SHE KNEW IT WOULD HAPPEN AND
SHE'S HERE TO TELL US ABOUT IT.
THAT'S COMING UP IN A MINUTE.
>>> WE WANT TO BEGIN WITH THIS,
THE SUPREME COURT CASE SPARKED
BY A WEDDING CAKE.
FIVE YEARS AGO, A COLORADO CAKE
BAKER REFUSED TO FILL THAT ORDER
FOR THAT CAKE, ORDERED BY A
SAME-SEX COUPLE.
THE BAKER CITED HIS OWN
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
THE COUPLE SAYS IT'S FLATOUT
DISCRIMINATION.
WE SPOKE TO THE BAKER TWO WEEKS
AGO ON THIS BROADCAST.
AND THIS MORNING, WE WILL HEAR
FROM THE UP COUPLE, LIVE.
FIRST, MORE ON THIS MUCH-TALKED
ABOUT CASE.
>> I RESPECTABFULLY DECLINE TO
CREATE A CUSTOM CAKE THAT WOULD
CELEBRATE A VIEW OF MARRIAGE IN
CONFLICT WITH MY CORE TEACHINGS.
>> Reporter: THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS IN A CASE
THAT PIT S CIVIL RIGHTS AGAINST
RELIGIOUS ONES.
FIVE YEARS AGO, DAVID AND
CHARLIE WALKED INTO THE
MASTERPIECE CAKE SHOP, JUST
OUTSIDE OF DENVER.
THEY WANTED TO ORDER A WEDDING
CAKE FOR THEIR UPCOMING
RECEPTION.
WHEN THE OWNER OF THE SHOP, JACK
PHILLIPS, LEARNED THE CAKE WOULD
BE FOR THE COUPLE'S WEDDING, HE
REFUSED TO MAKE THEM ONE.
>> HE ASKED WHO THE CAKE WAS
FOR.
AND ONCE WE TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS
FOR US, HE INFORMED US THAT HE
WOULD NOT MAKE A CAKE FOR A
SAME-SEX WEDDING.
>> Reporter: PHILLIPS DESCRIBES
HIS CAKES AS ONE-OF-A-KIND WORKS
OF ART.
HIS LAWYERS ARGUED SINCE ART IS
AN EXPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH, HE
IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
THEY COMPLAINED TO THE COLORADO
COURTS WHO RULED IN THEIR FAVOR.
PHILLIPS WENT ON TO LOSE
MULTIPLE APPEALS IN THE COLORADO
STATE SYSTEM.
HE AND HIS LAWYERS APPEALED ALL
THE WAY UP TO THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT.
CRITICS OF THE RELIGIOUS
EXCEPTIONS LIKE THE ONE PHILLIPS
WANTS FOR HIMSELF, SAY THEY CAN
INVITE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
HISTORICAL
HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED
GROUPS.
PHILLIPS MAINTAINED HE IS NOT
DISCRIMINA
DISCRIMINATING, SAYING HE HAS
DENIED OTHER CAKE REQUESTS,
BASED ON HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
AND HE SAYS HIS BUSINESS HAS
SUFFERED FOR IT.
WHEN YOU SEE THOSE MEN THAT
BROUGHT TEARS TO THEIR EYES AND
SAYING IT MAKES THEM FEEL LIKE
SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS.
HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?
>> I OFFERED TO MAKE OTHER
CREATIVE CAKES.
BUT IT'S BEEN EMOTIONAL FOR US,
AS WELL.
THERE WERE DAYS WHEN MY WIFE WAS
AFRAID.
ACTUALLY AFRAID TO COME TO THE
SHOP.
WE'VE HAD DEATH THREATS,
HARASSING PHONE CALLS, BEING
FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE
UP 40% OF MY BUSINESS.
HALF OF MY EMPLOYEES.
IT'S BEEN EMOTIONAL ON OUR SIDE,
AS WELL.
>> Reporter: UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA LAW PROFESSOR,
TOBIAS BARRINGTON WOLF SAYS
PHILLIPS' CAKEMAKING IS NOT
PROTECTED BY THE FIST AMENDMENT.
TELLING NBC NEWS.COM,
ANTI-DISKANTI-DIS
ANTI-DISSKRIM NATION LAWS ARE
NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
THEY ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE.
HE ADDS, BUSINESSES IN ARTISTIC
OR CREATIVE INDUSTRIES ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES THAT
EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IS SUBJECT
TO.
JUSTICES ARE EXPECTED TO DECIDE
THIS CASE IN LATE SPRING.
PLEASE WELCOME DAVID MULLINS,
CHARLIE CRAIG AND THEIR
ATTORNEY, JAMES ESSEX.
[ APPLAUSE ]
TELL US ABOUT THAT DAY THAT YOU
FIRST WALKED INTO THE CAKE SHOP
AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
EXCHANGE?
>> OKAY, MEGYN.
5 1/2 YEARS AGO, CHARLIE AND I
WERE ENGAGED TO THE MARRIED.
