Slate senior editor and legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick joined MSNBC The 11th Hour host Stephanie Ruhle on Monday to recap the day’s Supreme Court oral arguments in case over whether someone can be compelled to provide services for same-sex weddings in violation of their religious beliefs. Lithwick was dismayed at the idea, accusing the Court of relying on “dumb hypotheticals” and ignoring the dignity of “millions of Americans.”
Ruhle set the stage by introducing Lithwick and labeling her as “the very, very best at this topic” and asking “What did you take away from today's arguments?”
What followed was certainly not “the very, very best,” as Lithwick began with some bad analogies, “A couple of things. One, as you said, it was very, very clear that if there's a principle distinction between allowing people to opt out of public accommodation laws because they don't like same-sex marriage -- I couldn't hear principle distinction between that and people who don't like interracial marriage, who don't like adoption, who don't like all sorts of things.”
As for the answer those comparisons, Lithwick continued, “I think the answer to that question each time was posed was some version of, "well, but that would be racist." Which is not in fact a principled answer.”
It actually is. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is about race, which would cover interracial marriage. It is not about sexual orientation.
Moving on, Lithwick also alleged, “The other thing that was striking today, Stephanie, was the sort of levity at the Court. There was just a whole bunch of silliness, kind of, dumb hypotheticals, really, kind of, rollicking good times talking about Ashley Madison and black Santas.”
If you are going to force people to endorse ideas they do not agree with, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask those in favor where, if anywhere, they draw the line, but for Lithwick this isn’t really about free speech or religious liberty, but simple bigotry, “and the sense that some of the justices were not taking this as a serious dignitary challenge to millions of Americans was really upsetting.”
What’s truly upsetting is that liberals on MSNBC keep comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage and expect to be taken seriously.
This segment was sponsored by Fidelity.
Here is a transcript for the December 5 show:
MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle
12/5/2022
11:21 PM ET
STEPHANIE RUHLE: Let's welcome Dahlia Lithwick, Slate’s senior editor and legal correspondent. She's also an MSNBC law and politics analyst and the very, very best at this topic. I'm so glad you're with us tonight. What did you take away from today's arguments?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: A couple of things. One, as you said, it was very, very clear that if there's a principle distinction between allowing people to opt out of public accommodation laws because they don't like same-sex marriage -- I couldn't hear principle distinction between that and people who don't like interracial marriage, who don't like adoption, who don't like all sorts of things.
I think the answer to that question each time was posed was some version of, "well, but that would be racist." Which is not in fact a principled answer. The other thing that was striking today, Stephanie, was the sort of levity at the Court. There was just a whole bunch of silliness, kind of, dumb hypotheticals, really, kind of, rollicking good times talking about Ashley Madison and black Santas and the sense that some of the justices were not taking this as a serious dignitary challenge to millions of Americans was really upsetting.
