breaking tonight america's top homeland security official questioned about playing politics at the expense of our safety. after issuing an explicit terror warning to american shoppers shortly before accusing congress of putting people at risk. good evening and welcome to "the kelly file." i'm shannon bream in for kelly tonight. al shabaab releasing a video calling on followers to attack american malls including minnesota's famous mall of the americas. considering this is the group that once launched a deadly assault on a mall in kenya killing dozen of people. homeland security secretary jeh johnson seemed to be taking this threat very seriously. here he is yesterday. >> if anyone is planning to go

to the mall of america today, they've got to be particularly careful. any time a terrorist organization calls for an attack on a specific place we've got to take that seriously. >> what a difference 24 hours makes as the white house press secretary knocks down both this is a credible threat and that the suggestion is a warning was really meant for members of congress. chief white house correspondent ed henry was there and joins us live from washington. >> good evening, shannon. it's a remarkable warning from the administration. because remember the president himself downplayed these terror threats telling vox.com that this is media hype that if it bleeds it leads. so when the homeland security said there's a specific threat. if you go to the mall of america, be extra careful today. that was so specific it seemed to run counter to what the administration has repeatedly done. then you know the white house, state department today both sort of gently walking that back saying there's no specific

threat at all. interesting because the president spoke to the nation's governors and said, look, if jeh johnson's homeland security department is not fully funded, national security in this country they'll be a direct impact on that. so i pressed josh earnest at the briefing today. does that mean there's a connection here? that jeh johnson was getting people riled up because of that political fight over money? listen. so if there's not a specific threat, why was the secretary suggesting the people be extra careful to go to that mall? did it have anything to do with the dhs funding fight to sort of scare congress more to get ha money to say, hey, there's threats? >> no, it did not. >> now, it's interesting though because secretary johnson had his own news conference today and he seemed to connect the dots a bit by saying it's going to be harder to stay on top of national security if he doesn't get this money. and he added that the especially not good given the mall threat.

>> ed henry live at the white house. thank you, ed. joining us marc thiessen, fellow with the american enterprise institute. marc, good to see you. >> good to see you, shannon. >> what would you make some are saying differing messages from the administration? >> i think it's entirely possible that they're politicizing it and that the threat is true. one of the things i learned from working with president bush is you have to take the words of the enemy seriously. when an al qaeda affiliate says it intends to attack america and names a specific target you take that seriously. and the reality is yes, josh earnest admitted there wasn't a specific credible threat. there also wasn't a specific credible threat in 2009 when al qaeda in the arabian peninsula sent the underwear bomber in a plane at detroit and succeeded. we didn't even know had developed the intent or capability of attacking us here at home. al shabaab has made clear they have the intent of attacking us. as you showed in your video they

carried out an attack on a mall that killed 67 people. and they've recruited dozens and dozens of american citizens as suicide bombers including from the minneapolis area which is where the mall of america is located. so i think we have to take this threat seriously. that doesn't mean they're not politicizing it or using it for political advantage. but it's a very serious threat. >> i noticed the language from josh earnest is that the white house was similar to what we heard from jen psaki at the not saying there's not a threat but there's not a credible plot. is that parsing? >> yeah. what they're saying is we don't have specific threat information. again, what we have seen in history is that when the enemy -- over time the enemy constantly tells us what they plan to do. osama bin laden issued two fatt fattahs -- leaders of isis made clear my message to the americans soon we'll be in conflict and the brothers of

islam have waited for this day. we need to take that seriously. and now we have al sha-- al shabaab saying they're attacking here at home. whether there is intent and capability we have to take seriously. >> marc, a jillion years ago when i worked on capitol hill. this is pre-9/11, yes i'm dating myself. way before 9/11. but there was such a stream of constant threats coming in every single day. and the fact is we can't run every single one of them down and treat every single one of them the same. so how do you make those decisions as the administration? they have to make judgment calls. >> they do have to make judgment calls. and they have to track down. but a good place to start is when al qaeda issues a video saying we want to attack the mall of america. that's -- and has a history of attacking malls. just like al qaeda -- the core al qaeda attacked us on 9/11 has