WE WERE REALLY EXCITED.
WE HAD A MILLION DETAILS TO
FINALIZE, INCLUDING GETTING A
CAKE FOR THE RECEPTION.
BUT THIS DAY WAS PARTICULARLY
SPECIAL BECAUSE CHARLIE'S MOM,
DEB, WAS IN TOWN.
SHE DIDN'T LIVE IN DENVER.
THIS WAS HER ONE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE
WEDDING.
SO, OUR RECEPTION PLANNER HAD
SUGGESTED MASTERPIECE CAKE SHOP
TO US BECAUSE SHE HAD USED THEM
IN THE PAST.
SO, WE MADE AN APPOINTMENT.
AND THE THREE OF US WENT IN.
>> LET ME INTERRUPT REALLY
QUICK.
I MEAN, WHEN WE INITIALLY CALLED
THE BAKER TO MAKE THE APPOINT
APPOINTME
APPOINTMENT, IT DIDN'T EVEN
OCCUR TO ME TO SAY WE WERE A
SAME-SEX COUPLE.
>> NOR SHOULD YOU HAVE TO.
>> RIGHT.
WE WERE JUST CALLING FOR A
WEDDING CAKE.
SO, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.
>> YOU DIDN'T WALK IN EXPECTING
ANY BLOWBACK.
RIGHT?
>> NO.
>> DIDN'T EXPECT ANY BLOWBACK.
YOU SAID WE WOULD LIKE A CAKE
FOR OUR RECEPTION?
>> YES.
MYSELF, CHARLIE AND HIS MOTHER,
DEB.
WE SIT DOWN WITH THE OWNER.
AND HE IMMEDIATELY ASKED WHO THE
CAKE IS FOR.
CHARLIE IS HOLDING A BINDER FULL
OF IDEAS AND CONCEPTS.
BUT WE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO
OPEN IT BECAUSE AS SOON AS WE
INFORMED HIM IT WAS GOING TO BE
FOR US, HE TOLD US HE WOULD NOT
SERVE A SAME-SEX WEDDING.
AND YOU KNOW, THIS HORRIBLE
PAUSE FOLLOWED THAT WAS JUST --
YOU KNOW, AS THINGS REALLY SUNK
IN WHAT WAS HAPPENING, WE WERE
MORTIFIED.
AND EMBARRASSED.
AND CHARLIE'S MOTHER -- HER
BEING THERE JUST MADE IT ALL THE
WORSE.
YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOUR MOM
SEE YOU GO THROUGH SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
SO, AFTER A LITTLE BIT OF TIME,
WE BASICALLY GATHERED OURSELVES
AND WE LEFT.
>> DESCRIBE THAT FEELING,
CHARLIE.
I KNOW YOU SAY YOU -- LIKE MOST
GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE, YOU
SUFFERED A LOT OF BULLYING AND
YOUR MOM WAS THERE FOR YOU.
>> RIGHT.
>> AND YOU GO THROUGH THIS
EXPERIENCE AND THERE'S YOUR MOM.
>> I GREW UP IN A SMALL TOWN IN
WYOMING.
BEING BULLIED AND HARASSED WAS
BASICALLY DAY-TO-DAY.
AND DENVER WAS THE CLOSEST PLACE
WHERE I REALLY FELT I COULD BE
MYSELF.
SO, I ENDED UP MOVING THERE.
THAT DAY, I REALLY LET MY GUARD
DOWN BECAUSE I HAD MY SUPPORT
SYSTEM WITH ME.
I HAD MY MOM AND I HAD DAVE, MY
FAIANCE AT THE TIME.
WE WERE GOING INTO A BAKERY.
THERE WAS NO WAY WE COULD HIDE
THE FACT WE WERE GAY.
WE WERE GOING IN FOR A WEDDING
CAKE.
I FEEL I WAS SUSCEPTIBLE BECAUSE
I LET MY GUARD DOWN THAT DAY.
WHEN WE GOT TO THE CAR
AFTERWARDS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
HAPPENED AND EXPERIENCE AND
INTERNALIZE IT, I BROKE DOWN, I
HAVE TO BE HONEST.
WHICH IS EMBARRASSING TO DO THAT
IN FRONT OF YOUR MOM, YOU KNOW?
SHE COMFORTED ME AND THAT'S HOW
THAT WENT.
>> JUST THE STATEMENT THAT
YOU -- YOU HAVE TO WALK AROUND
WITH YOUR GUARD UP.
THE THOUGHT THAT, DO I NEED MY
GUARD UP TO PROTECT FROM WHO I
AM?
FOR A REACTION TO WHO I AM?
YOU SAW THE BAKER ON OUR SHOW.
HE TALKED IN THAT CLIP HOW IT
WAS EMOTIONAL FOR HIM, TOO.
HIS SIDE WOULD SAY, IT'S A
SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
THEY DON'T HAVE HATE IN THEIR
HEARTS.
