Much like they did the previous day when affirmative action was ruled unconstitutional, Ana Cabrera Reports delved into the conspiratorial and hyperbolic nature that was MSNBC and claimed a 6-3 ruling of the Supreme Court would lead to the return of segregated American society. Luckily, this time, there was a conservative around to inject some sense into the conversation: Carrie Severino, the president of Judicial Crisis Network.
After getting the results of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the free speech case that involved the idea of a Colorado webpage designer being forced by state law to make a website for a same-sex wedding, host Ana Cabrera led the liberal panelists through their hyperventilating.
Proving her lack of a grasp on the case, Cabrera pressed Severino on the ridiculous notion that restaurant owners would start putting up signs that barred who could enter based on race:
Could this ruling in Laurie Smith's favor open the door to other types of businesses refusing services to customers? For example, could a restaurant owner put up a sign and deny service to a customer because of the color of their skin citing free speech?
“Absolutely not because a restaurant is not speech,” Severino immediately shot down the ridiculousness. She noted that the owner of 303 Creative, Lurie Smith, would be “absolutely happy” to help same-sex couples make a website to sell their house, advertise a business, or do anything else besides a wedding.
Severino specifically tore into the liberal assertion that the ruling would lead to a re-segregating of society:
So, it doesn't have to do with the person. It has to do with the message. And this is why some of these theories of “what if someone would refuse blacks at a lunch counter again,” that's utterly unrelated to this case. That has nothing to do with speech. That actually did have to do with the color of the person's skin. This is something that's very different. It's limited to speech. That's why it's a free speech case. It's limited to people who are bringing a message.
“And again, Laurie Smith is happy to give a whole range of messages for same-sex-attracted individuals. She's not happy to do messages that celebrate a particular messages that she disagrees with on the basis of her religion,” she reiterated
At one point, Severino noted something that liberals have been ignoring, that Smith said she would refuse a website for a wedding that began with a heterosexual couple having an adulterous relationship:
So, Justice Barrett questioned her on things like, “What if there was a website that wanted to celebrate someone whose marriage began through an adulterous affair, would you be willing to do that?” “No,” even if it was a heterosexual marriage. So, it's not about that particular class, it's about a broader question: Can she be forced to speak through her designs in ways that she fundamentally disagrees with?
The simplicity of Smith’s argument – that she should be forced to make a website with messages she disagrees with – was too much for Cabrera’s liberal mind:
But Colorado's argument is that Smith could include biblical quotes reflecting her views on marriage for anyone website she creates. The law only required that whatever product she sold is 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 ‘what God has joined, let no man separate,’ I feel like they would not accept that as a product,” Severino quipped.
On the flip side, Severino also noted that the Colorado law that barred Smith from refusing same-sex wedding websites also kept liberal newspapers from celebrating pride month in certain ways:
And I'll point out another example Justice Barrett gave. She said what-if The New York Times in its famous wedding, you know, pages said, for pride month we're only going to put same-sex marriages. Could they do that legally? And Colorado said, no, they can't. She said, what if you have a gay newspaper like The Washington Blade where this is their whole message, this is their point, and they said we only want to accept wedding announcements for same-sex or queer relationships, can they do that? And Colorado said not under their laws.
Cabrera and the other liberals on the panel ignored that point.
Because of the breaking news about the Supreme Court Rulings, there were no commercial breaks during the 10:00 a.m. hour of MSNBC. But you can see other MSNBC advertisers on our Conservatives Fight Back page.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports
June 30, 2023
10:16:10 a.m. EasternANA CABRERA: I do want to bring in Carrie Severino, another legal voice, president of Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy organization. She's also a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Carrie, first, your reaction to this ruling?
CARRIE SEVERINO: Yeah, I think this is another example of this court being very strong on freedom of speech. I was glad that they were able to make the distinction here between endorsing beliefs and allowing someone to speak those beliefs.
And I think in many ways, actually, you know, I recognize contrary to what some of the other guests have believed, but this case really does bring out the promise of Justice Kennedy's words in Obergefell that people who have sincere religious beliefs can continue to advocate with the utmost sincere conviction, that by divine precept same-sex marriage should not be condoned. That’s in Obergefell. So, this case is not a shot a shot across the bow of Obergefell. It's actually giving meaning to the words that are there.
There's a difference between forcing someone to speak and not being willing to serve someone. And Laurie Smith said she's happy to make websites for same-sex individuals, for anyone, but she won't make websites for heterosexual marriages or same-sex marriages that she disagrees with.
So, Justice Barrett questioned her on things like, “What if there was a website that wanted to celebrate someone whose marriage began through an adulterous affair, would you be willing to do that?” “No,” even if it was a heterosexual marriage.
So, it's not about that particular class, it's about a broader question: Can she be forced to speak through her designs in ways that she fundamentally disagrees with?
CABRERA: The Colorado anti-discrimination law that was on the other side of this that was being challenged would require her to create a message that's consistent with her religious beliefs. In fact, Colorado's argument she's saying is that it wouldn't allow her to create a message that was consistent. But Colorado's argument is that Smith could include biblical quotes reflecting her views on marriage for anyone website she creates. The law only required that whatever product she sold is 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?
SEVERINO: 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 “what God has joined, let no man separate,” I feel like they would not accept that as a product. Similarly, if she put a biblical quote condemning homosexuality on a same-sex wedding website. That's not really providing the same product they're asking for. So, that would have been an interesting 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 live and let live. You don't have to force someone to violate their beliefs in order to have yours celebrated.
And I'll point out another example Justice Barrett gave. She said what-if The New York Times in its famous wedding, you know, pages said, for pride month we're only going to put same-sex marriages. Could they do that legally? And Colorado said, no, they can't. She said, what if you have a gay newspaper like The Washington Blade where this is their whole message, this is their point, and they said we only want to accept wedding announcements for same-sex or queer relationships, can they do that? And Colorado said not under their laws.
That is outrageous. These organizations are entitled, just like Laurie Smith is to have their perspective and we're going to have perspectives on all sides of this issue. That's what makes America great the opportunity to share a variety of opinions.
CABRERA: So, the law in Colorado defines discrimination not only as refusing to provide goods and services but publishing any communication that essentially says an individual's patronage is unwelcome based on a protected characteristic. Could this ruling in Laurie Smith's favor open the door to other types of businesses refusing services to customers?
For example, could a restaurant owner put up a sign and deny service to a customer because of the color of their skin citing free speech?
SEVERINO: Absolutely not because a restaurant is not speech. And Laurie Smith herself is not refusing services to people on the basis of their class. If a same-sex couple came and said we want a website about selling our house or we want a website advertising our business or something, she's absolutely happy to do that. So, this is not because of their class. Similarly, if a heterosexual couple said -- and we want it said we want a website celebrating some aspect of anything that she disagrees with, she's not willing to take that.
So, it doesn't have to do with the person. It has to do with the message. And this is why some of these theories of “what if someone would refuse blacks at a lunch counter again,” that's utterly unrelated to this case. That has nothing to do with speech. That actually did have to do with the color of the person's skin. This is something that's very different. It's limited to speech. That's why it's a free speech case. It's limited to people who are bringing a message.
And again, Laurie Smith is happy to give a whole range of messages for same-sex-attracted individuals. She's not happy to do messages that celebrate a particular messages that she disagrees with on the basis of her religion.
CABRERA: Carrie Severino, I do appreciate your perspective on all of this. I think it's important get all the different perspectives.