a history of attacking us with planes. starting with 9/11 attacks then the shoe bomb, underwear bomber al qaeda likes planes. this group likes malls. we have to take that seriously. >> they have proven that. thanks marc. >> thanks, shannon. >> a combat veteran one of the first two female veterans to be elected to congress after serving and leading a platoon in iraq. kel see gabbert thank you on multiple fronts in the service and on the hill. you should maybe get combat pay for what goes on up there as well. but let me ask you about this because there are those who say we're not getting a united message about what this threat is and what we're going to do about it. >> i think the bottom line here is that credible threats against the safety and security of the american people must be taken seriously sochlt if there is a credible threat, it must be let known to the american people not

only what the threat is but what they should be doing about it and what precautions need to be taken. if the threats are not credible then they shouldn't be put out in a way that makes them look like they are. really what i think is that at the core here is that we can't be playing -- neither party should be playing partisan politics with an issue that is as non-partisan and is as important as the safety and security of american people. so let's look at the situation that we are in right now. and that is that we have various islamic extremist groups whether they're called isis whether they're called al qaeda or al shabaab that are posing a threat not only in the middle east but to people around the world. you look at the horrific attacks in paris as a perfect example. again, if there are credible threats, they must be taken seriously. they must be followed through on. and prevented. but if not let's stay focused on exactly who our enemy is and what we need to defeat them, again keeping at the forefront, keeping the american people safe. >> but do you think we've gotten a clear message on that?

on exactly what the threat is? who the threats are coming from? what we call them, how we identify them? you know that going into combat. i mean, you have to know who your enemy is and name it so you can defeat it. >> that's exactly right. i think that's what's important as we look at some of these messages and some of these threats being posed by different groups whether it's boko haram and a variety of others that go by different names. just a few years ago there were only -- or there were 20-plus groups who were fueled by this islamic extremist ideology and conducting these terrorist attacks. today there are over 40. so by identifying the single common element amongst them, and recognizing that the vast majority of terrorist attacks conducted around the world for over the last decade have been conducted by groups who are fueled by this radical islamic ideology, then once that's identified, we understand it, then we can come up with a winning strategy to defeat it both militarily and ied logically. that's how we defeat them.

>> you seem comfortable identifying it and calling it that, why do you think some in the administration won't say those same words? >> there may be fears of some sort, but i think they're unfounded. i think recognizing and being very accurate and very specific and understanding this must be a core part of our strategy, to defeat those who seek to do harm to the american people is exactly how we must be looking at this issue and remain very focused on it. >> congresswoman and combat veteran, thank you on all those fronts. good to see you tonight. >> thanks, shannon. debate over fairness tonight after a reporter asks a question that wisconsin governor scott walker doesn't want to answer. wait until you see how the mainstream media has reacted in the hours since. plus, new evidence that the fight over the president's immigration order could get very ugly. judge napolitano is here on what the administration is now hinting at doing. plus the denver police department in the middle of a fire storm over allegations of racism. we will report. you decide. we'll show you the video. is it a bad cop or bad case of

political correctness? we'll leave it up to you. >> walk around to your family. >> i'm not going to walk around to your family! does your carpet ever feel rough and dirty? don't avoid it. resolve it. our new formula with a special conditioning ingredient softens your carpet with every use. it's resolve, so you know it cleans and freshens but now it also softens. resolve. a carpet that welcomes you. and try resolve for amazing stain removal the first time.

