That case out of colorado for a religious baker asked to bake a cake for a samesex wedding. That takes place today. We will show you audio of that later this week. Two guests joining us to talk about that details of the case and the importance, carrie severino, the chief policy director. Elizabeth wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center to both of you, thanks for joining on. Ms. Carrie severino, can you explain the context of the case from the point of the baker . Guest he was a baker in colorado, and he started as an artist. He has a lot of different cakes he thinks he cannot make for religious reasons, with the devil on it for halloween, happy divorce cakes. He had a samesex wedding come in, and he said im happy to make other kinds of cakes, but i cant do that because i do not believe in my expression. Colorado says that violates their antidiscrimination law. Now he has had to drop 40 of his business because he cannot make any wedding cake whatsoever. Host let me get the perspective of the couple from Elizabeth Wydra. Guest obviously the legal points, and also from their perspective. One of the gentlemens mother wrote the oped. It is your wedding, you are coming in to get a beautiful cake, and you get turned away because of who you are something that is intrinsic to your very being, the person you love. It should be a happy occasion, and instead you are met with this discrimination. The legal points are you someone entering the public, commercial marketplace, to have to make yourself open to all consumers. We have these nondiscrimination laws that have been in place most effectively since the end of the civil war that say you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, in colorado, sexual orientation. While the colorado law allows bakers not to put certain words on a cake, like putting a devil on it, but you have to apply that to everyone you cannot say i will not make a cake with a devil on it for africanamericans, but i will for white people. Where freeis a case expression isnt considered . Guest we have had the Supreme Court reject First Amendment claims on the basis of religion. It a new packaging by mixing it with this artistic expression idea. If you wanted to not be in the Public Square and be an artist where he could choose his customers in the private setting, that is fine, but once you start a degree that is open to the public, you need to abide by generally applicable laws that says you cannot choose your customers based on the color of their skin, who they love, religion, etc. Host what about the public consumption argument . Guest it would be a different thing if he were rejecting them because of who they were. This is only to do with the message on the cake. If they want any other kind of cake, he would have been happy to make it. It was simply this message. If a straight couple came in and said i want a cake that celebrates samesex marriages, he would not have offered that as well. Host in your perspective, what do the judges have to consider here . Guest one question is going to be if this cake is truly expressive. Some cakes are not expressive. You go to costco, that is probably different. Think of ace of cakes level artistry. The other question is, is this something he sincerely believes, the Colorado Commission seem to have a double standard where they said you do not have to make a cake that has an antimuslim message, you do not have to make a cake that is opposed to same sex marriage, but you have to make a cake that celebrates samesex marriage and that is a problem. You could have the broader coalition that said at least we have to have an even Playing Field and not get into some of the deeper issues. Guest the justices will look back to a case about a barbecue restaurant that wanted to discriminate against africanamerican customers and they said no. I do not want to get into the regional debate on what counts as Barbecue Sauce. The idea is we have seen some of these claims before, claims that they could not serve interracial couples. The same argument that was here and when we put it into the interracial couple context and see how it falls apart, it is not who you are, we would be happy to serve a black person or white person but if you want to be married, no. It is not constitutional. The justices will be looking at that long line of precedent that said you do not discriminate by raising the First Amendment. We do have a court who is very sympathetic and as we should be sympathetic to sincerely held religious beliefs and how they are put forth. There is a lot of respect for that. At the same time our founders had Great Respect for an individuals right to believe whatever he or she wants in his heart, in his church but also believe that when you come into the Public Square and meet other equal americans on equal terms. Host the numbers to call, democrats at 202 7370001 and republicans 202 7370002 and independence 202 6280205. It is Anthony Kennedy that everybody looks at in these cases. What has he said in the past . Gust the court has been strong on First Amendment issues. We will find out more after arguments, it might be a 54 nailbiter. It could be a 72 or even a 90 case. Recognition on the court that we have to respect beliefs. S that will be a question, this is a core First Amendment case that i think that bodes well and you may see more than just Justice Kennedy coming on board. Host the kennedy influence. Guest everyone will be looking to see how he falls down on this case. He is famous for his rulings that supported Marriage Equality, gay rights, and so certainly the way that he views the contours of those rights, do you have the right to get married is a samesex couple but get discriminated against in your daily life. He will he was very careful in his opinion on Marriage