christians, when they opened their stores in 46 states employing 26,000 employees, they close on sundays. their trucks only take merchandise into they don't have any lewd cards. they offer generous benefits. they pay for everything the affordable care act requires but when the mandate was enacted, they had no objection to 16 out of the 20 drugs that the government mandated. the only objected to four. they were drugs that the government conceded may prevent implantation. the science was never argued in the case. for the family, that was a form of early abortion. they cannot cover those four

drugs. they covered everything else. great health benefits. they also paid more than twice the minimum wage to each of their employees. they found themselves painted into a corner by the government. the government forced the owners of hobby lobby to provide these drugs and exempted millions of americans from having to comply with this mandate that they considered so vital. the case became politicized. you may have heard about it. when the government went before the sprinkler, the spring court decided their case was weak. -- the supreme court, the supreme court decided their case was weak. we wib==on that case. corporations have the right to religious liberty. they thought women would die. none of that has happened. it was all politicized again.

since then come any court decision has benefited individuals in prison or who individuals who wanted to exercise their religious liberty. does that answer your question? >> greg probably has a slightly different version. >> the facts and the legal principles. she mentioned -- it is appropriate day for us to be having this discussion. >> we're not going to ask you to resolve that here. >> let's go back to the hobby lobby case. hobby lobby is often portrayed as a case of brought under the first amendment. it was brought under a statute the religious freedom restoration act. that was enacted in -- one of

the great kumbaya moments. people came together and cosponsored it. president clinton talked about the proverbial divine intervention ringing all of the people together. the promise of the freedom of restoration act is there are some cases in which people's religious practices so even if the law did not discriminate against on the basis of religion, there were some cases where greater exemption should be provided come especially religious minorities. her example, muslims must have beards -- for example, muslims must have beards. or autopsies and that violate someone's beliefs.

the religious restoration act has been weaponize does a tool for some people to impose the religious beliefs on others and deprive third parties of the rights. i think that was something that has not been allowed to happen before. the remedy many situations in which accommodations are appropriate. it has never been until the hobby lobby case. what happened in hobby lobby and these other contraception cases is for-profit commercial employers are permitted to withhold what is otherwise required health care compensation. some of the players refused to cover any contraception. some refuse to cover much of it. in the case of hobby lobby, i take her word that no one has died as a result of it but thousands of hobby lobby employees are deprived of certain forms of contraception including ibe in which -- one

is the most expensive form of birth control. there have been cases previously in which people had raised religious objections to social security taxes or paying the minimum wage. those claims have always been rejected. individual companies have never been able to use the religious beliefs of their owners to harm third parties, including employees. that consensus has been broken down in a deeply fractured hobby lobby decision. it will have profound consequences for the webby understand religious liberties. and the balance between the right of religious worship on one hand and a system of secular laws that protects everyone on the other. >> i want to get back to the notion of weaponize.

there's an argument that can be made on both sides of weaponization. i want to ask christina come is the case that said it did not apply to the state -- 1997 case -- it has been 17-18 years since the decision of that case. we are only now starting to see the focus on state level reference. there is a disturbing correlation between that and the passage in indiana of gay marriage. is that suggests that perhaps the focus has something to do with factors other than those that are being articulated? >> what was the last question? question -- >> being articulated. >> several stay started to adopt

-- states started to adopt state versions of it. many states felt they did not need to have protection in their state. the was a sister legislation. we are so nerdy. we're talking with all of these acronyms. for a cuban to see that quickly and without tripping is quite the feet. -- feat. to your point of who benefits really on these freedom religious restoration ask, one of our client is a native american in texas. in 2006, the department of interior's sent covert agents that went into his family powwow because could they had heard he had eagles -- i'm sorry, eagle

feathers. they sent covert agents and confiscated the feathers which were essential to his practice of native american pastor. it is thanks to the texas really just -- federal religious restoration act, the government had to return these feathers. it is true the original one was meant to protect minority religions get most of our clients are minority religions. what it never said or never alluded to was anything having to do with what we're going to discuss later, sexual orientation, or gender identity. i think the state's move as quickly as they could given the position. >> i want to bring you into the conversation. how do you see controversy?

