CNN's Don Lemon acted more like a socially-left activist than a journalist on Friday's New Day, as he moderated a panel discussion on a proposed religious liberty law in Mississippi. Lemon twice misrepresented what the law actually says, and asked a LGBT activist, "Religious liberty — is that just a code for discrimination — I don't want to provide services to certain people? Isn't that just a code?" He was more explicit later in the segment: "People in certain professions...wouldn't have to serve certain people — which, at its base, is discrimination." [video below]
Anchor Alisyn Camerota teased the discussion by hyping that "a new religious liberty bill in Mississippi sparking outrage — some critics call it the most discriminatory measure ever written. It targets gays and lesbians." Lemon, acting as a substitute anchor for Chris Cuomo, turned to the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg and Rob Hill of the Human Rights Campaign's office in Mississippi. He first turned to Sprigg, and gave his first misinterpretation of the legislation:
DON LEMON: How is this bill different from anything you have seen before? Let's put it up here, though, because it says marriage is between a man and woman — that's what it says — sexual relations are reserved to marriage; and gender is determined at birth. How is this different than anything we've seen before?
Sprigg answered, in part, by going after Camerota's preview: "The intro that Alisyn gave before the break was somewhat misleading in saying this bill targets gays and lesbians. It doesn't do that at all. What it does is it prevents the government from targeting people who hold those traditional beliefs for some sort of punishment or retaliation through government action."
The openly-homosexual anchor followed up by doubling-down on his misread of the bill: "It says, marriage is between man and a woman...it says that sexual relations are reserved to marriage. That's between everyone; that's for...all persuasions. And then, gender is determined at birth. So how is this not targeting the LGBT community when you're saying marriage is between a man and a woman; when the Supreme Court has decided that that's not so?"
Sprigg corrected the record in his reply: "If you read the bill, it's not saying that those things are true. It's saying that those are the beliefs that have to be protected against government discrimination; because those are the beliefs that are being targeted for government discrimination now, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision."
Indeed, that's exactly what section 3 of the proposed Mississippi law says:
The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
Lemon then turned to Hill and asked his "code for discrimination" question. As you might expect, the Human Rights campaign state director agreed: "Yeah, it is a code. We have robust protections for religious beliefs under the First Amendment of the Constitution.... the First Amendment been used or been allowed to — it was not intended to be used as a way to deny somebody else their civil rights."
The CNN journalist returned to browbeating Sprigg later in the segment:
LEMON: This allows...people in certain professions...wouldn't have to serve certain people — which, at its base, is discrimination — DJ's, photographers, videographers, poets....Clerks and their deputies would be provided a process for recusing themselves from licensing marriage licenses; and judges and magistrates and justices of the peace and deputies would be given a similar process. Didn't we go through this last year in Indiana? Didn't we go through this last year in Kentucky? And the Supreme Court says, no, you cannot do that. It is discrimination.
In reality, the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on the constitutionality of state-level religious freedom restoration acts, such as the one in Indiana.
It should be pointed out that back in May 2011, Lemon revealed that he hoped to use his position as a journalist to "change minds" on the issue of homosexuality.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the Sprigg/Hill panel discussion segment from CNN's New Day on April 1, 2016:
DON LEMON: A battle brewing in Mississippi — a new bill aimed at providing protections for religious liberty has cleared the state house and senate, and it is being called the worst anti-LGBT bill yet.
Here to discuss this controversial legislation is Peter Sprigg — he is a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council; and Rob Hill, Mississippi state director for the Human Rights Campaign. Good morning to both of you. Peter, I want to start with you to tell us about this bill. How is this bill different from anything you have seen before? Let's put it up here, though, because it says marriage is between a man and woman — that's what it says — sexual relations are reserved to marriage; and gender is determined at birth. How is this different than anything we've seen before?
