This morning, the
Supreme Court handed down
a major decision
rooted in First
Amendment rights,
but opponents say it violates
the Civil Rights Act.
Six justices ruled that
certain businesses can refuse
to serve gay people.
In this case,
they sided
with a Christian website designe
in Colorado
who doesn't want to create websi
for same sex weddings
due to religious objections.
Kelly Robinson is with us now.
She is the president of the Huma
Rights Campaign.
Kelly, thank you for being with
This argument
that won over the majority was t
this is not discrimination
because they are not refusing
to provide a product.
Rather,
they are refusing to provide spe
What do you say to that?
This is absolutely discriminatio
It is giving license to business
to deny services to LGBTQ plus p
simply for being
who we are, simply
for loving who we love.
Now, I also think it's true
that what this decision doesn't
is provide
unfettered access for federal
and state governments to discrim
It should be viewed
as a very narrow decision
that only applies to original cu
goods and services.
So I mean that yes,
it does mean
that a
website designer can refuse
to create a custom website
for a gay couple,
but they cannot refuse to offer
a standard design or template we
to that same couple.
It does mean that a photographer
could refuse to give
a custom engagement
session to an interfaith couple,
but it does not mean
that that same photographer
can allow that interfaith couple
to not have access to a standard
So we should view this as narrow
but bigger than that.
We should take it
as an indication of what
the court is doing.
And that is rolling back rights
and providing the door
opening for discrimination
in this country to advance.
Earlier
this month, HRC declared
a national state of
emergency for members of the LGB
plus community.
Would this
ruling
be as worrisome to you as proble
if it were not in the midst
of what we are seeing
is a nationwide
sort of repudiation of gay
and transgender Americans
This ruling is dangerous on its
full stop and period.
And in this broader context,
we have to see it for what it is
Part of a campaign of hate
and discrimination
by our opposition to target LGBT
plus people for political points
There are organizations that are
not only the hundreds of bad bil
that we've seen in the States,
but also behind
these court cases
that their goal is to promote ha
organizations like the Alliance
Defending Freedom.
They are the same organization
that supported criminalizing
same sex marriage.
They're the same organization
that was behind
the Dobbs case that overturn Roe
Let's see this for what it is
a campaign of hate
that has to be stopped.
In his ruling, Justice Gorsuch,
in his opinion, he
or he raises hypotheticals
of say
a Muslim movie
director having to make a film
with a Zionist message,
a gay male website designer
having to make a site for an org
that is opposed to same sex marr
And he says
without this protection,
they could be compelled
to do those things.
Do you think he is correct? Ther
I want
to talk about the Real-Life Appl
of what is happening.
LGBTQ plus people across
this country
are already experiencing record
of hate crimes against us.
An incredible
wave of anti LGBTQ
plus legislation meant to harm u
and discrimination
that's legalized
in more than half the states.
I mean, today,
a same sex
couple could be kicked
out of a restaurant just for bei
A same sex couple
could be kicked out of a grocery
for holding hands.
A trans person
could be kicked out of a barber
Discrimination
is happening in this country now
and it is a real problem.
I don't care
what sort of rhetoric
you try to wrap it in.
At the end of the day,
this case is legalizing discrimi
That has to be addressed
Thank you so much for being with
We really, really do
appreciate your time.
Kelly Robinson
with the Human Rights Campaign.
Let's get
the other side of this argument
We're joined by the attorney
for the web designer
at the center of the case Kriste
She's also the president of Alli
Defending Freedom.
Kristen,
thank you so much for being with
today.
You argue
that disagreement isn't discrimi
but is it refusing a service
to someone based on
who they choose to marry discrim
Well, that's not what's happenin
And I think
that there is a lot of rhetoric
that's going on about this case.
And I would encourage all Americ
to actually read the decision
rather than rely on the rhetoric
We know that this case involves
someone who creates speech.
