language to conceal bigotry. that was done to my family for generations. it was religious argument. so, if you don t believe that somebody could lock me out of the store because they believe that god separated the races, you cannot accept a company turning away someone else. and by the way, she can say whatever she wants to. but if she wants to open her doors and say she s open for business in america, that means you ve got to be open for business to everybody. congressman? well, look, yaerks i mean look, i m sympathetic to that argument. and when it comes to the what s next, when it comes to comparing the south, you know, and believing that god said separate the races, i understand it. in this limited thing, i m also sympathetic to the fact that this woman felt it violated her religious beliefs. by the way, there is other web designers that can do that kind of design. so, i understand both sides of this. the thing i get concerned with, the first amendment isn t there to protect
business in america, that means you ve got to be open for business to everybody. congressman? well, look, i m sympathetic to that argument. and when it comes to the what s next, when it comes to comparing the south, you know, and believing that god said separate the races, i understand it. in this limited thing, i m also sympathetic to the fact that this woman felt it violated her religious beliefs. by the way, there is other web designers that can do that kind of design. so, i understand both sides of this. the thing i get concerned with, the first amendment isn t there to protect the religious arguments we agree with. it s not there to protect the speech that we agree with. it s actually there to protect the stuff we don t agree with because that s what s in danger. so, i don t have a definitive kind of opinion on this at the moment because i can really see both sides to this. i ll let the supreme court speak for that. i think, van, and i ll let elie weigh in here on what the c
based on hypothetical harm in the future, are you getting a sense from legal experts they re worried about potential broader implications down the road? yeah, i think with any big supreme court decision like this, you never really know how broadly it s going to flow until you get, you know, some more cases that come along, and some real world impacts to show how far it could go. so, in the future, depending on how this is applied, you could get some cases, you can imagine, everyone can imagine talking around the dinner table of examples of these creative professionals, you know, what does that include? does that include, you know, in mixologist at a cocktail bar who can turn, say no, i m not going to make a drink for you because i don t believe in the message that that can face? which is basically what the court saying? here what professions are going to be included in this, beyond web designers? and so, there s bound to be more cases in that issued, probably, will get up to the supr
available to everyone, right? so i guess i m just trying to understand how is she harmed by this law? if she can still put her own personal beliefs on her product? i would struggle to imagine that a couple again, whether it s a heterosexual couple with a marriage that was started in adultery and she included biblical quotes about how marriage is for life and that god has joined, let no man separate, i feel like they would not accept that as a product, similarly if he put a biblical quote condemning homosexuality on a same-sex wedding website. that s not really providing the same product they re asking for. that would have been an interesting e test case if you provided that and said, yes this is my speech, but at the end of the day, i think it s pretty clear what there s a lot of, you know, web designers out there. there s no shortage of people who would love and feel honored and excited about creating this website. we can have an opportunity to
cakes that were premade and that will continue to be the rule. for web designers it s a bit more difficult. if the website is about a same-sex marriage, the subject of the site is to her morally repugnant. it will not be that way to others. they will have to find a web designer for the wedding as opposed to other aspects of their life that can design this. what was interesting the 10th circuit had this odd monopoly theory where they said that well, they want you to do it and you can t have a monopoly on your own talents. it is only you that can do a website like you. and so the 10th circuit said you are a virtual monopoly like standard oil. and the court clearly rejects that. there are other website designers. and this is not a perfect world