Equality that people will continue to debate this in their personal lives in churches and that will see him try to draw that line by saying yes, certainly go out and protest, go out and preach against this but when youre acting as a public business, you have to treat everyone equally. That includes samesex couples. It is something that we will see a lot of testing of the slippery slope. Especially with the idea of artistic expression. If we are having that be the litmus test, that opens up the door to a host of other types of discrimination. If you say i put artistic expression in the way i cut hair which is very fabulous, if my desk and i say i do not want to serve africanamericans, i do not want to serve women. Once you get into the realm of artistic expression as the reason why you get a license to discriminate it raises a lot of problems. Host are those the longterm effects, is there limiting principle, what have you seen . Guest we can have seen conduct, you think that is expressive, burning a draft card, things like that. Is that but the courts job is to draw those lines. Just because it is a hard decision does not mean it is the right line. There are some cake decorators who would fall into the realm of expression. Jack phillips is an easy case because he is someone who is committed to the artistry of his work. Host many people are gathered. People waiting in line for days to hear the case including protesters and supporters alike. That is the topic of our discussion for this 45 minutes. Our first call comes from maria this morning in atlanta, georgia. You are on with our guest. Go ahead. Morning. Ood god said, love all. I do not discriminate but why should i have to give up my religious belief to settle them. In the bible they say love all but you can debate it anyway you want. Homosexuality to me as a sin. We will all have to answer to god. I do not discriminate. If i believe in this that is my belief. That is all i have to say. Please address that. Guest that may be your belief and the constitution absolutely protects your ability to have that religious belief. The Supreme Court when they said the constitution protects Marriage Equality, didnt say everyone has to change their opinions about gay and lesbian couples. I do not think it is a sin, i love my gay brothers and lesbian sisters. God says love everyone equally. What the constitution does not allow you to do is to take that personal belief and use that to discriminate in the Public Marketplace. If you have the personal belief, you are fully protected. You can express it in church, at protests, debate your family, on facebook, twitter, but you cannot use it to discriminate when you are in a business that is open to the marketplace. Host ms. Severino. Guest that is an argument we hear a lot, but one that the court rejected in hobby lobby. People can have their beliefs, but once you go to the market system you have to go by the public orthodoxy. That is not something the Supreme Court accepted. Our founders understood freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to do everything you want with your doors closed or in your church or synagogue at a service. It means you can actually live by those beliefs, and that is why so many relays expression cases dont have to do with what you do what your house of worship, but how you live your life. That is what is at stake here. Host duane is next. Mississippi. Caller this is a slippery slope. I am thinking if you are a baker, and you do not want to make cakes this particular cake baker, you have to use them and you cannot use another cake baker . Let me ask you this here also. If you work in a hospital and you dont want to do abortions, will the law change and make a doctor perform an abortion . Where are we going with this . Host ms. Severino . Guest there are people trying to eliminate conscience protections across the board. We are supposed to be a live and let live society. There are practically speaking, a lot of other bakers that are happy to, excited about making cakes at this wedding. In this case they were able to get a rainbowflag designed cake. I think it was even donated. This is not something that says this is the message we do not want to proclaim. There are lots of different bakers. The same thing is coming into play decidedly in the health care sphere. We have to have the flexibility to have a society that appreciates religious beliefs. We are a large and varied culture. There are going to be a lot of other people that are willing to perform whether it is the abortion, make the cake, or other things. You dont have to force or commandeer someone to do it. Say i will run over your religious beliefs to get what i want. Host isnt that a craft in itself . Couldnt they apply the same argument . Guest i dont think they would apply free speech. Is there an exemption for religious conscience . That is more of a court, free exercise claim. Many states do have, and i think all should have conscious exemptions for all people doctors, nurses, health care providers, to not have to participate in something they view intrinsically immoral. There are people who are happy to step up and provide those services. Host ms. Wydra . Guest that is not the way equal rights works. We did not tell people it is ok this lunch counter is segregated. Go to the one that serves people of color. Under ourprinciple constitution that all people are created equally echoes back to the declaration of independence proclamation. We have a principal that all people are treated equally. That goes back to the declaration of independence proclamation that all men and i would add women are created equal. There is an attempt to create a new claim, but it is the same claim the Supreme Court rejected in 1968 when the owner of the barbecue change came