developing tonight, a fierce debate growing over media

fairness after a reporter goes after wisconsin governor scott walker with what the 2016 hopeful called a got-ya question. it started on saturday when a "the washington post" reporter asked walker about president obama's faith and the governor responded "you've asked me to make statements about people that i haven't had a conversation with about that. how could i say if i know either of you are a christian?" walker went onto suggest questions like that are one reason americans are skeptical of some media outlets. but that didn't stop them from piling on. chicago tribune "scott walkerin explicably evades basic questions." nbc news suggesting as controversy swirls scott walker plays with fire. and going so far as to accuse walker of media cowardice. mark hannah, works on the kerry and obama presidential campaigns. mark, good to see you. i got to ask you, were either of your candidates ever asked about the faith of other candidates? >> i don't remember a particular time they were. but i wouldn't put it past the

media to ask these questions. you and i both know the media loves asking these difficult questions. they sort of -- >> qualifications for being president or running for president? i don't understand how that question could get you any information along those lines. >> the reasons it's relevant is because those journalists believe that's what their readers or audiences care about. we've had an adversarial press in this country going back to our country's founding. >> do you think they've been adversarial with president obama? >> absolutely. when president obama was on the campaign trail he got asked very tough questions. he sat down with fox's own bill o'reilly and got peppered with very difficult questions. scott walker is about to join the big leagues. if he wants to put himself forward for a credible presidential candidate he has to answer these questions. this is sort of the third question in a pattern of behavior we've seen. he refused to answer whether or not he thinks climate change is actual and real and it's happening.

and he refused to say whether he believes the president is -- loves america. these aren't difficult questions. these are just reporters asking him yes or no questions about what he believes. >> come on mark, why are they asking those questions? they want to make him look like he's a crazy -- or president obama hating you know crazy nut job. i mean, it suggests to me they think he's a credible threat for 2016 if they're going to ask him questions that don't get to real policies. >> sure. they're going to vet him and ask these tough questions because they do see him as a credible, not threat, but a credible candidate for 2016, or at least until he sort of was caught flat footed on these questions. so you know -- >> is hillary clinton going to get asked these questions? do you think she's going to get asked about elizabeth warren's background and religion -- >> she's going to be asked questions that distance her or put a wedge between her and the left wing of the party. the reason this is important is because two years ago a poll showed that one-third of republicans actually thought the president was muslim.

now, we all know the president is christian yes. and so you know shannon, if this is true, these of course are the one-third of the republican party hanging out in dark corners of the internet -- >> you're going to have to send us information for that poll. >> it's a pugh poll from 2010, it's four years old. >> we will dig it up. mark, we thank you for joining us. we want to do a counterpoint on this. we'll see you again soon. >> thank you shannon. >> hopefully scott will come forward with some of his honest answers for these. >> okay. joining us now laura ingraham. i know you're chomping at the bit out there. do you think hillary clinton's going to get asked if she thinks elizabeth warren piscopilion? >> no. why is the world falling apart after she left as secretary of state? what did she leave behind in her wake? what's going on here specifically let's talk about

scott walker. scott walker of course is considered a threat. he's a threat to jeb bush though, right? and right now the dominant media is they do a little bit of criticism of jeb bush, shannon, but for the most part they're quick hits. they're not kill shots. they're trying to go after walker, and before that chris christie with kind of the you know, the dead-man blows here. they're not messing around. look, both of them have to understand what's happening, boast christie and walker have to realize when they're asked ridiculously stupid questions like the one mark thinks is a real litmus test, they should say, look i know what you're doing. i know what the media always does. you want to make conservatives out to look like their anti-science or they're trog la diets. it's obvious it's a pattern and it's a disservice to the press and american people. what's really on the mind of american people, whether obama's a muslim or the fact they haven't gotten a wage hike in 13 years? i put it right back in the media's face. they should know that.

