On Wednesday's Legal View, CNN's Ashleigh Banfield deplored part of Mississippi's new religious liberty law. Banfield played up that "there was one other piece of language...it's odd....The law in Mississippi protects from discrimination claims from anyone who believes....that sexual relations are reserved solely for marriage." She asked legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, "Does that mean that cake-baker could refuse a couple that just lives together?" When Toobin replied affirmatively, the anchor was aghast: "Why is that not making bigger headlines?...I think a lot of people are...beyond the whole you can't have sex before you're married issue." [video below]
Banfield turned to the liberal CNN personality to comment on the brouhaha over the Mississippi law. She cited the Magnolia State's governor's statement that the legislation "reenforces First Amendment rights." She continued, "I always wonder about First Amendment rights versus 14th Amendment...Why doesn't equal protection, sort of, jump in and give them the cover that the LGBT community would need?"
Toobin replied, in part that "under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has never said that discrimination against gay people is prohibited....And the First Amendment does allow you to associate with whoever you want to, and it allows you to have freedom of belief. But the question raised by this case is, may your beliefs entitle you to discriminate against gay people?..there are so many of these laws coming on the books that these cases are almost guaranteed."
Banfield gave her "odd" label of the Mississippi law's protection of those who hold the traditional view of sex later in the segment. She also underlined it "affects millions and millions of people. I think a lot of people are, sort of, beyond the whole you can't have sex before you're married issue."
The analyst contended that "the Mississippi law makes the other laws look tiny, just because of the kind of...provisions you're talking about; and also, the number of people and institutions that are allowed to discriminate under the Mississippi law...the breadth of this law is really extraordinary — far greater than the North Carolina law, or even the Indiana law that was overturned. So, you know, I think you're right to point out what an extreme version of the law is."
The transcript of the relevant portions of the Toobin segment from CNN's Legal View With Ashleigh Banfield on April 6, 2016:
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD: The statement from Mississippi governor, Phil Bryant, says this — and I'll paraphrase slightly — 'But this legislation does not challenge federal law;' and, quote — 'even those laws which are in conflict with Mississippi's constitution, and it reenforces First Amendment rights.' I always wonder about First Amendment rights versus 14th Amendment — you know, your equal protection. Why doesn't equal protection, sort of, jump in and — and give them the cover that the LGBT community would need?
[CNN Graphic: "Anti-LGBT Laws: Mississippi Gov. Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill"]
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Well, because the — under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has never said that discrimination against gay people is prohibited. That's the issue with the 14th Amendment. And the First Amendment does allow you to associate with whoever you want to, and it allows you to have freedom of belief. But the question raised by this case is, may your beliefs entitle you to discriminate against gay people? And the Supreme Court has never settled that question, but there are so many of these laws coming — coming on the books that these cases are almost guaranteed.
Now, of course, there's the whole political and commercial issue of — you know, PayPal saying they will not open a plant in North Carolina because they don't want to be associated in (sic) a state that has these kind of laws. That's not a legal issue. That's a political and a business issue—
BANFIELD: Well, that's just the — that's just the free market's reaction—
TOOBIN: Exactly—
(...)
[CNN Graphic: "Backlash Against Legislation In Miss., N.C."]
BANFIELD: There was one other piece of language — and I'm going to have to paraphrase it — but it's odd. It stood out to me as something that might actually generate more interest from those who otherwise might have dismissed this, or felt that they had connection to this particular legislation. The law in Mississippi protects from discrimination claims from anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and woman — so if the cake-maker doesn't want to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, they get the protection from a discrimination lawsuit. And then, there's this: and that sexual relations are reserved solely for marriage.So, I wasn't aware of that until I just happened to notice it today. Does that mean that cake-baker could refuse a couple that just lives together — to bake a cake for someone who just lives together?
TOOBIN: Absolutely; absolutely. That's — that's exactly what it means—
BANFIELD: Why is that not making bigger headlines? Because that affects millions and millions of people. I think a lot of people are, sort of, beyond the whole you can't have sex before you're married issue.
TOOBIN: Well, I think — you know, first of all, this law just passed, and it was brought up very quickly. And, you know, this law — the Mississippi law makes the other laws look tiny, just because of the kind of — the provisions you're talking about; and also, the number of people and institutions that are allowed to discriminate under the Mississippi law. It's every business in the state. It's every church. It's every — it's the government itself. So the breadth of this law is really extraordinary — far greater than the North Carolina law, or even the Indiana law that was overturned. So, you know, I think you're right to point out what an — what an extreme version of the law is. But, you know, this is what the legislators wanted. I mean, it wasn't a mistake. This is what they want.