[CNN Graphic: "Mississippi Senate Passes Religious Freedom Bill; New Bill Allows Denial Of Services Based On Religious Beliefs; Mississippi's House Bill 1523: Denial Of Services Based On Belief; -Marriage Is Between A Man And Woman; -Sexual Relations Are Reserved To Marriage; -Gender Is Determined"]
PETER SPRIGG, SENIOR FELLOW FOR POLICY STUDIES, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, what this bill does is to protect the religious liberty of people who hold those beliefs, and it prevents the government from discriminating against people who believe those — who hold those long-held beliefs, based on their religious convictions or moral convictions. So it's misleading — the intro that Alisyn gave before the break was somewhat misleading in saying this bill targets gays and lesbians. It doesn't do that at all. What it does is it prevents the government from targeting people who hold those traditional beliefs for some sort of punishment or retaliation through government action.
[CNN Graphic: "Public Employees & Businesses Can Deny Services To Gays"]
LEMON: So how does it not target gays and lesbians when it says, marriage is between man and a woman; when it says that sexual relations are reserved to marriage. That's between everyone; that's for all — all persuasions. And then, gender is determined at birth. So how is this not targeting the LGBT community when you're saying marriage is between a man and a woman; when the Supreme Court has decided that that's not so?
SPRIGG: If you read the bill, it's not saying that those things are true. It's saying that those are the beliefs that have to be protected against government discrimination; because those are the beliefs that are being targeted for government discrimination now, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
You know, the advocates of same-sex marriage assured us before that decision that this would have no impact on religious liberty — that we would continue to be able to exercise religious liberty after same-sex marriage was legalized. The Mississippi bill is just trying to make good on those promises from the supporters of same-sex marriage.
LEMON: Religious liberty — is that just a code for discrimination — I don't want to provide services to certain people? Isn't that just a code, Rob?
ROB HILL, MISSISSIPPI STATE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Yeah, it is a code. I mean, we have robust — robust protections for religious beliefs under the First Amendment of the Constitution. So people have the right to believe whatever they want to about God and — and practice their faith; and I — and I certainly treasure that as a person of faith. But never has the First Amendment been used or been allowed to — it was not intended to be used as a way to deny somebody else their civil rights. If you work for the government; if you are paid by taxpayers; then you need to do your job. And if you can't do your job, then you need to find something else to do.
LEMON: Listen, this — this allows people — again, people in certain professions cannot — wouldn't have to serve certain people — which, at its base, is discrimination — DJ's, photographers, videographers, poets. It also says employers and school administrators would also be allowed to dictate access to bathrooms, spas, locker rooms, and other intimate facilities and settings in the bill. Clerks and their deputies would be provided a process for recusing themselves from licensing marriage licenses; and judges and magistrates and justices of the peace and deputies would be given a similar process. Didn't we go through this last year in Indiana? Didn't we go through this last year in Kentucky? And the Supreme Court says, no, you cannot do that. It is discrimination.
HILL: It is. It's based—
[CNN Graphic: "16 States Have Tried & Failed To Pass Religious Freedom Acts"]
SPRIGG: Well, Rob says that the First — Rob says the First Amendment is enough to protect religious liberty; but the First Amendment didn't protect Aaron and Melissa Klein, who — bakers in Oregon, who, simply because they wanted to exercise their faith, were driven out of business; and now, face crippling financial fines. It didn't protect Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Washington State, who had happily served her gay customer — knowing that he was openly gay — for years. So this is not about discrimination against people because of who they are. But when she said no to participating in the celebration of a same-sex wedding, then she was slapped with a lawsuit—
LEMON: Go ahead, Rob—
SPRIGG: We want to protect people like that.
LEMON: Go ahead, Rob.
HILL: Again, Peter — I'm sorry, Peter. It is — it's pure discrimination. LGBT people in Mississippi, in Oregon, in Kentucky, wherever — we deserve the same treatment as everybody else; and there needs to be recourse — legal recourse — if someone's not treated fairly. And — and we're standing up for that in Mississippi, and letting people know that — you know, we're your neighbors. We sit in the cubicle next to you at work, where your — we sit in the pew next to you at church. And we deserve to be treated like everyone else, and that's all we're asking for.