both of them have to be better at that. but i think what's happening is we're seeing a major media ultimate push for the establishment choice. they did it with romney. they did it with mccain in 2008. and what happens is the establishment choice goes up against the establishment democrat and usually not always but usually the establishment republican loses. so christie and walker for right now are the big threats. so you're going to still see the hits against both of them, shannon, coming fast and furious. both of them have to be ready for them. >> and pointed out a response came from marco rubio who looks like he's gearing up to run in 2016 or strongly hinting at that. democrats don't have to answer for every nutty thing good old joe biden our vice president says. so it sounded like he was prepped and ready for that. do you think it's a matter of experience or better prep for folks like scott walker getting in shape? >> wisconsin is different from the national press. scott walker was under the microscope. he got hit a lot, but mostly by

local press. some by national during the union. but the white hot spotlight of the national media in a presidential election is brutal. i think someone like a christie is kind of used to it, right? i mean he's been under the spotlight and the new york media, the new york daily news, obviously the posts "the wall street journal," "new york times," all the local markets, media markets. he's kind of used to it. so he knows how to deal with it a little better, but even he got hit with the vaccine the other day. he had to deal with that news cycle for a while. this is what's going to happen. hillary clinton is enjoying this i'm sure, but she will never get the treatment that any republican in the primary process or in the general will get from the media. never. >> i'm sure she is gearing up to answer questions on evolution and the like and prepping behind closed doors right now. laura ingraham, thank you so much. good to see you. the big controversy at last night's oscars did not involve who won or lost but comments made by a winner.

and brand new fallout on that. and did you see the widow of "american sniper" chris kyle, did you see what she had in her hand? it's one of the hot stories on our page. check that out during the break and we'll be right back with those in just a moment. >> i wanted to be here to represent chris, obviously. and it's not the ideal time to do that but i still want to embrace everything that he should be here to do with me.

developing tonight, closing arguments in the "american sniper" murder trial in texas are now expected to begin tomorrow after some stormy weather canceled court today. eddie ray routh's attorneys are trying to argue he was legally insane when he shot chris kyle, the most lethal sniper in u.s. military history and his friend at a gun range in 2013. and in the midst of the emotional trial, kyle's widow taya visited the oscars last

night. the film was nominated for best picture. taya walked the red carpet with her sister. and you can see there in her hands clutching chris's dog tags on the red carpet. the big story from last night's oscar concerns are patricia arquette and the controversies that popped up after her acceptance speech for best supporting actress. >> to every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights. it's our time to have wage equality once and for and equal rights for women in the united states of america! >> all right. let's talk about it with leslie marshall and molly hemmingway. by the way after those remarks a lot of praise coming in from some high profile folks. that's when things got interesting. chief among them valerie jar et, one of the president's top

advisers saying congrats, thanks for using your speech to advocate for equal women pay and when women succeed america succeeds, what's wrong with this? >> i don't know how many times we have to debunk it, it's true men and women tend to make different decisions about their career path, about their education, everyone about how many hours they want to spend in the office. and these differences do affect pay. but when you control for all of those factors, the gender pay gap actually disappears. so it's kind of disappointing to see people are continuing to pedal this false statistic. >> sometimes people look and see meryl streep and jennifer lopez, loved celebrities, but billionaires. like we're never going to understand. so when you see them rallying there and heated up and possibly going with information that's not 100% accurate, what do you make of that? >> on the one hand it was -- >> leslie. >> first of all in hollywood

women have a lot less opportunity. i mean i'm 20 minutes from where those award ceremonies took place. they don't make the same money. they don't have the same opportunity. and i think it's great in a city and a town with a night that is based on egos for a celebrity like ms. arquette to stand up and speak up about something she's passionate about and i think well-intentioned. though i disagree with the facts. when we look at the legal field, medical field, hollywood across the board, women don't have the same opportunity, women don't make the same amount of money. and she's saying, hey, look, let's not give up this fight. we fought for other people's rights. let's fight for women. and i think meryl streep regardless of her money and her power, she agrees with that, as a woman, as a feminist. and as one who is a champion of women's rights and i applaud that. >> molly, there are a lot of people looking at some of these people offering up their praise and saying, hello, what about the white house pay gap for women versus men there when you have people within the administration cheering for patricia arquette and she seems to come from a well intentioned