and said my religious beliefs prohibit me from serving africanamericans and interracial couples and the Supreme Court rejected that, and they rightly did. They have, over and over, in the context of businesses in the public sphere, choosing their customers. When it comes to whether or not public businesses can choose customers on race, gender, and in this case sexual orientation, it is clear that you may not do that. Host from minnesota. Independent line. John. Hi, there. Caller quickly back to your last session when you stated media coverage. Host only because we are the topic we are in, can you direct a question to the guests . Caller i like your show, but it is too bad cspan has started to become liberal. Host we will leave it there. Barbara. Michigan. Caller hi, how are you . Host fine. Go ahead. Caller two questions if the baker had said i reserve the right to reject any pretense that i find vulgar, would he have gotten away with that if he finds homosexuality vulgar, as opposed to using swear words, or Something Like that. The second question is, i am roman catholic. Homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin. In the catholic view, it is having sex outside of marriage, and since the Catholic Church does not recognize gay marriage, then having sex is what is the sin. It is not only the people committing the sin, but people who, if you allow it to happen, if you help it to happen, you are also committing a sin. Host we will leave it there and let our guests respond. Ms. Wydra, do you want to start . Guest there are other things, sex before marriage and heterosexual couples will the baker said i will not make a birthday cake for someone living with their partner and not married . Would you ask what they do in their bedrooms . This is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. The idea to refuse customers based on no shoes, no shirt, no service that is one thing, but the laws are clear you cannot discriminate against customers based on race, religion, creed, national origin, and here, sexual orientation. It is different in that instance. There is provision in the law that says you can refuse to put certain messages, like swear words, the devil, or whatever, but that applies to everyone. If he wanted to say i will not bake a cake that says, you know, gay marriage forever, i will make a cake that says that is a beautiful cake without that message and i will make it for everyone, because message limitations have to apply to everyone. Host mr. Phillips has an oped this morning and he says in part this. Guest to be honest, we have been jumping ahead in the facts he did not even get further enough to know what they wanted on the cake. It is not as if they came to him and necessarily said they could have asked for who knows what they would have asked for. It could have been a regular, beautiful cake, and no one would know it was going to a samesex couple, except for the fact that they told him they were in love with each other and they were going to get married. It is not in the clear what kick they would have wanted because they did not get to go that far. There are other instances where he refused a lesbian couple that wanted to get cupcakes. The facts will be probed today as well. Host ms. Severino. Guest i want to point out some of the fallacy. This is not in refusing to serve the based on who they are. If he would say i am not going to serve any samesex couple. That would be a different case and closer to the lunch counter illustration. What he is saying is im going to make a cake that celebrates a samesex wedding. Think of the expression if your parents that i am not attending your wedding it is sending a message. Being part of the wedding is celebrating it. They do not have to have a cake that says samesex marriage forever for it to be expressive, but i do think this is a very different thing from not refusing everyone. He is happy to sell as many kind of cakes. He does refuse to make cakes that have come for the upcoming a Bachelorette Party theme or something. Host the couple in question is heading into the Supreme Court. Ms. Severino, go ahead. Guest he refuses other types of messages. Because of the message. Other lewd messages or a divorce cake, it is about this issue of the message, and a wedding cake is sending a message of celebrating the message. Host ms. Wydra, do you want to respond . Guest you could say the same thing for interracial couples. You can say i will serve white people, african americans, but not make something for an interracial couple. This is a claim that has been made before. Those arguments are exactly the same, and implicit in that is discriminating against gay couples is not as bad as discriminating against interracial couples. I think that is wrong as a matter of equality and constitutional principle. Host ms. Severino, is that what is at stake . Guest i do not think so. This is not the same type of thing. Interracial marriage context is something that is a very different approach of the whole point of the 14th amendment the equal protection clause was providing equality amongst the races. That has a u. S. Constitutional dimension. Guest im sorry, the 14th amendment specifically considered narrowing it to racial equality, and instead chose the sweeping words that talk about persons and equality, and specifically wanted to take it outside of just the race card. Guest we have a long running debate about that. This is a different thing. He is happy to make any type of cake. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, this is a topic where there is a lot of room for religious discussion and debate, and it was not intended to create a National Thought Police making sure everyone agrees with what the Supreme Court held in the case. Host one more view of the couple standing outside of the Supreme Court. Just about to enter. Those arguments taking place today. Audio released on friday, available on cspan. 