It's stipulated by Colorado
that she serves everyone,
that she has LGBT clients,
but that there are some messages
that she will not create
And yes, some of those messages
have to do with same sex marriag
but there are lots of other mess
that she won't create
that have nothing to do with sex
And this ruling protects
the LGBT website designer
just as much as it protects
someone like Lori.
So you're arguing essentially
that this isn't
about gay marriage specific Lee.
It's not about gay marriage spec
It's about whether the governmen
can force an American
to say something that they don't
So what are the other issues
that she refuses
to design websites
about or the other messages
that she refuses to endorse
on her Web site?
Well,
think of all the different websi
that a website designer would be
to create, websites
that might
denigrate people, websites
that would express
different political views
that she disagrees with.
Websites that would promote athe
or some other particular viewpoi
that contradict. So.
So what about the argument that
there was no actual harm?
The question of standing in this
because this was a hypothetical
that was brought
before the Supreme Court.
Was she actually harmed?
She never actually
was asked to make a website
for a gay couple where she.
I'm surprised
that you're even asking that
in the sense that she was harmed
Colorado has been the most aggre
If she hadn't actually
started the business,
she had started the business
and she wanted to go into design
custom, same sex or custom.
What I mean is that she wasn't
penalized by the state for this.
She hadn't actually experienced
She had her speech was chilled.
She couldn't enter into the busi
because Colorado had consistentl
not just against her,
but like minded individuals
said that they would punish
excessively punish
those who would express this vie
and declined to express a view
that supports same sex marriage.
Colorado's notorious
surely you've heard
of Masterpiece Cakeshop?
I actually worked in Colorado
when that was happening and spok
to some of the key players
in that decision.
You were part of that case as we
So it leads me to wonder,
is there a campaign on behalf of
within your organization
to target the rights of LGBTQ pe
There's a campaign on behalf of
Defending Freedom to Protect Fre
for everyone.
The court's decision today said
that public accommodation
laws will continue to apply,
that they've co-existed
with the First Amendment for dec
and people won't be denied
access to goods and services.
And we will protect
the rights of free speech,
including those who support same
sex marriage.
I'm curious about a perspective
that was brought about in the di
from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Your client believes that marria
should remain between a man and
There are creators out there
who believes that marriage shoul
between people of the same race.
Would you argue on behalf of fol
who do not believe
in interracial marriage
because it is
their point of view of the world
I would not argue on their behal
and that's a reprehensible view.
I think what's important here
to remember, though,
is that's not the facts of the c
the court decided today.
The court said that if it's clea
that a speaker
is distinguishing
on the basis of the message
they're being asked to create,
that they can't be compelled
by the government to express a m
and the government can't ruin th
because they dislike the message
There are these laws right now
in some states
they actually impose jail time
if you decline to express a mess
that violates your conscience.
So what would you say
to folks who feel marginalized
by this decision,
who say that the message
that is being put forward
by folks
who oppose the right of
Same-Sex Couples to Marry
is reprehensible?
I would say that they have the r
thanks to this decision
to enter the public square
and give voice to that view
and to persuade their neighbor
to test ideas, to explore
truth, to advance social progres
and all of that
is because
if we want to have
that right for ourselves,
we have to protect it
for those who disagree with us.
That's how we have social progre
So you must you mentioned that
this is part of a campaign to pr
freedom of speech.
And obviously,
you tried a case
previously before the Supreme Co
in the Masterpiece Bakery case.
What is next?
Would you have your sights on ne
Well, we are an organization
that protects free speech for ev
and religious freedom for everyo
We're going to ensure
that this decision applies
in the other cases
where truly artists,
photographers are facing jail ti
But also, again,
standing for the rights
of people of all faiths.
And no faith at all
that we can all enter the public
and protect the rights of our ne
and ourselves
to be able to engage
in robust debate, just like
we're doing today.
Christian Wagner,
have like a dozen more questions
Unfortunately, we have to leave
We do appreciate your time
and sharing your perspective wit
Thank you.