place though not fully informed on the facts. >> it's absolutely ridiculous. if you're going to compare these apples and oranges, then the white house has a huge problem, they have a huge gender pay gap and they've had it and haven't made progress on it in the last six years. hillary clinton likewise a huge gender pay gap simply by saying here's how much women make, here's how much men make. it's also true hollywood has tremendous problems and they have sexist hiring practices. they should be talking more about the problems in their own backyard rather than trying to lecture other people wo would never get away with the type of sexist hiring and pay decisions they make there. >> well, knowing that you two agree on that, we'll leave it there. maybe that's what patricia arquette at the heart was getting to. good to see you both. thank you. new signs that the fight over illegal immigration is about to get even uglier. what the obama administration is doing and why judge napolitano says it is the most novel thing he's heard in 40 years of practicing law. plus, the florist at the center

of a high profile fight for religious freedom has decided to speak out. and we have got the exclusive interview. stick around.

breaking tonight, new questions about whether an administration accused of executive overreach is about to reach even further. the justice department today responded to the federal judge who ordered a halt to the president's executive actions on immigration. and our next guest says the government's argument was "novel." judge andrew napolitano is the fox news senior judicial analyst. great to have you with us, judge. tell us about this. >> so the government filed a motion for a stay. they basically asked the trial judge who restrains them from implementing the president's executive orders to lift his restraint and at the same time file an appeal. they followed the rules to a t.

they have an absolute right to appeal. if they didn't appeal president's supporters would think they're crazy. but they made a crazy argument. they actually said if you don't lift your appeal, you will cause irreparable harm to the federal government because we will not be able to serve the people that the president promised he would serve. who are those people? the 5 million illegal, unlawful aliens that the president is trying to say if you do a b, c, d, e, i made it up, i won't support you. that's an argument i will tell you in my 40 years of practicing law as a judge, i have never heard the government argue. we must help lawbreakers break the law more. that's why judge you can't interfere with us. >> does he get any points for creativity? >> they do but not with this judge. i'll tell you why, because he has already rejected -- you've read the opinion as did i as did countless others.

in the harshest of terms harshest of terms, some of the things they said to him and what set him off was when the obama administration lawyers and and they're good lawyers, said the president's not trying to change the law. the judge sent his clerk to google, obama, law change. pulled up 22 quotes out of the president's own mouth saying i just changed the law on my own. >> yeah. and it's well-documented. we have played those bites over and over again where he would be speaking and there would be somebody yell out from the audience, just do what you have to do or just override you can make this change. and he would say, no, we have a constitution. he was a former constitutional law instructor, which he likes to point out, so he knows how the constitution works. he knows how it all works together and how his powers are described, what's described to congress and how it's set up. >> in all the years of doing this there's a couple of lessons. you don't mislead the court. you don't make a disingenuous argument. you don't make an argument that you really can't back up.

and for gosh sakes when you have a client who's a public official and a public figure the president of the united states, don't contradict him. don't try and say something in court that you know your client who happens to be a lawyer has said the opposite in public. >> something interesting when they initially got the ruling said of course we're going to file an appeal we're going to have to put everything on hold that was about to go into effect saying basically until this is settled we're not going to be able to do any of these work permits or anything else. now come this stay the stay request. >> right. >> which essentially is what you outlined them saying we need to go ahead and do these things that some would argue are breaking the law and helping some break the law it sounds like a bit of a change a 180 from saying we're not going to start any of this stuff because we can't -- >> it's a bit of a circular argument. unless left people listening to us get the wrong impression the stay does not stop all work permits for all illegal aliens because congress has authorized