8 00 p. M. Friday evening on our main channel. Baton rouge, louisiana. Chris is next. Go ahead. Caller i think we too often view this whole discussion of i think we too often view this whole discussion of religious freedom through the lens of a christian. A lot of people think america is a christian nation we have a separation of church and state and looking at it through the lens of christianity, of one thing or another been a sin, and i have to be able to express my dontous freedom that i agree with celebrating a homosexual marriage, but if i am an atheist baker or a jewish baker, and i do not want to express my i do not want to have to celebrate a catholic wedding or do a wedding cake that has the face of jesus on it, do i have that freedom as well . Host ms. Severino . Guest i would say absolutely. If you are a jewish baker that did not want to have a baptism he cake for someone. Youuld say, absolutely, have the right to do that. Who knows, a muslim baker does not want to make a cake with certain images on because it violates their faith. That is one of the beautiful things about america, we can be and let live and let live society. There is someone else who would be happy to make the cake, but you should not be forced to violate your beliefs. Host ms. Wydra . Guest yes, it can be the case you can decide not to put certain symbols on your cake, but that has to be applied to every customer that walks through your door. You cannot say ill make a beautiful cake with pink flowers on it, but if i know it is going to be used for a baptism, i wont make it, but i will make the same cake for someone who is using it for a birthday. You cannot make those distinctions based on religious, race, sexual orientation, or gender. You have to apply it equally to every customer who walks in the door. You are certainly not required the colorado law at issue here allows for bakers and other purveyors of goods to say we will not have a certain message that we are going to put forth. You just have to apply that equally. That is the point. If you do not want to make a baptism cake, a cake with a cross on it, you will say i will not make a cross cake for muslims, i am not going to make a cross cake for muslims, for catholics, because i find it offensive as an atheist, but you cannot say i am going to only be a cake baker for people of this particular race or gender. Host do you want to respond . Guest the parallel would be i will make a baptism cake, but not for a bar mitzvah. That, i think people should be able to say, you know what . Or vice versa i will make weddings for jewish weddings or holidays, i think people should him be free to do that. We are a big enough country that we can allow people to express their religious freedoms in the way they live their life, including in their business. Guest we have said that when youre religious beliefs say you should not discriminate against people of color. We are a country that says you cannot do that here either. Host does it matter that the Colorado State law already is in play, and would this turn into a state rights issue on some levels as the justices consider these arguments . Guest there is always push back back and forth, but it is an easy case if it is a constitutional question. It is the supreme law of the land, that overrides the states law. Theres not a question the First Amendment would override what happens in colorado. Host ms. Wydra. Guest the constitution is supreme, that is why we have enshrined our most fundamental rights and values, including that of equality. Host lets go to the victor in columbia, maryland. Independent line. Caller good morning. Quick point. We keep bringing up the barbecue case, and what i find interesting is that in the case of a barbecue restaurant, the product is ready, on a shelf, and at that point, the seller is determining who they are selling to, which they are clearly discriminating. In the cake situation, someone comes in and tells a person it is not what you have available, we want you to make this particular product. I think there is a difference there. I think it is a slippery slope. I am jewish, and i do not want somebody showing up to my kosher restaurant and telling me that they want to eat pork and if we do not serve them pork, were all of a sudden discriminating against them. We can only force people to do so many things. Host ok, victor. We will leave it there, and since you brought up the barbecue case, we will start there. Guest someone was making the barbecue, it was not just box to on the shelf. To his last point, yeah, and a kosher deli can say i will not serve pork, but it cannot say i will not serve pork to the jewish white people who come in my door, but i wont serve pork to a person of color who is a muslim that walks through my door. That is the point, that you have the ability to decide what products you are going to put forth, but you cannot provide that product in a discriminatory fashion. You have to give the same service to all when it comes to these fundamental attributes of peoples dignity, liberty, and equality, and that includes race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. That is the point. I do not think the distinction between how soon and in time you make the Barbecue Sauce when you sell it was the most important part of the case. The point was you do not get a license to discriminate when you are in the Public Market square. The Supreme Court has said that over and over with respect to women being partners, with respect to interracial couples, when it comes to University Admissions for public universities. I think the point is not so much the type of craft as the willingness to be in