Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH A LAW AND
NO ONE IS BEING TURNED AWAY.
I KNOW OF NO RELIGION THAT TURNS
PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE RESTAURANT.
THIS BILL, THERE IS A BIG
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIVING
SOMEONE COFFEE OR PIZZA OR A
BURGER AND COERCING SOMEONE TO
VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.
>> BUT THAT IS OPEN TO
INTERPRETATION OF THE BUSINESS
OWNER.
>> WOULD YOU ALLOW A
HOMOSEXUAL --
>> MY SHOW.
HANG ON.
THAT IS OPEN TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE BUSINESS
OWNER.
IS IT NOT?
I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN
AND KEY KEEP USING A SAME-SEX
COUPLE WALKS IN AND WANTS A
PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE A PICTURE
FOR THEIR WEDDING AND THEY SAID
I WILL TAKE YOUR PICTURE FOR THE
PASSPORT AND A DRIVER'S LICENSE,
BUT NO, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE
YOUR PICTURE FOR THE SAME-SEX
WEDDING BECAUSE OF THAT IS
AGAINST MY BELIEFS.
HOW IS THAT NOT DISCRIMINATION?
JUST ASKING.
>> IT'S NOT.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TAKING A PICTURE AND THE
GOVERNMENT FORCING A CITIZEN TO
VIOLATE THEIR BELIEF BY
PARTICIPATING IN USING CREATIVE
EXPRESSION TO PHOTOGRAPH A
WEDDING.
WE WOULD NEVER ASK A HOMOSEXUAL.
WE WOULD DEFEND THEIR RIGHT NOT
TO PHOTOGRAPH THE EVENT.
WE WOULD NOT WANT THEM TO BE
INVOLVED IN.
>>> WOULD YOU ALLOW OR MAKE UP.
>> I ASK THE QUESTIONS.
YOU ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
>> I WILL.
>> KELLY.
>> WE WOULD SUPPORT THE MUSLIM
WHO WOULDN'T WANT TO GO ON A
SATURDAY.
WE DEFEND.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
HANG ON A SECOND.
JEFF IS MY GO TO LEGAL GUY.
JEFF TUBE IN, ON TO THE LAW.
GIVEN THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE.
IF I TOP THE GET MARRIED TO
ANOTHER WOMAN AND I WALK INTO A
PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO.
WHERE DOES THE LAW STAND WITH AN
INDIVIDUAL AND A BUSINESS SAYING
NO?
>> I THINK IT VARIES BY STATE.
>> ARIZONA SPECIFICALLY.
>> AT THIS POINT I THINK THEY
LARGELY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO
TURN DOWN PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE
IS NO LAW IN ARIZONA THAT SAYS
YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE ON THE
BASIS OF *** ORIENTATION.
THAT'S DIFFERENT IN OTHER
STATES, BUT THIS IS ABOUT THE
LAW MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE
THE RIGHT TO DRAW DISTINCTIONS
AND DISCRIMINATE AMONG THEIR
CUSTOMERS BASED ON WHO IS GAY
AND WHO IS STRAIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT THE LAW IS ALL
ABOUT.
>> THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS
BALANCING.
IT SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT COME IN AND FORCE YOU TO
SPEAK OR BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT
IS CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
IT'S NOT A LICENSE FOR
DISCRIMINATION.
THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THE LEGAL
SYSTEM.
NO ACTION CAN BE JUSTIFIED
BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF TO