some work permits for some illegal aliens. the stay doesn't stop the enforcement of the law. it stops the enforcement of president obama's version of the law that he himself acknowledged changed with the stroke of a pen which the constitution prohibits him from doing. >> we now understand all of this much better. for the judge. >> delight to work with you, shannon. >> thanks. good to see you. joining us now a democratic strategist who previously served as chief of staff to illinois congressman luis gutierrez. good to see you tonight. >> thank you for having me shannon. >> let me just ask you put it out there, the president himself making these statement 2s 2 times, now making the very reverse statement. how do you square that as a democrat? >> well, i want to specify too for viewers watching is that the ruling does not rule out that the executive action is both legal and constitutional. i think what we're talking about here is about the process that the judge has a problem with. and to the judge's point who came on before me i think that what we're talking about is

really the 5 million american citizen who is are the children of the people affected. i'm not sure any american watching us today could say that those 5 million american citizens would be better off with a mother or father who's working off the books and in danger or perhaps in fear of what's going to happen to them. so i think that the answer is what is the answer? what are we going to do with the 5 to 11 million undocumented? we certainly don't have the money. it costs more than $200 billion to deport them. and the budget that they have for that department is $17 billion. so i would like to know what is plan b if we cannot take care of this population? >> let me ask you this because obviously there is a cost to society by having people here and adding to the roles whether we're talking about health care education, all of those things. some things the supreme court has argued that even if people are here illegally they do have some access to certain public services and things. >> education. >> right. and of course education being

chief among those. but when you have people who come here, they know they're coming illegally. maybe they bring their young children. but they think if they wait it out, they can get through a program like this. and even if they can't be rewarded, which sounds like many of them would be able to say, their children would be rewarded. how does the country square that with not rewarding and encouraging illegal behavior because who would blame people if they knew they could get here could make a better life for themselves and children regardless of breaking the law if they know it's going to work for them once they get here? how do you discourage that behavior if you reward it? >> i don't think we're talking about rewarding. i think we're talking about making sure we're in a safer place. this is a national security issue as well. this is a tax issue as well. i want to know who's working and that they're paying taxes. i want to know their first names, their last names. i want to go through a security check. we're also talking about american citizens. i keep bringing that number up 5 million children of these undocumented are american children.

so i do think the problem is a lot more complex than just saying we're going to reward them. they are here. they're working. how are they here? because some people are giving them jobs. jobs for them to support their family and stay here at the tune of $11 million. >> and employers are doing that illegally and they have to answer for it. but without enforcement of that it leaves us back at square one. >> right. but curiously a lot of them are paying taxes. how? with somebody else's number. which is interesting. >> yeah, that creates a whole new problem. >> exactly. >> we have to leave it there. thank you very much. we appreciate you weighing in on this. also with us republican and member of the senate judiciary committee and previously served as a supreme court clerk. i almost said justice. who knows maybe that will be in the future. but so far just a clerk. let me ask you you're very much a guy about the rule of law. you understand the constitution inside and out. we're told our president does too. and that he is you know, he will be validated for the actions he's taken. what say you? >> well look, i think that the

american people are tired of this kind of obstructionism that's going on in washington. you have the president of the united states going into court and saying that his administration will somehow suffer irreparable harm if he doesn't have to follow the law if as the court has now directed he has to follow the law that that somehow amounts to irreparable harm. yet the american people tired of this kind of obstruction in washington with the democrats and senate refusing to allow us to move a funding bill forward to keep the department of homeland security funded. and you've got people within the democratic party the president's own party who are are tired of having to defend the president. and having to obstruct government in the process of doing so. so, look the american people deserve better than this. it's time for them to expect more than this. and it's time for us to get to this homeland security funding bill that the house has passed and to get it on the table of the senate and get it passed. >> i want to ask you about sort of the late-breaking news we heard senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, of course

republican, talking about splitting these two things put together funding the dhs but only if blocking the president's actions we've been discussing. you have the upside for republicans of forcing democrats to vote on the issues about the executive action and you get the funding through. do you think that package is going to work? because already tonight there are top democratic staffers saying there's no way this gets done in time. you have the deadline looming. and dhs if it remains unfunded that's going to fall on republicans no matter the technical and logistical dmiend the scenes stuff, it's going to look like the gop is shutting it down. >> i know that's what the democrats want to believe because they don't want to own up to what they've done. we put this on the table three weeks ago. we put it on the floor of the senate trying to bring this up. and for three weeks the democrats have refused to allow this bill to come up. they've allow the bill to be debated so that they could amend it and change it. they won't let us do any of that.