the Public Market square and treat all citizens, all comers equally on these important grounds. Host carrie severino. Guest victors point is correct if the cake was on the shelf, and we would say i will give it to you or to you, that is a different case. That is not what he said. Jack said what he does when he is designing these cakes is sit down with a couple, talk to them, finds out about their interest. This is like those that have watched cake boss, or ace of cakes. They are designing it to send a specific message for the couple in front of him. It really is an expression of his own artistry. His whole design of the place has an easel, a pallet. It really shows he views this as art. It is a different thing than taking or not taking the barbecue that has been handcrafted with love, yes, but handcrafted for everyone, and saying im not going to give you yours. This is about crafting a specific cake for a specific event. Host the aclus david cole wrote a piece leading up to this case in which he quotes going back Sandra Day Oconnor in which she said this, saying the constitution does not guarantee a right to choose employees, customers, without restraints of the state. A shopkeeper has no constitutional right to deal with only persons of one sex. How does that apply in this matter . Guest the question of is this expression will be key in this case. It would be different if he is running a Grocery Store and said you cannot have broccoli at your wedding dinner. That is a very different kind of thing. That is not what is going on. It is a custom designed item. This is an artistic question. This is not just, i do not want to do business with you. I do not want you to buy my filet mignon for your dinner. That is not what we have seen here or anywhere else. The only real questions we come to people doing something that is core to the wedding. Photographers, the cake bakers this is an expression of their selves, their own art. Host from indiana, republican line. Stephanie, go ahead. Caller good morning. Im glad to be on the show. I have a quick question if the two men go to the Supreme Court today and they do win the case, what is to say what is going to happen when a person goes into a jewish bakery and they want to have a swastika put on the cake for a Birthday Party what will happen in that situation . Guest the baker in that case would be entirely entitled to not make a cake with a swastika on it. That is true under the colorado law here that is being considered at the Supreme Court today. What the baker would not be able to do is say i am not going to serve you because you are a white couple. They cannot do that. They can say i will not put the swastika on the cake, but they would not make a swastika cake for a white couple, an interracial couple, or a couple of color. That is the key distinguishing factor. I think this idea that there is an easel in the bakery and it is wrapped up in expression is certainly clever packaging for a claim to discriminate different than we have seen before, but if we allowed that exception to nondiscrimination laws, it would really swallow the ideas of nondiscrimination laws, because you can package almost anything as expressive intent. Like i said, the hairdresser. Maybe you are making this movie, a smoothie, and the way you bestthe smoothie is the way ever. There are other ways to claim artistic endeavor. Some of the crafts i get from my the restate in the morning are like my barista are masterpieces. That is not something we want to swallow principle. When you come into the Public Square, you cannot choose your customers. As Justice Oconnor said based on your desire to not interact with women or people of color, or gay people. Host ms. Severino. A couple of things. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission said you didnt have to make this wash daca cake and that is great. Astika cake and that is great. They only picked one message where they said you have to do this message and that is something that involves the government picking and choosing which direction they want to go and that is not how our First Amendment works. Yes, it is a hard question on the borderline, but you agree there are some things, if they were painting a portrait of the couple for a wedding, that sounds a lot like art, but someone who is making the smoothie, maybe not. Courts are tasked with drawing these hard lines. We cannot point out to a extreme example someone who is shining shoes is not a true artist, so everyone is not an artist. That is not fair either. We have to look at the specific case. Maybe he is an artistic cake designer. Maybe some people would not fall into the category, but we have to take the actual case before the court. Guest i think there is a conflation in that argument between content and customer. What we have been talking about a lot of the protections under the colorado law in particular have to do with the content of what is on the cake, but what is different is choosing your customer. So yes, it is true, there are certain types of cakes that have a message on them that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has said you do not have to provide if that is offensive you, but, again, you cannot say i will not give you this cake because of who you are, not because of what you asked me to put on it. The claim isnt here that the couple asked the baker to make the cake that had the design on it or writing that was offensive to him. His claim was i do not want to make the cake because you are a gay couple getting married and i do not believe samesex marriage is something that should be celebrated. That is very different. Host susie, poughkeepsie, new york. Democrat line, you are on. Caller i would like to think think Elizabeth Wydra for thank Elizabeth Wydra for being so eloquent