The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a new First Amendment case involving a Christian graphic artist who does not want to be forced to design wedding websites for same-sex couples. This case — coming from Colorado — marks the second time in five years that SCOTUS will grapple with religious business owners vs. gay weddings. But the far-left’s goal in this case seems to be much more sinister than hoping the two sides can conduct business peacefully. Rather, Glenn predicts, this case is about forced compliance: ‘It’s about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it, and [to] have you profess a belief that you don’t have.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So does the First Amendment even exist anymore? We have a White House telling us, no. Will we have the Supreme Court telling us no, as well?

I want to play a couple of things that happened in the Supreme Court, and outside, concerning the court case now, that is involving this web designer, who says she cannot make a website, you know, with gay marriage announcements and everything else, because she's a Christian.

Well, let's start here. This is the Colorado attorney general that is insisting on television here, that even if you have moral objections, you have to do the work.

Listen to this, cut three.

VOICE: You talk about -- it's the slippery slope argument. If this happens, what is the next argument to fall. There are 29 states, including Colorado, that have nondiscrimination laws. What is the impact? If the court sides with Smith, what is the impact for, you know, makeup artists, hair stylists?

You know, people in this sort of -- considering themselves having expressive professions?

What is the actual big implication here, if this case doesn't go your way as you see it?

VOICE: Well, first off, we're going to have to figure out where to draw that line.

If someone makes specialized lattes, do they have an expressive interest in saying, I'm sorry. I don't want to serve Mormons, because I don't believe in the Mormon religion?

That set of hypotheticals could become reality if we lose this case.

GLENN: Hmm.

Now, hang on just a second. Isn't this what cancel culture is doing?

Aren't these businesses that disagree with your political view, not a status as a human being. But your political view, aren't they canceling you?

So aren't they already having the right to do it, you are just trying to take away the religious right?

Because I don't want to cancel anyone. But I'm not going to work for MSNBC.

You know they're never going to hire me. But I'm not going to go work for them. I don't do that. I don't want to do that.

I don't want to say those things. If I worked at MSNBC, well, then I had made a choice to take that job.

Because that's what they do. Do I have a right to get on MSNBC and do the exact opposite? Don't I have a -- a right to my own conscience, and what I deeply believe. Especially when it comes to faith.

Now, listen to Ketanji Brown.

She got a lot of heat on this. She was talking about It's a Wonderful Life from the stand yesterday.

VOICE: Public business. I'm a photographer, my belief is that I'm doing it's a wonderful life scenes. That's what I'm offering. I want to do video depictions of It's a Wonderful Life. And knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can -- I'll give to everybody else, I'll sell them anything they want, just not the It's a Wonderful Life depictions. I'm expressing something, right? For your purposes, that's speech.

GLENN: Okay. Ketanji Brown Jackson, sit down. You're a moron. You're a moron. First of all, yes. I am making It's a Wonderful Life scenes. That is clearly a vision that we've seen. We can put the standard side by side.

So if I'm creating that scene, yeah. I can discriminate and say, no. I need white people in this. Because I'm re-creating that scene.

Now, if I'm updating that scene, if I'm showing It's a Wonderful Life in today's America, well, then, I could include and should include everyone. I don't even know what she's talking about here. First of all, It's a Wonderful Life is not a religious objection. If I have a religious objection, I can't change what I believe, just like you can't change your skin color. I cannot change a deeply held religious belief.


STU: But in -- it's true, first of all. But it's also, an additional thing. Right?

Like, the religious part of this gives you additional protection, beyond what is already there. You can't compel someone to say something.

That is like really a bright line in our country. You can't -- take it to this example.

If -- if -- if Kanye West opened up -- decided to open up a website that said, hey, I will customize birthday songs for you.

Which, by the way, given his career arc, may be a real possibility very, very soon.

GLENN: He's working on the pancake recipe now.

STU: Right. And let's just say, hey, I will customize your Happy Birthday rap, just give me your name. And then someone decides, hey, in fact, how about do my bar mitzvah instead? Does he have to do that?

The answer to that is no. You can't ask -- despite his anti-Semitic views being abhorrent to most, you cannot force him to sing a positive song about a bar mitzvah because that would be compelling his artistic expression. You cannot do that.

That's already there. Whether it's a religious belief or not. Just because he does --

GLENN: And in his case, it is both. In his case, it is both.