how does this play out. what kinds of accommodation should be made for people who have lives that may not be ones that are as easily accommodated by evangelicals are people from certain religious beliefs? >> it is a little strange. i'm a noncombatant in this legal battle. [laughter] given where i'm sitting, and likely to be a casualty. [laughter] the history seems to be relevant here. this was a two-part test about compelling governmental goals with the least intrusive means. it was in effect for decades. it was really justice scalia who

was the bad guy in this scenario and wrote that decision that overturned this and caused congress to react and reinstate this test. it was in the house. it was chuck schumer who took leadership on this. it passed the senate 97-3. it really was a point of agreement. it is a terrible shame when issues this important get sucked into the vortex of the cultural war. what were talking about is not just one issue among many. we're talking that one of the great achievements of the american tradition, which is the protection of a kind of religious clarissa that is actually good for the country. it has motivated people to do good, religion has, when comes

to hospitals, homeless shelters, charities, a variety of religious groups. it has motivated the search for justice over the years. prison reform movement. other things. religion is not -- religious freedom is not a problem to be solved or some controversy to be engaged in. when you hear george washington's statement -- that is a thrilling moment in the history of the world. a power like america came to the defense of eight genuine pluralism in which people could pursue their own visions of the good with respect for one another. i hate to see when laws are used in ways that are suspect.

it brings discredit to the cause. i would say that the standard which we have had has never come up against this public accommodation laws. and hasn't been a problem for decades. all the standard does is say that there should be a balancing test. not guaranteeing any outcome but accommodating deeply held religious beliefs. i think you could question people's motives in bringing up laws in the states, but this balancing test has been well tested with a pretty good method to accommodate the normal rules of the majority and a handful of exceptions of people who feel that their beliefs are being burdened. it is the courts that make this decision.

they have been generally wise in its application. >> was talk about a notre dame case and hobby lobby. religiously owned and affiliated organizations that are refusing to provide particular categories of benefits. do you see a distinction between that and people? >> i think a lot of people engaged in this issue, there is some divide come even on the part of advocates of religious liberties. between those who put a great emphasis on the autonomy and identity of religious institutions and those who would extend it for profit institutions. i think that divide some of the coalition.

indiana law as i understand it made sure that it applied to for-profit corporations. i think people may be more mixed on that. i guess i would defer to the experts. >> i will ask them. >> cases like little sisters of the poor and notre dame and others is the second wave of challenges to contraception regulations. i think there are two important distinctions. these at least look closer to actual religious institutions than does a national retail craft chain. on the other hand, these entities have received a significant accommodation and refused to take yes for an answer. for two years, the administration has said fine come you don't have to include

contraception in your health plan. all you have to do is fill out a form saying i object and finish it to your insurance provider and they will provide the contraception coverage to your employee at no cost to you and to them. that was still not good enough. administration granted even a further accommodation. you don't have to fill out the form. fill out a form to the government saying i object. send it to the government. again, they have refused to take yes for an answer. the basis of what the supreme court ultimately said is there is a less restrict it alternative because the government has created this accommodation for these nonprofits. many are arguing that even filling out the form so that somebody else will provide

coverage to their employees is objectionable. basically we will not rest until our employees are unable to get contraception from anyone. but i think another example of this sort of extreme weaponization of religious liberty, but i think it contributes to things that was talked about peter when religious liberty gets associated with denying women the vital health care, control over their bodies, refusing to sign vaporware, that is deeply troubling to the cause of religious liberty. you saw the same thing in indiana and arkansas. when religious liberty is associated with discrimination denying people service and public accommodation, that is deeply troubling. it has become toxic and me -- -- it becomes toxic. it has been abused in its ways.

when they say this is not about discrimination, it is about -- his fallback is it is about -- that is deeply troubling and has eroded what has been a -- i think it will do long-term damage to the broader cause. >> dear clients not take yes for an answer? >> they devote their lives to serving the poor. they take in thousands of poor people. they hold their hands while they are ill. they are committed to life at the beginning, middle, and at the end. hell no we won't go. no, they did not say that word "hell." the government has exempted millions of americans from having to comply with this

mandate for many reasons. they refuse to exempt this order of nuns. sign the papers. sign here. sign there. it is a money game. it doesn't take a lawyer or a mathematician to understand someone has to pay for it. when the sister signed a piece of paper, it triggers. someone has to pay for it. they consider that to be an illicit thing. the government is in the business of telling people what they can or cannot believe. who has teenagers? i think it is reasonable to advocate for churches that consider human sacrifice of teenagers. right? you would agree with me.