and clear. Guest thank you. Caller sure. I also want to say that i hear the fundamentalist christian right talk about faith and religious freedom, and what is really happening is just hate. They are hiding behind a religion to promote hate and discrimination. Discrimination is very clear. Creativity is very clear. I can walk into a place of business and say i am gay, straight, a myriad of religion or nonreligion or ethnicity, and i expect as an american to receive the same exact equal goods and services from the shop owner, and that is clearly not what is happening here. It is not about the christian right being able to choose what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to put on a cake for the public. Host ok, we will leave it there. Ms. Severino. Guest i understand your concern, but having met Jack Phillips, this is not a case about hate. I will point to a parallel case, the orleans flowers case. The man, the plaintiff in that case he was going to her for nine years. She considered him a close friend. She knew he was gay, but when he asked for flowers for his wedding, she said let me sit down and explain to you why i cant do that but i am happy to make flowers for you. He was a weekly customer of hers. This is not someone he hated. This was someone she loved. She could not in conjunction with their believe celebrate an event she believed to be wrong. We can love someone and still think they are doing something wrong. To assume someone like Jack Phillips is a hateful person is truly unfair to him. This is someone who is not, but simply wants to live out faith in what he is doing. Celebrate he cant their wedding, but can reach out and celebrate them in other ways. Guest the good thing about generally applicable nondiscrimination laws is it does not matter what is in the persons heart or not. I do not know what is in the bakers heart. He sounds like a lovely person, and that is fine. That is neither here nor there. The point is that no matter what your internal beliefs are, when no matter what is in your heart, when it comes to your publicfacing business, you have to treat all customers equally, whether you support them in terms of your political beliefs what if there are some people that are like i am with her, the hillary shirts, and you have to treat them equally. In the same way, if there is someone you just find someone annoying, you still have to give them your service. Most importantly, our nondiscrimination laws say you have to treat everyone that comes to you equally, and not discriminate against them on the basis of these important, protected characteristics like race, gender, creed, sexual orientation. I have no reason to impugn the character of these folks i do who do not want to provide flowers or cakes, but the fact is they have to, whether they are a good person or not. Host there is a piece in Washington Post writing about the case and says this, in Masterpiece Cake shop, lgbtq can victory at best. Conscientious objectors to samesex weddings may be pressed into service, but only at the longrange cost of intensifying their opposition. What do you think about that . Guest i think you couldve made the same argument when he retired about desegregating schools, lunch counters, public accommodation the Civil Rights Era. Probably people did make the argument after the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. That is why it took us so long to finally get to where we are with respect to Racial Justice and integration. We have a long way to go, as well. Simply the idea of we will get there someday when it comes to Constitutional Rights and equality, that is not an court isthe supreme going to countenance. If there is the right, you do not tell them just wait a little bit. I do think having these conversations, talking with our neighbors and in our communities and getting to know, as the florist did, this gay man and hearing about his loving relationship with his partner, i think these things will change peoples minds over time. We have already seen that a lot in this country, rapidly in the last decade or so. Host ms. Severino. Guest i would say the same know applies to getting to a person of faith. Everyone except one of faith is a big it or a hater. Guest i dont believe that. Guest but it goes this argument that if they do not believe the same thing, it does not mean they are hating people or have a discriminatory approach to life. This is a different type of issue. The Civil Rights Era was a unique event in our country the history of racism is a very unique thing, and the intention with our constitution from day one and finally rectified with the 14th amendment, thank god. Im happy to see that. This is not the question that was at issue there. This is a different thing. Can people live out their religious belief, again, doing the same things the founders would have said is totally within someones rights. The people who passed the 14th it is totally within someones right to say im going to live as i believe in my business as well. It is not about rejecting individuals. It is entirely about the message. I think we are in agreement that you cannot reject someone because of who they are walking through the door. Host santa monica, california. Independent line. Hello, robert. Caller can you hear me . Host you are on with our guests. Go ahead. Caller my question is, being an independent, and i live in a progressive city my views have varied from independent, republican this issue, other issues. What is the Gay Community going to do when the Supreme Court votes against them . Guest first of all, i do not think the Supreme Court is going to vote against them. Let me just say that. I think that the rights of the gay couple will be vindicated in this particular case, but you know, i think that gay americans, and