CNN News Central reacted to the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that upheld the First Amendment right to not be compelled to create a website for a same-sex wedding by raising hysterical hypotheticals about the return of Jim Crow. The assembled cast was also greatly confused by the difference between a gay individual and their wedding.
Co-host Sara Sidner asked senior legal analyst Laura Coates, “What is your reaction to this, and what fallout may well be. A lot of people worrying about things like Jim Crow. Could somebody decide they want black folks to come in the back door, because they don't want them in their store. I mean, how far might this go?”
Teeing up a clip of her interviewing Lorie Smith, the plaintiff in the case, Coates was surprisingly more measured in her response, “Well, we have to distinguish between free speech and the creative expression and how one markets or makes their art available and those who might violate reasonable accommodation laws or laws that are already designed to prevent the scenario you just spoke about, so there’ll be a discussion about where this leads.”
Still, Coates’s colleagues were less interested in exploring the difference between creating a website and public accommodations, like motels. Fellow legal analyst Elie Honig wondered, “Can she turn away, let's say if a biracial couple comes in or interracial couple comes in, right, and that’s the concern voiced in the dissent, where’s the line here?”
Co-host John Berman also couldn’t see the difference, “Well, if she doesn’t want to make them—if she thinks that would infringe on her free speech, I have to believe by [Justice Neil] Gorsuch’s reasoning insofar as I’ve read it right now, she could.”
Additionally, everyone was confused. Sidner read from Gorsuch’s opinion, “He said ‘the parties agree that Ms. Smith,’ who is the person who brought this case, ‘will gladly create custom graphics and websites for gay, lesbian, or bisexual clients or for organizations run by gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons so long as the custom graphics and websites do not violate her beliefs.’”
Most people understand that people—gay or straight—have more life events other than just their wedding, such as birthdays or retirement parties, but Sidner was perplexed, “That seems a little confusing and I will say that because there are people from different religions who believe that gay folks should not exist and now he’s saying she will do things for people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, it’s just that she won’t do this—she won’t do a website for them if they are married, because it is going against her First Amendment rights.”
Honig, who is supposed to be a legal eagle, was also tried to make the opinion way more complicated than it is, “That’s a tricky distinction here. She will provide the services to LGBTQ people, just not the ones she objects to. Just not the services or the behaviors that she objects to, which strikes me as, sort of, a bit of hair splitting.”
Is it? Everyone has things they find morally unacceptable that they refuse endorse with their speech. The Court just ruled that it is perfectly legal for those things to include conservative sexual mores, which led Sidner to simply claim “I’m confused.”
Here is a transcript for the June 30 show:
CNN News Central
6/30/2023
10:07 AM ET
SARA SIDNER: What is your reaction to this, and what fallout may well be. A lot of people worrying about things like Jim Crow. Could somebody decide they want black folks to come in the back door, because they don't want them in their store. I mean, how far might this go?
LAURA COATES: Well, we have to distinguish between free speech and the creative expression and how one markets or makes their art available and those who might violate reasonable accommodation laws or laws that are already designed to prevent the scenario you just spoke about, so there’ll be a discussion about where this leads.
…
ELIE HONIG: Right, I mean that is one of the hotly contested questions here. Can she turn away, let's say if a biracial couple comes in or interracial couple comes in, right, and that’s the concern voiced in the dissent, where’s the line here?
JOHN BERMAN: Well, if she doesn’t want to make them—if she thinks that would infringe on her free speech, I have to believe by Gorsuch’s reasoning insofar as I’ve read it right now, she could.
…
SIDNER: He said “the parties agree that Ms. Smith,” who is the person who brought this case, “will gladly create custom graphics and websites for gay, lesbian, or bisexual clients or for organizations run by gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons so long as the custom graphics and websites do not violate her beliefs.”
That seems a little confusing and I will say that because there are people from different religions who believe that gay folks should not exist and now he’s saying she will do things for people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, it’s just that she won’t do this—she won’t do a website for them if they are married, because it is going against her First Amendment rights.
HONIG: That’s a tricky distinction here--
SIDNER: Right?
HONIG: She will provide the services to LGBTQ people, just not the ones she objects to. Just not the services –
SIDNER: Right.
HONIG: -- or the behaviors—
SIDNER: Behaviors.
HONIG: -- that she objects to, which strikes me as, sort of, a bit of hair splitting.
SIDNER: I’m confused.