the government has the right to come in and say in the interest of the state not to allow human sacrifice. for those -- the answer is not government intervention. it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that a gay musician or a gay photographer should not be forced by the government or anyone else to photograph events at a church,. last week, both the aclu and americans united said no one should be forced to participate no one in america has ever supported those claims. levy advocated for the legalization of marijuana. my children are watching. i have never inhaled. [laughter] why should she be forced to participate? people disagree on religion and sex all the time in america. the answer is not to bring and

government regulation and the answer is not to exaggerate claim. there has been intent on both sides that has not been good. that does not mean you wipe an entire body of laws that calls for a day in court simply because someone's view was considered to be repulsive. >> the notion that the government is going to take over providing the contraception if the family doesn't provide it -- how is that different than the case of the conscientious objector? if they don't get the service, someone else have to. certainly a conscientious objector. >> it is very different. when that little sisters of the poor say we cannot pay for it, that is different from someone taking it. they cannot pay for it. the government is providing

millions of dollars in funding through title 10 to planned parenthood clinics that provide these drugs to women that want them simply by showing up for free at no cost to the woman. the government has figured out a way to put a $.50 stamp on a piece of paper and carry it from florida -- maybe it is $.51 -- to get a letter from california to florida. why can they not figure out a way to get contraceptives to women that does not involve them to violate their conscience and pay for drugs that the object to? that is unprecedented. >> i think she's losing the site of balance. it isn't for us to question the reasonableness of anyone's willingness or unwillingness to sign a form. we balance interest. there are other people at stake.

our employees will go without coverage if the nuns won't fill out the form. this a the government could pay for it -- they could pay for anything, but we wouldn't say that i have an objection -- you never say the government could make up the salary difference, no big deal. you would say we will enforce equal pay laws. it wouldn't say, i have a religious objection to paying minimum wage. no big deal. the government can make up the salary difference. we would reject that let alone saying -- i think her question about the conscientious objector is absolutely right. notre dame's lawyer was asked the argument -- does that mean it would be a substantial burden on religious exercise for the conscientious object or simply to say i object? yes, even that would have to be

considered a substantial burden. that is all well and good for people to believe it is fine. when someone else is losing an important benefit as a result that is on a think there has to be balance for us. the idea that i'm entitled to every [indiscernible] is fine. but that's when it crosses the line. >> were going to leave it there. clearly not something we will be able to resolve. let's find areas where both sides may agree more. that make get us back to more traditional areas of the protection of minority religious -- religions. examples i have looked out -- i

think maybe it is an area where more or less you both agree. >> yes. christian's organization represented a muslim prisoner who wanted to wear a half inch a beard in prison. the case was brought under that religious persons act. we disagreed on how to pronounce acronym. even then. that was a case in which brought the coalition together. a modest religious accommodation that is important to someone's religious belief granting a doesn't harm anyone. that is a case where we do agree that religious accommodation laws are serving their intent purpose pit it would have been different if i have a religious

right to not associate with women prison guards i think that would cross over into imposing religious believes on someone else. we might disagree. the quintessential accommodation doesn't hurt anyone. no reason not to grant it. yes, i think there is plenty of room for agreement on this case. >> the reason -- one of the reasons the supreme court ruled that this prisoner had the right to grow the beard, it was because the state of arkansas had no real reason. the state of arkansas had said you cannot grow the beard it you have to shave because we said so . that was the weakness of the argument. in the case of many other religious freedom cases we were seeing the one because often times the government says you have to do it just because we said so.

like little sisters of the poor. like hobby lobby. like many cases where the government had no real reason to not make an accommodation and not make an exemption. in the end we agree this was an important case. did he start americans united? no. >> i will tell him you said that. >> no. you look at. -- good. 14 pastors in the state of north carolina from the same denomination supported by americans united are suing the state of north carolina. same-sex marriage is it legal. what the pastors wanted is their day in court. that is the -- that is what the freedom of religious act it does. they get a day in court when there is a disagreement.

>> you want to talk about other things. >> are these cases religious accommodation cases becoming more difficult? are we becoming increasingly pluralistic? is that creating a plumber is them anxiety? -- pluralism anxiety? are we getting to the situation where religious accommodation cases may be difficult for the courts to deal with? >> i think there is more at stake here than just details. there's a conflict of vision behind many of these cases. there is a form of modern liberalism that says only the individual in the state israel. -- is real. protect individuals against

oppression by other social institutions. then there is the approach i would call principled pluralism. a community of communities that allows people to seek a vision of the good consistent with the common good is a positive thing. it has a positive value. i did think it matters what perspective, what philosophical perspective, you bring to these issues. i come from a more conservative side that says the most important institutions are not the state and more than the individual. culture -- the standards of a culture are created.

