And again, I would just point you to the decision, which was a unanimous opinion at the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court said that expression trumps anti-discrimination laws.
So I think we really need to be sensitive to the fact that these cases are really about expression, and whether we agree or not with the expression, we need to defend the right of the speaker…COHEN: So you’re saying they could deny an interracial couple because they didn’t agree with interracial marriage, is what you’re saying, because that’s the right of expression?
The correct answer was “No.” Instead, she went on multiple lengthy monologues to avoid saying that one word. SMITH: Well, again, just going back and looking at some of the examples that have been part of the public discourse on this subject over the last few years.
House Judiciary Committee held a hearing all about “religious liberty.” At one point, however, a representative from conservative legal group Becket couldn’t answer a simple question about whether someone’s faith gave them the right to refuse service to an interracial couple. Steve Cohen asked Becket’s Senior Counsel Hannah Smith if faith-based discrimination against interracial couples was ever permissible. requiring them to bake that cake, give them a pizza…?
According to her, I will go to hell and she will go to heaven—or, in my version, we will be dead. I am not a woman who was born in San Jose, CA, grew up on a farm in upstate New York, matured in Washington, has six siblings, and is passionate about her family and her faith.
And the language that the Court — in fact, all nine members of the Court — adopted in that opinion, was one to say, “Look. We should encourage that diversity of views on marriage. SMITH: So race is very different and race has always been different in our Constitutional lexicon. Yes or no: Could the couple say, “I will not do you a cake because I don’t believe… Maybe that’s because she saw where that line of thought was going.
And these are decent and honorable people who hold these views, and we’re not going to deride them here.” Those are the words of Justice Kennedy. What I’m saying is race is very different in our society. We have always recognized…COHEN: So you’re saying they would not be allowed to discriminate…SMITH: We have always said that the government has a very powerful interest…COHEN: Ms. my religious beliefs do not allow me to give an interracial couple a cake.” Yes or no? Our government has a compelling interest in rejecting racial bigotry in public businesses, no matter the reason given by the owners.
How can we unleash the full potential of our marriage if we have a spiritual chasm between us? (If anyone knows Pete, or why he cares about the children, please let me know in the comments—oh, and tell him I want back my copy of As tempting as it was to ignore the problem of our differences and hope it went away, Rachel and I talked about it, and decided that since we valued our marriage too much to leave it to chance, we would be proactive about addressing our differences: we’d do it the hard way. I don’t want to be her Savior, I want to be her husband.
How can we possibly understand each other when we approach life so differently? What is it about Jews and Christians that they need to suffer to feel alive? I want to spend every day getting closer to her and knowing her more, faith and all.
SMITH: No, that’s not what I said, and I think what’s important to contrast…COHEN: Can you answer the question? He refers to the religious beliefs of those who believe in traditional marriage as decent and honorable.