they're engaging in obstruction. that's wrong. the american people are demanding more of that and' seeing through these ant eices which are designed to protect the president in his lawlessness in defiance of a constitutional system. >> you still have the court decision, the stay, the appeal still playing out as the hill battle plays out. senator, thank you for taking time to talk with us. >> thank you shannon. up next, the florist at the center of the high profile fight is offered a chance to get out of trouble but she responds by saying "her freedom is not for sale." she's here next in a "the kelly file" exclusive. plus the denver police department in the middle of a firestorm over racism. >> i'm not your homey either. just walk around. we're tttttt (coughing) coughing disrupts everyone's life. that's why there's delsym. delsym's advanced time release formula helps silence coughs for a full 12 hours. all night...

or all day.

now to a "the kelly file" exclusive. a religious freedom fight getting national attention after christian florist refuse today provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her beliefs. trace gallagher is live in our west coast newsroom to tell us the story. hi, trace. >> shannon, florist employs gay people and serves gay clients. in fact, the gay couple at the center of this fight were long-time customers. but she refused to provide flowers for their wedding because she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. when the aclu sued on behalf of the couple and a consumer

protection lawsuit she filed a counterlawsuit. but a superior court judge ruled against her saying first amendment protects religious beliefs but not necessarily actions based on those beliefs. so now the same-sex couple and the state are allowed to sue her for personal assets like her house and bank account. defending freedom the religious freedom group defending her says the attorney general is using the full power of his office to personally and professionally destroy her. the attorney general has agreed to settle the case for a $2,000 penalty if stetsman agrees not to discriminate in the future. "my primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant's unlawful conduct and to make clear i will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." but stetsman compares the deal to the one -- i don't relish the idea of losing my business,

home, and everything else your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor god in doing what i do best is more important. >> thank you for joining us. joining us now great to see you both. >> thanks for having us. >> all right. i want to ask you first of all, this customer was a long-time customer. you had a friendly relationship. you had done a lot of services with him. why did you decide to say no? and was it difficult for you to tell him that? >> it was very difficult for me to tell rob that i couldn't do his wedding. i love rob. he's very special to me. but because of my relationship with jesus christ he just -- marriage is between a man and a woman, i couldn't do his flowers and create something that was special for him because it would dishonor christ. >> did you have any idea you would end up where you are today when you made that decision? >> no. because when rob came in and told me he was getting married

and i told him the reason i couldn't do his wedding we talked about how he got engaged and we talked about his mom and maybe his mom could walk him down the aisle and asked he if i had any other florist i could recommend and i did recommend three because i knew they'd do a good job for him and i knew he wanted something special. and we hugged each other and he left. >> from what i understand he was able to get services elsewhere from one of the folks that you recommended. but this snowballed into something for a lot of people would be very unexpected from that conversation that you think is a friendly refusal to participate for very private reasons. >> yes. the attorney general contacted the couple. they didn't file the initial complaint. the attorney general took it on after reading reports in the media. and the attorney general has relentlessly pursued her ever since. the decision as well as the attorney general's actions are sending a very clear unmistakable message to her and

anyone like her that is if you dare to decline the government will bring about your personal and your professional ruin if you don't help celebrate same-sex marriage. >> and they offered to make you a deal. they said you pay this fine but also stop refusing specific weddings and we'll call it a day and it's all over. and you said -- >> no. it's not about the money. it's about freedom. it's about my eight kids and our 23 grandchildren and the future and now. there's not a price on freedom. you can't buy my freedom. it's me now. but tomorrow it's going to be you. you got to wake up. >> do you think people get that? do you think maybe hearing your story, seeing a real person and knowing this is how these policies play out. you know we talked about it wasn't possibly that you would just be out of business but we're talking about a decision by the attorney general here -- the state attorney general that sounds like they could come after everything you have