frankly all americans should be paying attention to what the Supreme Court is doing, whether the courts are protecting their civil rights or not. Everyone should be paying attention. I think that particularly folks on the left side of the spectrum have perhaps not been as engaged with the Supreme Court as conservatives and evangelicals have, but i think that is changing and changing for the good, and i would encourage progressive friends to be more engaged with the court. If the court does rule against this couple, which i dont think they will, but if they do, think i am sure we will see more high profile lobbying and focus on the role of the courts in our system. I think that is incredibly important. Every issue that we care about no matter which side youre on, makes its way eventually through the court. Host ms. Severino, play both sides if they decide for the baker or the couple . Guest if they decide for the couple, you will see a swath of people blocked out of not being americans who are blocked out of not being part of the wedding industry, which is a shame. That is not what the country was designed to be like. I think vice versa, i would hope if they rule for the baker, that what you would see is instead of attempting to use the strong arm of the state to come to the same conclusions that you have, which it seems like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission wants to do in this case, that we have the opportunity for a more civil discussion. This is the best way to solve the issue. The article goes to a point that points that Justice Ginsburg has made on issues like right roe v. Wade. When Supreme Court takes an issue out of the debate, that solidifies the sides, rather people like the caller who say lets have a discussion about it. We dont have to pick sides and be in one camp all the time. Lets allow for the public debate. That is what the First Amendment is there to protect so we can have a civil society. Host i will ask both of you this is this a test for President Trumps first nominee neil gorsuch . What faces him . Guest he has had lots of tests already. I think will be exciting to hear his arguments today. He sat on the hobby lobby case and the Little Sisters of the poor case. We have heard him speak strongly in favor of religious freedom. Those were statutory cases we might get some perspective on his views of the First Amendment itself. We will see. Host ms. Wydra. Guest when candidate donald trump was putting together his list of Supreme Court potential justices, he said he intended to pick someone, who among, other things, would be friendly to evangelical christians. We not know if there was a conversation on these things, but given that neil gorsuch was the result of trumps promise to pick someone from a to evangelicals, people will be looking closely to see whether or not Justice Neil Gorsuch will be independent, and follow precedent and constitutional law, or whether he will just be a rubber stamp for the Trump Administrations position, and i will say it is very unusual that the Trump Administration came in on this side, because generally the federal government does not support carving out exemptions to generally applicable not his nondiscrimination laws, but they did in this case. Host the Constitutional Accountability Center website is u. S. Constitution. Org. Ms. Wydra, a little bit about your organization. Guest we are a nonprofit think Public Interest law firm think take tank dedicated to the promise of the u. S. Constitution. We litigate in the courts, including file filing briefs in this case and also work on judicial nominations to ensure that those that are on our federal bench are going to enforce our constitutional guarantees of equality and justice. Guest the judicial crisiss Website Network website, judicialnetwork. Com. Guest also a Nonprofit Organization who advocating for justices like neil gorsuch to stick to the text of the constitution and they original understanding. Knowing to him, i do not know what his position on samesex marriage is. I know the church he went in colorado was supportive of it, but that should not matter. That is what we want to defend in judicial nominations and to advocate for in the courts in general. Someone who upholds the law regardless of their beliefs. Host mrs. Kyle in vienna, virginia. Republican line. Caller thanks for taking my call. We talk a lot on the show about topics that conflate an issue that i think is at the core, but i think it has been missed the by the conversation. Let me say first, i think the Business Owner is ridiculous for not making the cake, but i am worried about living in a country that has the ability to compel me to work, not regardless of religion or with a couples thing is. About anything like that. I am nervous of living in a country where the government regulates something where i have to provide my labor. If you were to extract out all the distractions of the gay couple, the religious aspect all that stuff, and distill it down to can the government come to me and say you have to work, i do not like that. I dont like that. I think a better resolution for the Gay Community would be to, instead of taking these things to court, simply vote with your dollars and make noise. In the 1960s, obviously i think these rules were needed. In our society today, if someone refuses service and that gets out, let people vote with their dollars. Host ms. Severino, do you want to start . Guest yeah, i think exactly the point of being forced to do a particular job, that is something our founders would have been shocked at, most americans would be shocked at for most of our history. It is not something the constitution requires. I agree, particularly, we live in a unique time with social media, the internet, all of these things it is not