Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Does Religious Freedom Law Legalize Discrimination?; Iran Accused Of Backing Rebels In Yemen Civil War; Two Bills Focus On Mental Health Issues; Interview with Rep. Tim Murphy. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired March 30, 2015 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right, put down the coffee. We have controversy wrapped in a controversy for you. An Indiana law said to restore religious freedom. Critics say it allows businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians under the color of religion, which we don't really know yet and that's why we have to discuss this.

Now here's the second controversy, usually when a law like this is passed, everybody wants to take credit. Well, here, we've reached out to two dozen Indiana lawmakers from the governor on down, none wanted to come on and defend the law and explain it. Why?

We are fortunate to have Mr. Peter Sprigg. He is the senior fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. Thank you, sir, for taking the opportunity to discuss this because it is very important to us legally and a development of culture.

So I will ask you the question that Governor Pence didn't want to answer. If you have a private business owner and they don't want to provide their service to a gay marriage or a gay couple, would this law defend them?

PETER SPRIGG, SENIOR FELLOW, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: This law doesn't have anything to say about that issue because Indiana's laws on discrimination are the same today as they were before the signing of this law. This bill is all about religious liberty and specifically establishing a standard for cases in which a person argues that a government action infringes on their free exercise of religion.

It doesn't decide the outcome of any case like that, but it establishes a standard of review. The person has to demonstrate their religion is burdened and substantially burdened if only they are able to do that.

Then the government has to demonstrate that their action is serving a compelling government purpose and uses the least restrictive means. That's all this law says. It says nothing about discrimination or sexual orientation. CUOMO: Well, that's plenty. Let's unpack a couple things. The first thing is you say it's about state action. OK, a state action would probably qualify as an ordinance for a state law or a municipal law that includes protection of guys as a protected class, which Indiana has in many of its cities.

So you could use this statute and say the state action is that local law that says I have to treat gays just like I do blacks and gender and all the other protective classes. So I'm going to use this law to defend my choice not to provide the service to a gay couple. That is true, is it not?

SPRIGG: You can use it against that type of government action or many other types of government action -- eminent domain proceedings.

CUOMO: Yes, but let's go slowly, so people get it at home. When you said and the governor said this law has nothing to do with two individuals. It absolutely does because that's the example.

Is your photographer, the private business owner? I come in with my partner, another man and say I want you to take pictures at our wedding. You say, no. I say I'm going to sue you.

You say, I defend with you this law because the state action is the local law. My place where I live in Indiana that says I have to treat you as a protective class. That is true, is it not?

SPRIGG: That's a potential hypothetical use of this law. This law does not saying how that case would come out -- it establishes a standard.

CUOMO: No law says how a case will come out. You are right. This law historically, we had the POD case in the Supreme Court and federal law. We have in Washington State, the Amish saying we can't have an LED brake light on our carriages, we are against it.

But this is now something different. This is being expanded in a way that seems to me to popular mandate in Indiana to allow Christians to exclude gays from their life. Fair criticism?

SPRIGG: No, it's not a fair criticism at all. First of all, this is not been expanded. This is exactly the same standard that is found in the federal law that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

CUOMO: No, this is broader.

SPRIGG: By overwhelming bipartisan majority.

CUOMO: This is broader language.

SPRIGG: This is the same standard that exists in 19 other states. I disagree with the premise at the beginning of your story that we don't know what will happen. We do know what will happen. We've had these laws for 20 years --

CUOMO: This one is broader. It's not about what has happened in the past. You designed this law for a reason.

SPRIGG: It's not broader. It's the exact same standard, the free substantial burden, the compelling government interests and the least perspective means is the exact same standards.

CUOMO: But you are expanding it to those who can use it. It is the broadest language yet of who qualifies as a person to give businesses as much leverage as possible in this situation.

When you look at the foundation of this bill, there is a picture that's circulating around of the governor as he signed it. Several of the people in the picture are outspoken critics of gay existence.

[07:35:05] Now, that's not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence why you are against this. Let me ask you, why do so many Christians these days believe that the exercise of their faith requires exclusion and judgment of others?

Why so much time spent on this? What is your compelling interest of your faith that says you can't serve gays as a business? Where is that?

SPRIGG: Some people have a sincere conscientious believe that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. In fact, the majority of Americans believe that, 53 percent of Americans in a recent poll said I believe marriage should be defined only as the union of one man and one woman.

CUOMO: I have a poll that says the majority of the Americans believe it should be legal. Here it is.

