LIKE COLORADO, TRYING TO
ENFORCE THEM, BUT IN THIS CASE,
THE HIGH COURT IN A DIVIDED
RULING HAS RULED IN FAVOR OF
LAURIE SMITH, THAT GRAPHIC
DESIGNER WHO AS YOU MENTIONED
SAID HE WANTS TO MAKE WEDDING
WEBSITES BUT HASN'T MADE ANY
THUS FAR.
SHE FEARS BEING FINED UNDER
COLORADO'S LAW WHICH APPLIES TO
ALL PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH
SAYS AS LONG AS YOU'RE HOLDING
YOUR BUSINESS OUT TO THE PUBLIC
YOU HAVE TO TREAT EVERYBODY
EQUALLY, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T
DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THAT
VIOLATES HER RIGHT TO FREE
SPEECH.
SHE HAS SAID IN INTERVIEWS SHE'S
HAPPY TO MAKE OTHER TYPES OF
WEBSITES FOR GAY INDIVIDUALS,
IT'S NOT JUST THAT SHE DOESN'T
WANT TO DISCRIMINATE.
SHE SAYS IN PARTICULAR WHEN IT
COMES TO MARRIAGE, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT SHE OPPOSES.
NOW, OF COURSE THIS IS A COURT
THAT HAS LARGELY RULED IN FAVOR
OF THOSE WHO HAVE MADE RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM TYPE OF ARGUMENTS
BEFORE, BUT WE SHOULD NOTE THIS
IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CASE.
THIS IS ON FIRST AMENDMENT
GROUNDS.
SO IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON THE FACT
THAT SHE HAS A RELIGIOUS
OBJECTION TO IT.
SHE COULD HAVE ACTUALLY OBJECTED
TO IT FOR ANY REASON AS LONG AS
IT'S ABOUT HER FREE SPEECH.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE
GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR AS WE
DISSECT THIS OPINION IS WHERE IS
THE LINE?
HOW DOES THE COURT DECIDE THAT
SHE, AS AN ARTIST, HAS THAT
RIGHT?
BUT WHAT ABOUT A FLORIST?
WHAT ABOUT A WEDDING CATERER?
THOSE ARE BUSINESSES, AGAIN,
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT CANNOT
DISCRIMINATE, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT CERTAIN LIBERALS ON THE
COURT BROUGHT UP AT ORAL
ARGUMENT, HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED
TO HANDLE A SITUATION IN WHICH
SOMEBODY DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT
TO SERVE AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE?
DISCRIMINATES ON THE BASIS OF
RACE, EVERYONE GETS THEIR ARMS
AROUND THAT SITUATION.
THAT DOESN'T PASS MUSTER.
BUT IN THIS CASE HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT, HOW IS IT DIFFERENT
IN THE CASE OF SOMEBODY WHO
WANTS TO DISCRIMINATION ON THE
BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
VERSUS RACE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
THE HIGH COURT HAS RULED IN HER
FAVOR, AND NOW WE'LL SEE WHAT
HAPPENS NEXT.
SAVANNAH.
>> WE HAVE SIX IDEOLOGICAL
CONSERVATIVES, IN DISSENT, ONCE
AGAIN, SOCIETYTOMAYOR, KAGAN AND
JACKSON.
IN HISTORY, GRANTS A BUSINESS
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REFUSE
TO SERVE MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED
CLASS.
THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT, LAURA.
THE QUESTION PRESENTED WHETHER
OR NOT A WEDDING WEBSITE WAS AN
ACT OF FREE SPEECH, YOU CAN'T
COMPEL SOMEONE TO SAY SOMETHING
THAW DON'T AGREE WITH OR OFF THE
SHELF PRODUCT, LIKE A PAIR OF
SHOES OR SOMETHING THAT YOU
COULD BUY, IF YOU PUT THOSE FOR
SALE, YOU HAVE TO SELL THEM TO
EVERYONE, UNDER PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATION LAWS.
THE COURT IS CLEARLY SAYING,
THIS IS AN EXERCISE OF FREE
SPEECH, AND THIS WEDDING WEBSITE
DESIGNER CANNOT BE FORCED TO PUT
OUT A MESSAGE SHE DOES NOT AGREE
WITH.
>> AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE
ABOUT WHOSE SPEECH IS IT, RIGHT,
A LOT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
COURT, PARTICULARLY JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR SAID, WAIT A MINUTE,
ISN'T SHE DOING WHAT THE COUPLE
WANT?
CLEARLY JUSTICE GORSUCH ON
BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY IS
SAYING, NO, WHEN SHE MAKES THAT
WEBSITE, IT'S HER FREE SPEECH,
IT'S HER CREATIVE UNIQUE ART,
THAT SHE'S PUTTING OUT INTO THE
WORLD, NOT THE COUPLE'S.
I THINK THAT'S A MEANINGFUL
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR HERE, AS
WE THINK ABOUT, AGAIN, HOW IS
THE COURT DRAWING THESE LINES?
HOW IS THE COURT GOING TO SORT
OF FIGURE OUT WHERE THE RULES OF