THEY JUST -- THEY'VE BEEN RAISED
SINCE BIRTH TO BELIEVE GAY
MARRIAGE OR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS
WRONG.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY
OVER THE PAST 5 1/2 YEARS, WE
HAVE HEARD COUNTLESS ACCOUNTS OF
DISCRIMINATION, NATIONWIDE.
IT GOES FROM BIRTH TO DEATH.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WERE A
LESBIAN COUPLE THAT HAD A
6-DAY-OLD CHILD AND THEY WERE
TURNED AWAY FROM A DOCTOR
BECAUSE OF WHO THEY WERE.
AND IT WENT TO A MARRIED MEN
COUPLE.
AND ONE LIVED IN A NURSING HOME
AND HE PASSED AWAY.
AND THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR
ACTUALLY REFUSED TO PICK UP HIS
BODY BECAUSE HE WAS GAY.
THIS IS BASICALLY HAPPENING FROM
BIRTH TO DEATH AND EVERYWHERE IN
BETWEEN.
I WANT TO MAKE, YOU KNOW,
EVERYONE AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE NOT AN ISOLATED CASE.
THIS IS GOING ON ON A DAY-TO-DAY
BASIS.
>> SO FAR THE CASES, JAMES, IN
THE COURT LEVEL, HAVEN'T BEEN
SUCCESSFUL FOR THOSE ASSERTING
RELIGIOUS ON JUX BJECTIOBJECTIONS, RIGHT?
THE FLORIST THAT DIDN'T WANT TO
PROVIDE FLOWERS, SHE LOST.
AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER, HE LOST.
THESE CASES AREN'T FARING VERY
WELL.
HE'S ASSERTING A FIRST AMENDMENT
OBJECTIO
OBJECTION, SAYING HIS CAKES ARE
ARTISTRY.
WHY IS THAT NOT CORRECT IN YOUR
VIEW?
>> THE STATE OF COLORADO -- THE
LAW AT ISSUE IS THE CIVIL RIGHTS
LAW THAT SAYS, BUSINESSES OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC HAVE TO BE OPENED
TO EVERYBODY.
THEY CAN'T TURN PEOPLE AWAY
BASED ON WHO THEY ARE.
THE STATE OF COLORADO ISN'T
REGULATING ANYONE'S EXPRESSION
OR HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
HE IS FREE TO BELIEVE WHATEVER
HE WANTS.
AND THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS
THOSE BELIEFS.
AND HE'S FREE TO SAY WHATEVER HE
WANTS.
BUT THOSE RIGHTS DON'T GIVE
ANYBODY THE RIGHT TO TURN OTHER
PEOPLE AWAY FROM A BUSINESS
THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
I THINK ONE THING THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER HERE, THIS
IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT A
BUSINESS HAS EITHER OFFERED FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS OR FREE OF
RELIGION RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR
LICENSING DISCRIMINATION.
WE CAN GO BACK A LONG WAY TO THE
'60s, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964 BECOMES EFFECTIVE AND
THERE'S A CHANGE OF BARBECUE
RESTAURANTS IN COLUMBIA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, THAT HAD OPERATED ON A
RACIAL EXCLUSIONARY BASIS.
AND THEY GET SUED BECAUSE THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT SAYS THAT'S NOT
LAWFUL.
AND THEIR DEFENSE IS THAT IT
VIOLATED THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
OF THE OWNERS BECAUSE THEIR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SAID THEY
SHOULD NOT MIX THE RACES.
AND THOSE WERE THEIR RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS.
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THE
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
BUT THE COURT SAID, THAT DOESN'T
MEAN YOU GET TO TURN PEOPLE
AWAY.
>> THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS
ARE LAWS FOR A REASON.
IF THERE'S TOO MANY EXCEPTIONS
FOR THEM, IT SWALLOWS THE RULE.
AND THE COUNTRY IS GRAPPLING
WITH HOW TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE HAD THESE BELIEFS ALL
THEIR LIVES.
BUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAY
AND LESBIAN PEOPLE IS UNLAWFUL.
I WILL GIVE YOU THE FINAL WORD
ON PEOPLE WHO MAY BE THINKING
WHAT JACK PHILLIPS THINKS.
WHAT'S THE ONE THING YOU WANT
THEM TO KNOW?
>> I THINK MORE THAN ANYTHING, I
WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT WHEN
FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS ESSENTIAL
IS OUR COUNTRY.
BUT YOU CANNOT PRACTICE YOUR
FAITH IN A WAY THAT EXCLUDES
OTHERS FROM PUBLIC LIFE.
POLICIES LIKE MASTERPIECE CAKE
SHOP
SHOP'S, THEY HURT PEOPLE LIKE
US.
AND POLICIES LIKE IT ACROSS THE
NATION, THEY MAKE LGBT PEOPLE
FEEL LIKE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS
IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
>> YOU ARE MARRIED?
>> WE ARE.
>> YOU CELEBRATED?
>> YES.
YES, WE DID.
>> CONGRATULATIONS.
[ APPLAUSE ]
ALL OF THE BEST TO YOU BOTH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.