personally as well. >> they're talking about bullying me into doing something that is against my faith. they can't do that. they can take away -- they can get rid of me, but they can't get rid of god. >> do you think that there is a way to coexist? do you think we'll come to a solution where you can have your religious beliefs but still have friendly relationships with people that you disagree with and space for everybody to operate in that without anyone getting sue snd. >> that would be my hope. that would be my hope. yes. >> i'm assume you plan an appeal? >> we will appeal. it's not just the right under the first amendment for her free exercise of religion, but free expression, she's an artist. there's a lot at stake here. >> thank you very much for you both coming in. we'll keep track of your case. first on "the kelly file," a denver cop is now in the middle of a firestorm over racism allegations. but did this cop really do anything wrong? we're going to roll the video and let you decide next.

>> walk around -- >> i'm not going to walk around

test hey, girl. is it crazy that your soccer trophy is talking to you right now? it kinda is. it's as crazy as you not rolling over your old 401k. cue the horns... just harness the confidence it took you to win me and call td ameritrade's rollover consultants. they'll help with the hassle by guiding you through the whole process step by step. and they'll even call your old provider. it's easy. even she could do it. whatever, janet. for all the confidence you need td ameritrade. you got this.

developing tonight, outrage in denver after a police officer is disciplined for his so-called racist language. is it a bad cop or a bad case of political correctness? trace gallagher's live in our west coast newsroom. trace. >> shannon, this happened during the annual zombie crawl in denver, a convention to attract the world's largest number of zombie fans. when a crowd became disruptive, denver police officer adam paulson was brought in to help. the officer was trying to clear an area when he came in contact with a young black man who was trying to walk through that area. officer paulson was wearing a body camera that recorded the following exchange.

watch. >> hey. walk around to your family. walk around to your family. >> i just want to get through, homey. >> i'm not your homey either. >> just trying to get through. >> we're trying to do our job. walk around. >> now the young man never filed a complaint, but when the body cam tapes were reviewed by denver administrators, they saw the exchange and issued the officer a written reprimand quoting here, while officer paulson did not call anyone the word the use could have caused the situation to become worse.

shannon. >> all right, trace. thanks so much. we'll be right back. but first coming up on "hannity". >> she cannot possibly run for president of the united states without disclosing to the american people which foreign countries -- >> agree with you.u.u.u.u.u.

make sure to weigh-in on our exclusive interview with the florist fighting for religious freedom. go to facebook.com/thekellyfile. like our page, share a story and leave a comment telling us what you think about the controversy. thanks for watching. i'm shannon bream. this is "thehehehehehe

f homeland security talking about a shut down. but does it come ast a cost. >> the mall of america, showing it's under ground security. and the new suggestion that could save shopper's lives. >> and passengers flipping off the runway overnight. the terrifying moments as the plane leaves the pavement. "fox & friends first" starts right now. >> good morning to you and your family. you are watching "fox & friends first" on this tuesday morning. >> i am heather childers. >> i am answer play air heart-- ainsley earhardt. sounding the alarm warn ago shut down meaning americans will be in danger. >> critics are firing back at jay johnson saying he is playing

politics at the expense of our safety. kevin court is live in washington with the latest for us. >> good morning to you. what did he know and when did he know it? that may sound like a bit of a stretch but the truth is if homeland security secretary jay johnson is talking about a terror threat skeptics would like to know. are you playing politics floating the notion of the eminent threat to get congress to fund the department of homeland security. it is a fair question i think. ultimately a lot of people do want to know. are we looking at the circumstance there will be a shut down because the two parties can't come together. the president was talking about it yesterday with the governors and the homeland security secretary said this. >> unless congress acts 100,000 border patrol, border inspectors tsa agents will show up t