SPRIGG: When asked if they agree or disagree that government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses, 81 percent of Americans believe -- agree with that and so even in the context of this agreement --

CUOMO: As we both know, popularity is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong in protecting rights under the constitution. The question then goes to a why do you need this? What is it about someone being gay or someone wanting to marry someone of the same sex, what is there in that that is keeping you from being the Christian you want to be?

SPRIGG: Well, this is not about that broad issue. Even in the --

CUOMO: Of course, it is.

SPRIGG: Even in the examples you give, these individuals in the wedding industry who have had these cases arise are people who are happy to serve gay customers. They have a long-standing record of serving gay customers. The only thing they object to is using their expressive abilities to communicate a message that they disagree with by saying that marriage can be the union of two men or two women --

CUOMO: But that isn't stopping them from exercising their faith. They're still able to go to church. They're still able to be Christians. It doesn't violate their faith? I'm a Christian. How does it violate my faith?

SPRIGG: It forces them to say that two men or two women can be married when they believe in their deep sincere belief it's not the case.

CUOMO: That's a personal belief. If I said Mr. Sprigg you have to go marry a man right now. You can say, no, no, no, that's a violation of my faith. Maybe that you would be able clear this hurdle of burden. But how is wanting to judge others somehow stopping you from practicing your faith, I don't get it?

SPRIGG: Americans believe that you should have freedom to believe what you believe and to act on those beliefs and they believe that in the context of these small businesses in the wedding industry, too. The burden placed upon these same sex couples is they go to another vendor and they get the service they ask for. Nobody has ever had --

CUOMO: Why don't the photographers -- you don't want to treat everybody the same way. Then don't go into the business.

SPRIGG: Violate your belief or go out of business, that's a much heavier burden or to face punishing fines imposed on them or criminal sanctions imposed upon them by the government. That's an overwhelmingly heavier burden.

CUOMO: But we haven't seen that happen, either, right?

SPRIGG: We are about to -- we are on the verge of seeing it happen with a florist in Washington State, a baker in Oregon. We are very close to that.

CUOMO: But I know how you and your organization feel about gays. You don't like them. You find gay lives to be a choice and to be disgusting. I have you quoted saying it, I get that. You are free to believe that.

SPRIGG: I have never said. You mischaracterized --

CUOMO: No, no. The video titled, it gets better. You say life will get better. It is disgusting and it's part of a concentrated effort to persuade --

SPRIGG: I never used disgusting in an interview.

CUOMO: You are quoted at it, it's disgusting and it's a part of a concerted effort to persuade kids homosexuality is OK and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle. It's not you. It's your organization I am talking about.

You are speaking for your organization. I am not here to indict you for it. I'm trying to say you're feeling about it is clear. I get it. America protects it. But your faith as a Christian is not in any way infringed in terms of its free exercise by allowing others to express themselves. SPRIGG: When in these narrow cases again involving the wedding industry --

CUOMO: The only ones that matter.

SPRIGG: You want to worry about the insidious implicit infringements of what matters most to America which is everybody getting the chance to be who they want to be.

SPRIGG: Everybody has the chance to be who they want to be except for apparently Christians in the wedding industry. They are not allowed to be what they want.

CUOMO: Are they not allowed to go to church? They still believe what they believe. They can still do what Jesus wanted them to do.

SPRIGG: They're not allowed to act what they believe. It's like 81 percent of Americans think they should be.

[07:40:03] CUOMO: The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that gay marriage is OK. I say it's all irrelevant. Jesus' message to you guys was, love, love until it hurts and then keep loving. That's not what this is. This is exclusion, not inclusion. I don't understand how it's inconsistent with your faith.

SPRIGG: This law is based on the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the free exercise of religion. If you want to do away with the free exercise of religion in the first amendment, you are welcome to amend the Constitution.

CUOMO: How is it free exercise of religion, that's what I don't get? Where in your faith does it say, gays, you should go after them and judge them and do whatever you can to isolate them?

SPRIGG: Well, we're here talking about this Indiana bill which doesn't even talk about gays.

CUOMO: Sure it does, state action. It doesn't mention gays explicitly. He could have been under the dark of night under his bed. This is about doing it and pleasing the Christian population the way we see politicians often do and this time it's being exposed and discussed a lot. That's what it is.

SPRIGG: Look, there are people out there who dislike Christians, who don't want Christians to be able to exercise their beliefs. They want to be able to exercise what they believe, but they don't want us to be able to exercise what we believe even when it imposes no burden on them and a substantial burden on the Christian business owner. I don't think that's right. I don't think most Americans think that's right.