STU: You can argue, I guess the black Israelite -- maybe that's where it is. Even if it's just not about religion at all, you still can't make somebody do that. Add on to that, the religious protection. It's a whole 'nother layer. I mean, really a lot of this case has been less about religion and more about the idea whether you can compel speech.

There was a famous case that happened recently, where it was a religious institution. I can't remember which one it was.

But was saying, hey, there's a new state law that says, if you're going to counsel people on pregnancy, you have to post a poster that says, abortion is an option and here's how you can get one if you want to. And the Supreme Court said, no. You can't a religious organization, who doesn't believe in abortion, to post that. You can't compel them to speech. And that speech was defined as posting a poster.

This has been a bright line forever!

And hopefully, this Supreme Court will actually have the balls to cast a very broad net here, to make sure this is protected for everyone.

You should never be forced to say or express something you don't believe.

GLENN: So here's what Barrett said, yesterday. She said, Canada's designer declined to serve a Catholic club because they disagreed with their views on marriage.

The -- the -- the Colorado attorney respond, yes.

Because that's not status-based discrimination.

Wait. Hang on just a second. She went in and said, wait. But the designer can't decline to do a same-sex marriage design.

Yes! Because same-sex marriage is inextricably intertwined with status. And religion isn't.

Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second.

There is a -- a whole right that was defined as a very bright line, as Stu just said. So it's not like we're looking and trying to read in, well, we've got to have freedom of speech. And does freedom of religion fall into that?

No. Freedom of religion is entirely separate. Entirely separate. And so it is protected, clearly. There is no trouble so my comma in this one. It is clearly protected.

But if you want to argue that you have the right for a designer, a web designer to discriminate against a Catholic church. Which they do have that right. I don't want to do your design. Great. I'm glad you told me, that you hate us, because I don't want you designing our website. I don't think you'll do a good job. If I can decline the church, why is it the church, that has a deeply held religious belief. I mean, my church was founded on the family. And the sacredness of men and women and gender. Gender is ordained by God, before birth. There is no confusion. That's like 40 years old in my church.

Wait. I have to change now? No. Because I can't change because the government tells me I have to change. This is something I believe to the core. And I either believe it, or I don't. Now, you think that I can just change my belief, because you're right. No. No.

I believe God has set these standards. Not man. Not you. Not me.

I can't change the standards. Neither can you. And as long as I'm consistent in that, I have a right to assert my religious exemption, from your little rule.

I'm sorry. I -- my faith tells me, I cannot go there.

If you have a religious object injection to war, and you are a pacifist, and it's a religious exemption, you don't have to go fight in war.

Because you're a Quaker. And it is a deeply held religious exemption.

And it's a deeply held relief. Or belief.

STU: That's a great example too. Like, we have come. Think of what that particular exemption is. We are saying, our country is under attack. Our nation may fall. It's the literal most important thing, that a government can do, right?

GLENN: Without your nation. Without people fighting this war, we could fall to the Nazis, and you won't have your right to your religion. That's the argument against.

STU: Right. And even with that scenario, we say to the Quakers, you know what, you don't have to do it. Your religion is more important than the war. Your religion is more important than the entire country falling or not.

GLENN: Because we don't have the right.

STU: Because we don't have the right.

GLENN: To get between you and God.

STU: And here we have an argument about lattes?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We're acting as if wedding sites. Are they even a thing? I guess I got married too early. Wedding websites, we're acting as if that's as important?

We've said the actual defense of our to Nazis is not important enough to overwhelm this right. And we're talking about lattes and photographers and cupcakes. This is completely ridiculous. And then you add on the free speech element of this. Which is what this case seems to be surrounding more than anything else.

Whether the government can say you must say two plus two equals five.

With this -- with the way they're describing this right, the government could tell anyone to say anything.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And either one of these rights, is clearly defined. Either one of them overwhelms the left's case on this, and they have both of them working in conjunction here. This is not a close call.

GLENN: This is a freedom-breaking decision.

If they decide in favor of Colorado, this is a freedom-breaking -- you have no right anymore. You'll have no right.

And this done in conjunction with what they just passed, the Defense of Marriage Act, or interracial act. This is what they're hoping for.

This is what they're shooting for. To be able to shut down anyone that objects. It's not about living together and tolerating one another.

It is about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it. And have you accept and profess a belief you don't have.

That's a dictatorship. That is Naziism. Communism.

It -- it is a religion. We are headed towards a -- a theocratic autocracy.

Their religion is just a Gaia. And Baal. And whatever it is that worships the earth in slaughter and perversion of children.