JUSTICES BY 7-2 VOTE RULING IN
FAVOR OF THE BAKER.
THEY SAID IT ULTIMATELY CAME
DOWN FOR BATTLING BETWEEN
RESPECT FOR SINCERE RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS, VERSUS PRACTICES THAT
SUBJECT GAY PERSONS TO
INDIGNITIES.
ULTIMATELY SAYING THIS WILL NOT
BE A PRECEDENT-MAKING CASE.
OTHERS IN THE FUTURE WILL BE ON
A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
READ FROM FORMER JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL, ROBERT
DRISCOLL.
I GUESS THE JUSTICES WERE
DANCING ON THE HEAD OF A PIN
HERE, ROBERT?
WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY MADE OUT
ON THIS?
THEY KEPT STRESSING THIS WAS NOT
A PRECEDENT-MAKING CASE.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
>> I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT, IT IS PRECEDENT, IT IS A
NARROW PRECEDENT.
THEY DIDN'T DECIDE FOREVER AND
ALL TIME LAWS SUFFICIENT AS
COLORADO ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THEY DIDN'T DECIDE BAKERS NEVER
HAVE TO MAKE WEDDING CAKES.
WHAT THEY DECIDED IN THIS CASE
THE TRIBUNAL, THE CIVIL RIGHTS
TRIBUNAL HEARD IN CASE WAS
ITSELF HOSTILE TO THE RELIGION
OF MR. PHILLIPS.
AND I THINK JUSTICE KENNEDY'S
OPINION TOOK GREAT PAINS TO
POINT OUT, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE
MAKING THE DECISIONS THEMSELVES,
COMPARED THEM TO NAZI, COMPARED
THEM TO RACISTS, AND IT WAS
CLEARLY NOT OPEN TO TREATING HIS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SINCERELY.
AND THAT WAS THE BIGGER PROBLEM.
A COUPLE OF THE JUSTICES POINTED
OUT IN CONCURRENCE THAT, SAME
TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED BAKERS TO
NOT BAKE CAKES THAT HAD ANTI-GAY
MARRIAGE MESSAGES ON THEM.
THEY, I FIND THAT OFFENSIVE.
I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT.
THAT SAME KIND OF PARALLEL CASE
GONE TO THE SAME TRIBUNAL AND
THEY HAD DECIDED OTHER WAY.
SO THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE,
REALLY WHAT WAS DRIVING THE
TRIBUNAL WAS HOSTILITY TO
MR. PHILLIPS' RELIGION.
THEY DECIDED THIS CASE HE WINS.
THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY LEAVING OPEN
THE QUESTION, I SUSPECT GAVE
PRETTY STRONG HINTS HOW IT WOULD
COME OUT.
IF THERE IS BROADLY APPLICABLE
LAW, STRAIGHT PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATION LAW, THAT YOU
DON'T WANT TO SERVE GAY PEOPLE
THAT WOULD BE UPHELD.
WHAT IS DIFFICULT HERE, THIS
CREATIVE PROCESS IN BAKING THE
CAKE MADE IT COMPLEX, BUT ALSO
MAKES IT A NARROW DECISION.
NEIL: TO YOUR POINT, ROBERT, TWO
LIBERALS ON THE COURT, STEPHEN
BREYER, ELENA KAGAN WENT ALONG
WITH FIVE CONSERVATIVES ON THIS,
TWO JUSTICES RUTH BADER GINSBERG
AND SOTOMAYOR DID NOT.
WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THE TWO
LIBERALS JOINING IN THE OPINION.
>> THE HAPPIEST PERSON HAS GOT
TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.
HE WANTS PEOPLE TO VIEW THE
COURT AS NOT NECESSARILY A
PARTISAN PLACE.
I THINK HOPEFULLY 7-2 DECISION
WILL CAUSE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE
DECISION, MAYBE THERE WAS SOME
ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
HERE, WHEN 5-4 AND CONSERVATIVE
JUSTICE VOTE ONE WAY AND
LIBERALS VOTE ANOTHER THEY TEND
TO THINK IT IS POLITICS, WHICH
THOSE OF US WHO PRACTICE LAW
HOPE IT IS NOT.
THE STRENGTH OF PHILLIPS' CASE,
DEMONSTRATE THAT BREYER AND
KAGAN WENT ALONG WITH IT.
