Olson: ‘Not Illegal’ for Bakery to Refuse to Take Part in Gay Wedding Per SCOTUS Ruling
WALLACE: “Second, there's the question and it became hot this spring of religious freedom. Can the proverbial baker or photographer who is selling his services openly, can he refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage because he or she believes that it violates their religious freedom or is that now illegal under this rule?”
OLSON: “It's not illegal under this ruling. There may be laws, statutes that cover it. But a bakery, if you walk into a bakery on the street and want to buy a pie or a doughnut or something like that, the bakery under federal law can't discriminate against you on the basis of your race or your religion. So, if there are laws that cover that kind of discrimination that might be illegal. It's different than someone being asked to participate in a wedding, to perform a wedding, to sing in a wedding, to participate and be a wedding planner. Something like that. People have the right to refuse personal services with respect to things like that on a religious basis. I think some of that dispute is overblown and the courts have been dealing with that kind of an issue for many, many years with respect to religious rights and racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender for a long time… Fourteen times the Supreme Court of the United States held that marriage is a fundamental right, including the right to interracial marriage in 1967. They didn't call it the right to interracial marriage. They called it the right to marriage. They described it as a right to liberty, privacy, association, of being a part of this country, being a part of the relationship that matters most to most people in this country and to be a part of our community. So, it's a right to marriage. This is not something that the Supreme Court made up. It's the right to decide who you would get to be married, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is a fundamental right. So, there's nothing new about this decision. It takes it one step further because it hasn't -- haven't been recognized before. But it's the right of two individuals to marry to the person that they're most devoted to.”
WALLACE: “The second criticism is that the political process was working. That states were changing laws. Public opinion was shifting. And that the court in effect short-circuited that process. Here is a quote from the dissent of Justice Scalia. He called the ruling ‘a threat to American democracy’. Is Scalia wrong?”
OLSON: “Yes, with respect to Justice Scalia who I do have great respect for, he is wrong. When we talk about civil rights, we don't wait for a plebiscite; we don't wait to put civil rights to a vote. The Supreme Court didn't put separate but equal schools to a vote. The Supreme Court didn't put the right to marry someone of a different race to a vote. We don't wait. And Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion talks about that. What is happening to the children while the Supreme Court would wait if it was to wait another few years? At the same time the Supreme Court decided the interracial marriage case there were still 16 states that made it a crime to marry someone of a different race. The Supreme Court did not wait then and it was right not to wait now.”