the government has a positive role to nurture that pluralism. i do think that there are deep political list optical disagreements behind this that are not going to be solved by the dealings of cases. >> how do we deal with terrorism? -- pluralism? >> very carefully. i think at the end of the day there needs to be humility and empathy. the word empathy is derided in some circles when lawyers say it. i think it is important. we are a diverse society. we have people with diverse views. we cannot always get everything we want. sometimes we should get women

want and sometimes we shouldn't. -- sometimes we should get what we want and sometimes we shouldn't. what has disturbed me -- >> he said it. >> that's true. we pronounce it the same way. my rights are different when my the ability -- is different when i'm at church or at a business. if i went to pray with only people of the same race and religion and sex orientation, i can do that. what if i open a lunch counter or ma caterer -- am a caterer, i cannot turn away that couple. i think we need to recognize that there are other people out there. religious beliefs are important and deeply held and about --

devout. i think it is important. >> can i add one point? i agree that a democracy is designed for disagreement, but it is undermined by individual content. there is an emphasis on civility empathy. i was talking with some church officials. they did attempt a process by which church officials met with gay-rights activists and legislators in a difficult negotiation to come up with an approach. it is an exchange of sorts.

it protects gay people in public accommodations, which i think was regarded that site as real progress and protects the ability of religious institutions to maintain their identity in positive ways. jonathan roche who i know was involved in that effort in hopes it may be a model for some other states. it could be. it shows the possibility of civil disagreement and at least minimal agreement on some very basic ground rules of pluralism. >> let's also talk about what was at one time considered to be a repository of civility. that is the college campus.

there's a lot going on right now in terms of religious liberty and free exercise. is the approach being taken on the campuses providing access to everybody? is there a right approach? is there enough respect for civil discourse on campuses now? good campuses do better? >> greg is the expert on this issue. i think it is closely associated to the point you have made having to do with civility and empathy and accommodation. when my parents first came to the united states, we lived in a tiny house. and puerto rico my mother and father -- they had some bad experiences. whenever we sat down to dinner my father would close one window

in the kitchen. it was very hot in the house. he would say, just in case. he was afraid our discussions would be overheard by neighbors. as he understood, this is not the way we live in the united states. when we open the window, we drank from the freedom of expression. we could not disagree and often and yell it loudly enough. the reality is this -- for as much civility as we want and empathy, sexual minorities particularly and religious minorities, have mutually reinforce both claims against the larger society. it is important and vital. no government should touch it. no regulation should touch it. so much for civility because to

matters of human identity. the government should protect them and not invade them. religious liberty is the ability to live according to your deeply held convictions. whether that takes you to organize religion or no religion at all, there is no room for government intrusion into that life. the same role applies to colleges and universities. if your group doesn't agree with the larger society for whatever reason there are not allowed on campus? that is wrong. it tears at the fabric of american society and freedom when groups are not allowed on campus because someone's view is held so repulsive it is not allowed in society. >> let me take a step back. i want to start with a college campus and tied up to a broader point. the specific issue she was alluding to was that many

colleges will recognize certain groups. etc. etc. in order to take advantage come you had to have a nondiscrimination policy. there has been objection by certain religious groups involving exclusion of people of other religions or gays and lesbians, the case went up to the supreme court's. even a public university could enforce it. even in those cases, student groups could use university facilities. they could get certain benefits. if it is a religious group, they should be able to exclude people. i think where we disagree is that we don't live in a 100% libertarian society. we balance liberty with other interests.

especially in the unique environment of an educational institution. it is reasonable for a university to say if you want a university recognizing a group we are going to require you not to discriminate. it doesn't mean you cannot worship however you want in your dorm room or anywhere else, it is reasonable to say -- i think this touches on a broader point. we have never -- the civil rights act reduces individual liberty. you cannot turn away african-americans from your barbecue place. there is a case that went up to the supreme court. in addition to being delightful to say come in a vault a restaurant owner who said i have been -- i have religious believes that prevents me from

serving african-americans. the spring court lacked him out of court. at the end of the day, we need to create a space -- if you must do wish it at a -- if he wants to worship at a segregated church -- we are balancing interest. what is appropriate for settings at a church or home is not appropriate for other settings like a commercial spear. we need to reconcile a lot of interests and not allow any of them to be a total trump card. >> i would add that there can be a human cost to this kind of controversy. a few years ago, the human trafficking programs located were denied funded by the obama administration because of other policies. they held religious policies.

that was a real cost. look at gordon college in massachusetts. it worked for years with a local lower income school district devoted 14,000 men hours of volunteer work every year. the school district has made a decision. gordon's religious views and other topics -- they aren't skin -- disk -- discontinuing. i think there can be when it comes to provisions of social services many come through private and religious institutions in america. a true progress application of some of these points can have a serious human cost. >> i think vegetarian group should be able to say that the leader should be vegetarian.

