New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart agreed on Friday’s PBS NewsHour that the Supreme Court’s ruling that the First Amendment protects a Christian web designer from having to create a website for same-sex weddings is “poison” for society.
Host Geoff Bennett started with Brooks, who is supposed to be the conservative of the Brooks and Capehart duo, “David, there are those on the right, there are religious conservatives who are hailing this as a victory for religious liberty and there are others who say this ruling created a constitutional right to discriminate. How do you see it?”
Brooks began by qualifying that he isn’t a lawyer, “so I look at it, is it good or bad for society?”
After repeating Bennett’s summation of the arguments from both sides, Brooks continued, mourning that, “the Court chose free expression. That strikes me, just as someone who lives in American society, as doing great harm to American society.”
Clearly not appreciating the distinction between expression and places of accommodation that even Colorado agreed with, Brooks again lamented “It seems to me the idea that we do not discriminate in our businesses is just — that's much more a serious thing to break that than to restrict someone who's really running a business, not just painting a painting, but is running a business. And if that person who's running a business is allowed to discriminate, it seems to me it's just a poison in our society.”
Bennett then turned to Capehart, “Jonathan, using David's frame, the impact on society, what's your assessment of this ruling?”
Capehart declared that “David framed it perfectly,” also conceded he’s “not a lawyer,” but insisted that “this decision is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.”
Trying to make things personal, Capehart added “the Supreme Court just made it possible for private businesses to discriminate against people like me simply because they fear that they might have to do something that no one asked them to do?”
Like Brooks, Capehart also didn’t appreciate the difference between art or expression and places of accommodation, “David is absolutely right. This decision is definitely a poison on society, also because, it's so broad, who's to say that it doesn't stop at web designers or private businesses, that it doesn't lead to more erosion of rights for protected classes?”
While Capehart rambles on about hysterical hypotheticals, PBS declaring free speech and religious liberty to be “poison” provides one more example for why public broadcasting should not be tolerated.
This segment was sponsored by viewers like you.
Here is a transcript for the July 30 show:
PBS NewsHour
6/30/2023
7:44 PM ET
GEOFF BENNETT: Let's start with the Supreme Court siding with a web designer in Colorado who said that she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples, despite a law in Colorado that forbids discrimination against gay people.
David, there are those on the right, there are religious conservatives who are hailing this as a victory for religious liberty and there are others who say this ruling created a constitutional right to discriminate. How do you see it?
DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I don't have a qualified — I'm not qualified to give it a legal opinion. I'm not a lawyer, so I look at it, is it good or bad for society?
And so, in this case, you had the right for artistic expression against nondiscrimination, and it was a contest between those two. And the Court chose free expression. That strikes me, just as someone who lives in American society, as doing great harm to American society.
It seems to me the idea that we do not discriminate in our businesses is just — that's much more a serious thing to break that than to restrict someone who's really running a business, not just painting a painting, but is running a business. And if that person who's running a business is allowed to discriminate, it seems to me it's just a poison in our society.
BENNETT: Jonathan, using David's frame, the impact on society, what's your assessment of this ruling?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I have to tell you, Geoff, this ruling and a bunch of other rulings from this Court pains me. And it pains me personally.
And I think David framed it perfectly. I'm not a lawyer, also, but I will say that this decision is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. And it's also wrong because this web designer, no one asked her to do what she says she feels she will be forced to do.
And so the Supreme Court just made it possible for private businesses to discriminate against people like me simply because they fear that they might have to do something that no one asked them to do?
David is absolutely right. This decision is definitely a poison on society, also because, it's so broad, who's to say that it doesn't stop at web designers or private businesses, that it doesn't lead to more erosion of rights for protected classes?