CUOMO: Well, again, we'll let it play out. We'll see what happens here because this is as much about culture as it is about law. I don't get how it's a burden on a Christian to allow gays --

SPRIGG: To express their views that they disagree with. CUOMO: That's it. Do me a favor, though, Mr. Sprig, you did something that we couldn't get anybody attached to this bill to do. You came on and discuss the merits from your perspective and I respect and appreciate that. Thank you for being on NEW DAY.

We look to having you again. Again, we reach out to the governor. You signed it. You are a leader. People talked about you as a presidential contender. Leaders go first. We saw you on ABC. We know what the questions are. You didn't want to answer them there. This needs explanation, please come on -- Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Chris, something tells me you will get a reaction to that segment on social media. I believe your Twitter feed will be exploding right now. We look forward to hearing what those comments are.

Meanwhile, also there is fighting escalating in Yemen to tell you about. Reports suggest that Saudi Arabia can carry out a ground invasion against the northeast. We will examine the impact next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:45:55]

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Arab coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia conducting another round of airstrikes in Yemen as officials warn of a potential ground incursion around the corner to slow Houthi rebels.

Here to discuss it all, CNN global affairs analyst, Retired Lt. Col. James Reese. Thanks so much for getting up early on the west coast to joins us, Colonel.

So let's talk about today's news and those daylight raids on targets in Yemen. What do you think of the airstrike strategy thus far?

RETIRED LT. COL. JAMES REESE, CNN GLOBAL ANALYST: Well, good morning, Michaela. You know, the Saudis, what I give credit for is that Arab coalition over there made a decision and they went for it. They did not get everyone else involved.

And again I think from our perspective back here in the U.S. what we need the think positive about is we have been talking about for months now is these Arab countries are starting to take control, themselves. They are looking to do this themselves and not always leaning on the U.S.to be this worldwide policeman.

PEREIRA: Well, let's walk through that a little more because we know that Reuters emerge that these military trucks hauling tanks down a highway in Saudi Arabia and this talk of potential ground incursion to come. Talk about the challenge that's in front of this joint Arab coalition. They're strong in number. Are they well equipped? Are they well trained? Are they ready for a ground offensive?

REESE: Well, the first thing, Michaela, everyone has to realize is Yemen is a very difficult environment to work in and to fight in, if ever need be. The years I traveled through Yemen in counterterrorism support operations, it's mountainous. It's very difficult.

Again, any time a force, a military force has to go into a way game as I call it, it's difficult. The Houthis have an advantage. Even though the Saudis have a strong military, a great Air Force and they bring numbers and M-1 tanks and everything else. It could be a very bloody fight for Saudis trying to do a ground incursion into Yemen.

PEREIRA: The U.S. obviously is providing some support sort of logistically. They voiced their approval of these airstrikes. Do you anticipate the U.S. will have to get involved at some point?

REESE: Michaela, I don't. I do not see the United States getting involved. I don't think we need to get involved. There are eight Arab countries that have a very strong air force throughout all of them. They have been training for years.

They have very dynamic aircraft that can do these things and again the Saudis and the Egyptians who are leading this fight both have very strong and very large militaries. The only concern militarily on the ground side is they're both trained very heavily in conventional armored warfare. When you go into Yemen on the aspect, it really becomes a guerilla warfare type of aspect.

PEREIRA: Far from conventional as you mentioned. Interesting, Yemen's former prime minister called out Iran for backing the Houthi rebels. I'm curious what your sense is of just how much Iran is backing the Houthi rebels?

REESE: Well, you know, we've seen reports everywhere from logistics, humanitarian. There are even the Republican guard advisers on the ground giving them. The problem right now the Iranians I believe are playing both sides.

They've got to make a stand. If they make a stand against one side, I think there is going to be a war. You know, I will tell you this, no one wants to go to war, but at the end of the day, in the Middle East right now, it might be best for us to sit back.

And if the Saudis and Iran and these other Arab countries go to war against each other, it's the days of the bully that something shakes out, we might have to sit back to see what happens. It might be best for everyone, even though no one wants to go to war.

PEREIRA: Well, no one does want to go to war, but we understand that it seems to be a reality especially when you look at this global war on terrorism and you look at what's going on in this battle to combat ISIS and with Iran backing the Houthi, this further complicates things, not only for the U.S. but the rest of the western coalition.

REESE: It does. And again, it's Iran putting their influence down. You know from the U.S. perspective, though, what we have to look at very strongly is we've lost an ability to conduct our counterterrorism strikes in Yemen.