hard to find what the policies of individual business are. That is why most businesses say i do not want to take a side on these issues at all. I think most businesses would probably say, hey, lets not even take a position on contentious issues. Some people feel for moral reasons they must stand up in certain cases, and that is an issue that will fall on both sides of the political spectrum. They should be free to do so. Host ms. Wydra. Guest the government cannot compel you to work. The government can compel you if you open a business that is open to the public to not discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics. So this is not really about you must be a baker. This is about, if youre going to have a bakeshop that is open to the public, you must treat all your customers equally on these important grounds like race, sexual orientation, and gender. Guest not our main topic today, but while you are both here, i want to ask about another decision from the court about enforcing the president s travel ban. What does it mean on the 30,000foot level, ms. Wydra . What does it mean . Guest basically, litigation over the travel ban continues. My organization represents members of congress think the travel ban is religious his discrimination and unconstitutional. Those cases are ongoing. But the Supreme Court said yesterday while those appeals are going on, that most of the i guess we are on 3. 0 travel ban can go into affect. Say, a big blow, i think, for the family members of people bringing the case who are trying to ensure their safety and reunite with their families. So, i am hopeful that the litigation, as it proceeds, and we have arguments this week in the lower courts of appeals that will be hearing it, and the Supreme Court noted they wanted those courts to resolve the merits of the issue quickly. Im hopeful that by the time you get to the full merits resolution, there will be a decision the ban is discriminatory and can be blocked. In the meantime, it can go forward. Host ms. Severino. Guest i think this is another big win for the Trump Administration. We have seen time and again a lot lower courts not looking at legal standards, but they are conflating their views of President Trump and how his campaign was run, etc. , with what is actually in the text of this order. The Supreme Court has now on multiple occasions said that is not the standard we are looking at. They have not had the final resolution, but i do think this is a sign that when it does get to the Supreme Court, and it certainly will, they will look at and see, is this order itself take apart your views of donald trump is the order itself legal that is making sure we have extra scrutiny to people from countries that have been shown to have a history of problems with validation and of terrorism. Host back to the topic at hand, from highlands milk, new york. Democrats line. Go ahead. Caller good morning. Im hoping that your guest can speak to the johnsons act that is looked to be repealed and has been talked into the house reform bill. If im correct, if a person is espousing political views from the pulpit, the johnson act if it is repealed, that particular church can receive donations, as a nonprofit, even if someone is espousing political views from the pulpit. I will hang up and listen to your guest. Thank you. Guest i think i was on this show for an hour talking about the johnson act months ago. Look that up. The idea is we have taxexempt organizations like mine, probably like carries i do not know. Like mine, and with churches, you can talk about the idea i talk about progressive values, and you can talk about ideas, but you cannot advocate for a particular candidate. The idea is given the taxexempt status, given activities that using the public goods in a way that advocating for a particular candidate is more like a campaign. We have previously made the decision that while certainly folks can stand up at the pulpit on sunday and say we should treat immigrants with love and respect, we should embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, they do not get up and say vote for candidate x, because they believe this. Vote for candidate y because they leave this. Expressly political. It is important to point out the irs has never actually used this because there is a huge question of the constitutionality of the johnson act particularly because it puts a muzzle on religious organizations. Strikes political stripes not being able to speak with their political belief is. They know the irs will lose in court and will not reinforce and for this reason. So right now it is just a specter for political leaders. Some take it more seriously than others. Saying, were going to teach what our religion teaches. The rs knows theres real constitutional problems with that issue. You do have the right to preach from the pulpit especially when it touches on the political news of that day. Religious freedom is a fundamental issue in the country. Free speech is a fundamental issue. To run hisas a right business according to his deepest commitments. Of cutting a fan through the discrimination package weve seen cut through again and again. The reports will look at the facts that yes, we have butediblysounding values you cannot use those personal beliefs in the Public Marketplace to choose your customers when it comes to thattant characteristics we carry with us as part of our identity and sexual institution orientation. To both of you, thank you for the conversation today. Great to be here. Announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, august men al green talks about green talks about his plans to bring the articles of impeachment against President Trump today. And we are live in tallahassee, florida, for the next top in the seas and bus 50 capitals tour