[Blackwell:] Very soon in Arizona, it could be legal for businesses to refuse service to gays on the basis of freedom of religion. The bill already passed the house and the senate and it now goes to Governor Jan Brewer to sign. She has not said what she will do. But similar legislation was brought up last week in Kansas. That bill was now dead in the Senate. But the list goes on. It has come up in six more states. Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Oklahoma. We have seen a wave of cases that had pitted religious conservatives against same-sex supporters. And one of them in Colorado, where two years ago, a couple wanted to buy a wedding cake, but they were refused service when the bakery's owner found out that they were gay. Now the owner's attorney, Nicole Martin, she joins us. She's on the phone with us. We have in front of the camera, Robert Boston, director of communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It is good to have both of you.
[Robert Boston, Director Of Communications, American United For Separation Of Church And State:] Thank you. NICOLE MARTIN
[Blackwell:] Hey, Nicole, let's start with you. The judge sided with the couple in this. Tell us where does this case stand now and take a few seconds to explain your legal argument.
[Martin:] Well, what is important for your viewers to understand is that my client Jack Phillips serves everyone in the community. He always has. He just does not serve all events or communicate all messages. Everyone can agree, Victor, that a wedding cake is quantitatively different than a box of brownies. It's special. It is an iconic symbol of marriage and that it says something. And so because it says something, it is protected under the first amendment. Our very first freedom. The cornerstone of everything that America holds dear. It really isn't America any more if the government can force you under the threat of jail and fines to speak a message that is deeply at odds with your conscience.
[Blackwell:] All right. Robert, what is wrong with that? I mean, this country was founded on religious freedoms. What is wrong with what she just said?
[Boston:] Well, I really think that this is an attempt to take the shabby doctrine of discrimination and bigotry and dress it up in the noble garment of religious freedom. We have public accommodation laws in this country. And in the state of Colorado, gays and lesbians are protected by those laws. Well I think some religious conservatives are after here really is a new attempt at Jim Crowe. Back in the days when certain couldn't eat in restaurants or stay in hotels, get served by businesses. We moved way beyond that. I think it is kind of sad that we have these situations now where people are saying, I'm not going to serve you at my business because I don't like your lifestyle. It hasn't worked in court so far and I don't think it's going to be ultimately successful.
[Blackwell:] What about that as you heard from Robert that there are many people who see this, Nicole, as a way to just discriminate. I mean what stops your client or any baker or personal who owns a bridal shop or hair salon to put a sign in front of their window if the Arizona law is passed and signed into law, that just says, no service in celebration of same-sex unions.
[Martin:] The law shouldn't be stopping people from posting free speech in their businesses that's protected under the first amendment. Frankly, I find
[Blackwell:] So you believe they should have the right to be able to put up the sign that says no service to any celebration of same-sex union?
[Martin:] If it is based on their deeply-held religious beliefs, if it's based in the first amendment. Absolutely. And that's what happened in my case.
[Boston:] What's next a sign up saying we don't serve Muslims or atheists? That is fundamentally at odds with America and the values that we believe in.
[Martin:] I find the comparison to Jim Crowe laws, I find it obscene. These bills expand freedom for everybody.
[Boston:] They expand freedom
[Blackwell:] Hold on. Let her finish, Robert. Go ahead, Nicole.
[Martin:] Every one is still free to live their lives as they choose. These bills protect that right. Let me tell you why let me give you a glimpse into why you are seeing a
[Blackwell:] Nicole, I've got to ask you a question. I know we are running on time. But I got to get this question in, your legal strategy from what I understand, your client is Christian. He believes in the bible. He considers, I believe it was Leviticus 18:22 that says "Though shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It's an abomination." So to serve that same-sex couple would be contrary to the word of the bible. OK. Let me then go to another portion of the bible. Again, it is not moral. It is the legal argument. James, 2:8-11 which says "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, you should love your neighbor as yourself you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit a sin and convicted as transgressors but whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble at one point, he is guilty of all. So again, not moral, but legally. If your basis of our argument is that your client believes in the words of that bible, is there not a huge legal vulnerability, maybe even a strong legal counterpoint that that Bible which he holds as the reason he should not serve them, not only says that god impartial, and also that he is compelled to serve him, and to do otherwise would be a sin. Isn't that case a bit vulnerable?
[Martin:] I don't think so. First of all, Victor, I'm not a theologian. But what I do know is that Jesus loves all, no matter who they are. No matter what they do. But I'm pretty sure that the savior of all mankind didn't come down and die on the cross for our salvation so that we could participate in the sin of others. You know, we have the government has compelling interest in making sure nobody goes to that wedding reception or that wedding celebration and throws stones. But the government does not have a compelling interest to make sure that we participate in that wedding or that celebration.
[Blackwell:] Let me get Robert in very quickly because I have gone well over time. But Robert, let me ask you this. Which protections would you be OK with? Are there any protections that you would support?
[Boston:] Well, houses of worship have the right to decide who they admit as members, who they'll give the sacraments to. That is secure under the first amendment of the constitution. But when you open a business, you must meet the public accommodation laws which means you must serve the public. If you are not willing to serve the public, simple answer, don't open a business.
[Blackwell:] All right. Nicole Martin, Robert Boston. Thank you so much for the conversation. We will take a break. We'll be right back.
[Martin:] Thank you.