i think women's group should be manned by women leaders. i think christian groups are muslim groups should say the leaders -- anyone could come. none have said they have discriminate against anyone. anyone can join the club pick they want the leadership to abide by the mission of the club . are we supposed to make everything vanilla? as a latina, i love when race comes into the decision. the racial card does not need to be played on any other things. are there despicable people have claimed religious freedom to have certain use? yes, but they have never won. there hasn't been one cigar exception -- single exception. will people say crazy things in the name of religion?

yes. that is why they go to court. that doesn't justify government intrusion into all of these groups. it doesn't make sense. >> the argument does make to justify racial segregation and racial exclusion in the 1960's and 1970's is now being made when it comes to gays and lesbians. i'm not saying she is a racist. i'm saying, why can i run my business according to my religious beliefs? that is precisely the argument made with respect to race and interracial marriage in the 1960's and 1970's. they were rejected then and should have been rejected now when he comes to gays and lesbians couples were now facing the same kinds of obstacles racial minorities were in the 60's and 70's. >> in one case when a gay person

was excused based on racial claims -- >> look at what happened in indiana. a photographer refused to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony. she brought a claim under the states religious freedom restoration. the court rejected the claim. the court said -- organization filed -- the photographer should be able to deny service to the gay lesbian couple. the new mexico supreme court said that cannot be invoked by private wedding vendor. in indiana, the language was changed to allow for protection. if your organization was to support the people great. if you turn around and while you are arguing in court they set up a way to discriminate -- which

is it? >> let's talk about those people. >> we are running out of time. >> want to say she loved this gate client of hers and provided flies for many months. all she couldn't do was participate in a wedding ceremony. in a state where same-sex marriage was not even legal at the time, the court ruled it was -- who lost more? lorraine gloucester business and livelihood question mark or the gay couple who had gone to any other florist in the state? >> you are entitled to your view. you cannot turn around and say these laws will not allow discrimination. >> it is very different to serve and to have to participate in the ceremony. >> he wrote about whether there

are mutual duties of accommodation. we have heard very strong articulations two different positions. the exercise it? are there mutual duties? guarantee the clock the society as we go forward. -- cloth of societies we go for it. >> religious belief and conscience would dictate making the cake. in a society where he would allow very small exceptions for people not to bake the cake that is the nature of pluralism. it doesn't implicate abroad accommodation for housing and

businesses and other things. be that as it may, i guess what we are about is where those decisions are made and whether there is a decision to be made at all. the traditional view has been that there is a balancing test there. there are two rights involved in the courts is the place where decisions are made. it is important that people win graciously in a democracy and lose graciously in a democracy. people are going to lose in these cases. how people lose make a large different. >> but that come out to thank our speakers and thank our speakers and bank the national constitution center for hosting this today. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> our report examines the high incarceration rates in the u.s. and some of the causes. later, three european ambassadors discussed the iran nuclear agreement. >> on our next "washington journal" make investigations and regulation seven years after the wall street crashes. then former indiana senator discusses bipartisanship in congress and his work at the louver -- lugar center.

in efforts to make changes in police procedures around the country. we will also take a phone calls facebook comments, and tweets. >> the summer, book to be will cover book testicles from around the country. the public industry showcases upcoming books. near the end of june, watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin roosevelt library. we are at the book fair at the nation's flagship harlem book fair. and at the beginning of september, we are at the

nation's capital for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. >> next, senator bernie sanders kicks off his residential campaign in burlington, vermont. he talked about campaign-finance reform, poverty, and income inequality. we had some technical problems with the transmission signal near the end of the event. ♪ [cheers and applause] >> this is an emotional day for me. it is not just what i will be

announcing, but to see so many people here, and to hear what has been said. thank you very much. [applause] let me thank all of you, not only for being here today, but for the support you given me over the years as mayor of this beautiful city. as a congressman, and now as united states senator. [applause] senator sanders: i also want to thank my long time friends and supporters for all that they do, and for their very generous remarks made thanks also to jenny nelson for moderating this event and for incredible leadership.

i also want to thank my family my wife jane, for their love and support you in my beautiful seven grandchildren. you provide so much joy in my life. today, here in our small state a state that has lead this nation in so many ways, i am proud to announce my candidacy or presidents of the united states of america. [applause]

senator sanders: today, with your support of the support of millions of people throughout our country, we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially, and environmentally. [applause] senator sanders: today we stand here and say it loudly and clearly, enough is enough. this great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires. [applause] brothers and sisters, now is not the time for thinking small. now is not the time for the same

old same old establishment politics. now is the time for millions of working families to come together to revitalize american democracy, to add the collapse of our middle class, and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy -- to end the collapse of our middle class and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security, and joy. and that once again makes the united states the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environmental sanity, and a brave world of peace. [applause]