CNN's Wolf Blitzer utilized a regular liberal media double standard on Wednesday's AC360: giving a liberal guest the kid glove treatment, while tossing tougher questions at a conservative – in this case, Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist website. When Hemingway underlined how Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have protected Sikhs and Native Americans, Blitzer countered, "But Mollie, you're pointing to cases of protecting religious minorities from intrusion by...the federal government...The concerns about Indiana and Arkansas pertain to individuals being discriminated against by other individuals under cover of religious freedom – right?" [video below]
By contrast, the anchor merely sought reactions to Hemingway's answers from openly homosexual New York University academic Kenji Yoshino: "What you think about what Mollie is saying – that it's basically not a big deal – what these laws are now stipulating?"
Blitzer introduced his guests by giving their occupations, but never disclosed that The Federalist is a conservative website, nor did he point out Yoshino's sexual orientation. He first asked Hemingway, "These laws – do they need to be clarified – amended in some way, in your opinion; or do you believe they're fine as is?" The Federalist senior editor pointed to the Sikh woman, Kawal Tagore, "who used a religious freedom bill to fight back when the IRS fired her for carrying a religious emblem that was required of her by her Sikh faith," as well as "Robert Soto...[who] just weeks ago, won a religious freedom case because the government has seized his sacred eagle feathers."
The CNN journalist followed with his slanted "cover of religious freedom" question. Hemingway replied by explaining what RFRA laws actually do, as opposed to the left-wing hype about them:
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: And this is an important point to make. There has been much misinformation about how religious freedom bills work. They can only be used as a defense. You can only use a religious freedom bill if you have been accused of breaking a law, or if you face fines or government action because of your religious...beliefs coming in conflict with a government action. And the Department of Justice itself has said that religious freedom claims can be raised in cases between two private individuals. So to say that this is some huge difference between the way we've seen religious freedom bills happen in the past and now is not quite correct.
Blitzer asked his conservative guest one more hardball question, as he moderated the discussion between Hemingway and Yoshino for the remainder of the segment: "Just to be clear: I assume you believe that women; people of color; people with disabilities – they should all be protected by law against discrimination. But what about gay people? Should they be protected from discrimination as well?" Hemingway replied, in part, that "religious liberty is not a problem...it's who we are as a people. It's our very first freedom, and it doesn't need a fix:"
BLITZER: ...Let me get Kenji to respond to that. What do you think – what is – what you think about what Mollie is saying – that it's basically not a big deal – what these laws are now stipulating?
KENJI YOSHINO, NYU LAW PROFESSOR: I think that it is a very big deal. I think that the private/public distinction that you raise, Wolf, is an enormous deal. But I also think that we need to look at the context in which this law was enacted. It's often said by the other side that 19 states have an enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. But 18 of these 19 states did that before the United States Supreme Court, in 2013, struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. So that's what – we get too lyrical about laws that were enacted by vast super-majorities of both houses of Congress, and signed by Bill Clinton. That also happened with the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The impetus behind these laws – at least the recent round of laws – is clearly to discriminate against gay individuals and gay couples.
BLITZER: All right. Mollie, go ahead.
HEMINGWAY: The whole point of religious freedom legislation is it helps us navigate the conflict between government rules and people's religious liberty. It doesn't say who wins. It merely says that when there is a conflict, it gives us a way of navigating the conflict. The religious person has to show that he has a legitimate religious belief, and that it's substantially burdened by the government. And then, the government can still say, yes, we're burdening you, but have to do it, and we have no other way to do it than by limiting your religious freedom. It's actually quite moderate legislation, and it works whether it's dealing with laws about same-sex marriage, or any of the many other laws that are on the books at the federal and state level.
BLITZER: You want to respond, Kenji?
YOSHINO: Yes. Some civil rights commitments have been deemed by this nation to be so deeply held that they shouldn't be up for a case-by-case determination by a particular judge. And so, in this instance, subjecting the civil rights of gay and lesbian individuals, and gay and lesbian couples to the whims of a particular judge – under the very murky area of a balancing test – is not what is needed. What's needed is a more categorical protection for gays and lesbians.
And what I think is particularly striking, is that Governor Pence said that he was for religious liberty and against discrimination – as if those two things were mutually exclusive. Religious liberty claims have often been used to oppose things like interracial marriage in our nation's sad history of civil rights, and I think we're seeing a repeat of that here.
BLITZER: Mollie, you might argue these are separate issues, but a lot of people feel they are closely connected. Just to be clear: I assume you believe that women; people of color; people with disabilities – they should all be protected by law against discrimination. But what about gay people? Should they be protected from discrimination as well?
HEMINGWAY: It's really up to the people of Arkansas and Indiana to decide whether they want to pass another law that burdens people in the state. That is truly up to them, and I hope people have that discussion in a calm, non-hysterical environment – which is not what we've seen, as the people of Indiana have been bullied, and had their democratic process taken over by corporate heads and powerful people. It's a really bad way to make a decision about whether you want to have more government regulations-
BLITZER: All right. Kenji, go ahead-
HEMINGWAY: Religious liberty is not a problem. It's something – it's who we are as a people. It's our very first freedom, and it doesn't need a fix.
BLITZER: Kenji, go ahead.
YOSHINO: Yeah. I think we should be very proud of this moment in American history, because we see a majority of the American people rising up, seemingly, across the nation, and saying this is no longer acceptable; and that even though gays and lesbians are a small minority, that they deserve the same kind of categorical protection that other minorities – like racial minorities – have enjoyed in the past.
BLITZER: Kenji Yoshino, thanks very much. Molly Hemingway, thanks to you as well.
It should be pointed out that Blitzer didn't include people of faith in his list of people who "should all be protected by law against discrimination"
