BASH: “Justice Gorsuch said, in his majority opinion, that all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor says the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to a public — to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Where do you stand?”

CHRISTIE: “Look, I stand with Justice Gorsuch, Dana. Look, and the thing that’s bad about the dissenting opinion is that it mischaracterizes the decision. This business has no right not to serve people of a protected class, but, by the same token, the government doesn’t have the right to tell a business the nature of how they need to use their expressive abilities. And so the fact is that this — this business can’t deny LGBTQ people, couples, from coming in and trying to access this business. That’s not the case at all. It’s a mischaracterization of it. And, Dana, what concerns me the most is that, for decades and decades, the Democratic Party cheered a Supreme Court that went outside the Constitution, made extra-constitutional decisions, in my opinion, because the decisions went in a philosophical direction that they liked. Now, when the court makes decisions that they don’t like, all of a sudden the Court is a not-normal court, according to President Biden. You know, this is a results-oriented type of judgment. Instead, what they should look at is the way they analyze the law. And as a lawyer and someone who’s watched this for a long time, I think Justice Gorsuch made a decision that protects all of our First Amendment rights. And most particularly, you know, Democrats don’t like this now, but you know what? If they were being ordered by a state to do something that they felt restricted their rights, they’d be angry about it, and should be. We should not be restricting people’s First Amendment rights.”

BASH: “So, I hear what you’re saying, that this specifically says that this web designer doesn’t have to make it for a same-sex marriage, and that certainly was the basis of the case. But you have no concern that this decision can be used in a more expansive way? Because the notion of expression and creativity is very subjective.”

CHRISTIE: “Look, what Sonia Sotomayor, the Justice Sonia Sotomayor was saying in her opinion was that they could — that this decision could be used to deny people of LGBTQ backgrounds the ability to access this business. That’s simply not true. They can access this business. They just can’t force the owner to do something that is against her personal religious beliefs. And so, if they want to come in and they want a web design for their business, they want a web design for a charity, they want a web design for anything else that they’re doing, they could certainly do that. And she knows that’s true. But she’s trying to inflame people with this decision. And it is a very narrow decision. And, no, I’m not concerned that it would, because I will tell you what would happen. If someone tried to do that, people in that particular state would be into court immediately if they were trying to go beyond this decision. And I believe the justices of this court would stop them from doing it.”

[Anyone who thinks that the decision in 303 Creative gives businesses the right to refuse access on the basis of race or sexual orientation didn’t bother to read the ruling, let alone learn about the case. Both sides stipulated that 303 Creative would serve all customers, but would refuse to create specific messaging. Gorsuch took pains to support public-accommodation laws as regard to access. It’s possible that Bash was offering a Socratic approach to questioning as a way to allow Christie to address this misconception of the case, but given that media outlets exacerbated that misconception, it’s tough to credit her with that intent. At any rate, it was an excellent answer from Christie. — Ed]