THEY AGREED THE TRIBUNAL IN
COLORADO WAS HOSTILE TO HIS
RELIGION.
HE DESERVED TO HAVE HIS RELIGION
TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
AND HE HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO, TO NOT BE COMPELLED TO
MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT MARRIAGE
HE DOESN'T WANT TO MAKE.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S
A GOOD DECISION FOR THE COURT.
HOPEFULLY IT WILL TURN THE
TEMPERATURE DOWN IN THE COUNTRY
A LITTLE BIT.
THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE A LITTLE
BIT ACADEMIC IN SOME SENSE.
I THINK SEEING A 7-2 DECISION
HOPEFULLY WILL MAKE PEOPLE
REALIZE THERE IS LEGAL ANALYSIS
GOING ON HERE, NOT A STRAIGHT
POLITICAL PLAY.
NEIL: YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER SOME
YEARS BACK WHEN I TALKED TO JACK
PHILLIPS, THE BAKER INVOLVED
HERE, HE STRESSED TO ME, I'M NOT
ANTI-GAY, I'M NOT MAKING A
JUDGMENT ABOUT GAY PEOPLE.
I JUST ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS
DON'T WANT TO HONOR SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE.
I'M FAIR PHRASING HIS ARGUMENT
AT THE TIME.
>> RIGHT.
NEIL: HE WAS SINCERE IN HIS
BELIEFS OBVIOUSLY AND JUSTICES
BELIEVED THAT AS WELL.
COULDN'T SOMEONE TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THIS DECISION, ROBERT, USE IT
AS AN EXCUSE TO MASK OTHERWISE
ANTI-GAY BEHAVIOR?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO
DO.
I MEAN OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE CAN IF
PEOPLE ARE OPERATING IN BAD
FAITH BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE
HARD TO DO IN THIS CASE, IT
REALLY WE HAVE TOGETHER A COUPLE
DIFFERENT STRANDS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM STRAND OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION, BUT THERE IS FIRST
AMENDMENT STRAND.
AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT STRAND
NEEDS TO BE BOUND AS WELL.
IN THE AVERAGE CASE THAT FIRST
AMENDMENT STRAND ISN'T THERE.
IN STRAIGHT PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
CASE, I'M RUNNING MY DINER
AROUND DON'T WANT TO SEE GAY
FOLKS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW
I SUSPECT THE COURT WOULD HAVE
NO PROBLEM UPHOLDING A FINE
AGAINST THAT BUSINESS OWNER,
NOTWITHSTANDING HIS RELYNN US
BELIEFS.
BROADLY APPLICABLE LAWS ARE
GENERALLY GOING TO BE UPHELD.
I THINK IN THIS CASE, THERE
NEEDED TO BE SOME ANALYSIS
WHETHER THERE IS LEAST
RESTRICTIVE WAY TO DO IT AND
SOME OTHER THINGS.
IN THE CAUSE OF DOING THAT
ANALYSIS THE CIVIL RIGHTS
TRIBUNAL IN COLORADO BLEW IT BY
BEING OPEN IN THEIR HOSTILITY
TOWARDS HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
I WOULD NOT BE THAT CONCERNED.
THE MARKET TAKES TAKES CARE OF
THESE THINGS.
99.9% BUSINESS OWNERS WANT
CUSTOMERS, WHETHER RACE,
RELIGION, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE
OR NOT.
MOST PEOPLE HOLD RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS WILLING TO FORECOLD
BUSINESS.
HE STOPPED DOING WEDDING CAKES
ENTIRELY AFTER THE DECISION IN
ORDER TO VIOLATE COLORADO LAW.
I THINK THAT ON ITS FACE IS
PRETTY GOOD INDICATION HIS
BELIEFS WERE SINCERE.
NEIL: ROBERT, THANK YOU VERY,
VERY MUCH.
FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICIAL, ROBERT DRISCOLL ON A
DECISION STILL HAS RAMIFICATIONS
BUT AS HE POINTED OUT, NARROW AN
PINPOINTED IN SCOPE.
WHETHER THIS IS MAKING SWEEPING
INDICTMENT AGAINST GAYS OR
OVERWHELMINGLY VICTORY FOR