[07:50:01] We're still able to do them, but they have been degraded and with Yemen becoming a failed state, people have said it might become a failed state. I believe it's been a failed state for that gives al Qaeda and these other terrorist organizations that want to bring harm on us a safe haven.

The Shia rebels on this friction point, is putting lines between the people out there, which can become a major aspect in the Middle East and implode.

PEREIRA: Lieutenant Colonel James Reese, always a pleasure to have you with us. Thanks so much -- Alyson.

CAMEROTA: OK, we want to get back to the crash of Flight 9525, with the co-pilot's mental health in question, what can be done to prevent a different troubled person from putting hundreds of people in jeopardy. We'll talk to a congressman who is tackling this very issue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:52:55]

CUOMO: We're digging in on Flight 9525 because we want to make sure it never happens again and the scary part is it could, and it could happen here. That's not to scare you. It's to address the urgency.

Let's bring in Congressman Tim Murphy from Pennsylvania. He spent three decades as a psychologist and wrote "The Helping Families In Mental Crisis Act" in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Congressman, it's good to have you on NEW DAY as always. There are two questions, one, is the United States and its pilot structure vulnerable to the same thing that we just saw in France on the German flight?

REP. TIM MURPHY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I think we have to recognize that we're vulnerable a number of ways. Current laws in the United States and many states says when it comes to revealing information otherwise confidential about someone who is in a high risk occupation whether a pilot, railroad engineer, policeman, school bus driver, et cetera, you have to have a standard of imminent danger of harm to yourself or others before someone can disclose that.

That standard is even lower than that in Germany, I understand. What we have to recognize is serious mental illness, severe depression and severe bipolar and severe schizophrenia where it can put people at harm. In this country where we are failing miserably and things are getting worse in areas of suicide, incarceration, homicide, homelessness, the list goes on and on.

CUOMO: It's not about demonizing the mental ill. Most people who suffer with mental illness, they treat it. They live their lives, their productive lives. It's when you get someone like this guy who is denying their illness, not taking the treatment seriously, and friends and family around them know are powerless in the United States, you have a fix that is being resisted. What is the fix and why is it being resisted? MURPHY: Well, one of the fix is in my Helping Families Mental Health Crisis Act because we have to address access to care, more providers and easier access. We have to make sure there are federal laws that prevent us from have enough psychiatric hospital beds for inpatient and enough outpatient treatment are address.

We have to address confidentiality laws, which oftentimes prevent family members having any idea what's going on with their close relative, someone they are caring for.

[07:50:09] It is precisely that we have to look at not major overhaul, but enough of tweaks so family members know there is a diminished capacity that a person has to even understand they have an illness and so they may overlook it and allow a situation for a family member to step in and help them.

CUOMO: And notify people and have those who are treating them and need to treat them involved as well. The push back is this. First of all, you're going to take away my rights if I'm someone who is sick. You're taking away my privacy rights between me and my provider and doctor and treating me like I'm somehow inferior competence-wise just because I have a mental health issue and it's unfair. That's what you're hearing. How do you overcome it?

MURPHY: Well, we're talking about less than 1 percent and 1 percent of people that this would affect. We are saying that the standard should be that a licensed provider, who already has a high ethical standard, when they recognize it is clearly necessary to have treatment or else that person becomes -- their condition deteriorates so much they really become gravely disabled.

That a doctor may have the window to tell that identified family member when this person's next appointment is, what medications they're on, what treatment plan they have. We're not talking about revealing all sorts of personal information. In fact, I do want that protected.

CUOMO: OK, when does the vote come? I'm not going to start the shame campaign yet. I want to know when the vote is coming up, Congressman, and we want to see what happens and we want to be very strong on this following its process. When do we get this to the floor?

MURPHY: We are going to be reintroducing this bill in April. We got a number of people, co-sponsors. The last year was educating a lot of members of Congress to even understand what serious mental illness is.

Now we have several senators and many more House members on board to do this. We are introducing it and then looking at something coming up in the coming months, talking more at leadership. We get more and more support. We hear from leadership on this and within the committee.

CUOMO: All right, we'll stay tuned. Congressman Tim Murphy, Republican out of Pennsylvania, thank you very much for being on NEW DAY. All right, now here's the big issue that it feeds into is, of course, what happened in these final moments Flight 9525. These moments are now public, OK, there have been some leaks that have let the information come out. Private information is finding its way into the public eye. Is that good or bad? We discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)