Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (2014) s12e11 Episode Script
Alliance Defending Freedom
Welcome to "Last Week Tonight"!
I'm John Oliver, thank you so much for
joining us. It has been a busy week!
Xi Jinping met with Vladimir Putin,
Trump named the world's meanest drunk
aunt as interim U.S. attorney for D.C.,
and of course, this happened.
From the Vatican,
a wholly unexpected announcement.
We have a pope, an American pope.
Pope Leo XIV from Chicago.
The best headline came
from his hometown of Chicago,
in true Chicago style, "Da Pope".
Yeah, we got a Chicago pope!
Cardinal Robert Prevost
is now Pope Leo XIV.
And Chicagoans spent the week
excitedly speculating
about the little Chicago touches
he's gonna bring to the papacy,
from the body of Christ being
a Portillo's gravy bread,
to the official stance
of the church becoming
"no ketchup on hot dogs, but if
the kids want it, that's all right,"
to the hundreds of jokes
about Malort being the new
sacramental wine at communion.
And if you're not from Chicago,
and you're thinking, "What is Malort?"
just know, it's not so much a drink
as it is a city-wide hazing ritual.
It's a liquor with the taste, smell,
and general vibe
of something a Batman villain
would spike the water supply with.
And incredibly, the odds are,
Pope Bob here has actually tried it.
But we're gonna focus on
the president's ongoing trade war.
Last week, Trump got a lot of attention
when he seemed to try
and prepare Americans
for economic pain by saying this.
Maybe the children will have two
dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know,
and maybe the two dolls will cost
a couple of bucks more
than they would normally.
What a very weird thing to say.
And it's just another snapshot
in the chaos album that is
Trump having anything to do
with children.
Because you can now put "kids'll
have two dolls instead of 30"
right up there
with the lawn boy scream
and that time he asked a kid
if she believed in Santa Claus
because, quote,
"at seven it's marginal, right?"
And when pressed on his comments
a few days later, Trump doubled down.
You said, quote,
I'm going to quote what you said,
"Maybe the children will have
two dolls instead of 30 dolls."
"And maybe the two dolls will cost
a couple of bucks more than normally."
I don't think a beautiful baby girl
needs, that's 11 years old,
needs to have 30 dolls. I think they
can have three dolls or four dolls.
Okay, there is so much there.
"A beautiful baby girl
that's 11 years old?"
Don't call an 11-year-old that.
First, it's creepy, and second,
I promise: you call
an 11-year-old girl a baby?
She'll fucking kill you.
But also, to think the prime age
for playing with dolls is 11
is almost impressively wrong.
Everyone knows, the breakdown
of what people play with by age goes:
blocks from ages one to three,
dolls from ages three to seven,
and our phones
from ages eight until we die.
And then, incredibly, on
Air Force One, he tripled down.
All I'm saying is that a young
lady, a 10-year-old girl,
nine-year-old girl, 15-year-old
girl, doesn't need 37 dolls.
She could be very happy
with two or three or four or five.
Every single way this man
refers to girls
makes my skin
want to turn inside out.
That said, I did also want
to see him keep going there,
just to see how many variations
of ages and numbers
he could cycle through.
"All I'm saying is, a young lady,
10-year-old girl, nine-year-old girl,"
"15-year-old girl, 45-year-old
girl that's still young at heart,"
"doesn't need 37 dolls. She could be
very happy with two or three"
"or four or six or eight.
But also nine."
"And in its own way, 10. 10 dolls,
she could be happy with, couldn't she?"
"Or maybe 11,
we can't rule out 11 dolls."
"Or 12.
12's a good number, isn't it, folks?"
"12 apostles. 12 days of Christmas.
12 Angry Men. Henry Fonda, great guy."
"The other men? Very angry.
Very angry men."
That's who we've gotta get out of this
country that's coming over illegally."
"Or you know what?
13 dolls, that's my final offer."
So, now it appears he thinks that
15-year-old girls play with dolls.
Has he ever met a 15-year-old girl?
That's a dumb question,
of course he has,
he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
But the thing is,
Trump's actually right
that toys are about
to get more expensive.
Mattel, the maker of Barbie,
has already said
that it "plans to raise prices
on American toys due to tariffs",
and when Trump was asked
about Mattel's CEO claiming
toy manufacturing won't come
to America, but price hikes will,
he had a pretty odd response.
If Mattel, I don't know if some,
I'm not so sure they also said,
they're the only country I've heard,
they said,
"Well we're going to go counter. We're
going to try going someplace else."
That's okay, let him go, and
we'll put a 100% tariff on his toys,
and he won't sell
one toy in the United States,
and that's their biggest market.
Okay. Set aside that, within the space
of a single human sentence,
Mattel switched from being
a company to a country to a guy,
it seems Trump's about
to go to war with them,
so you know what this means, kids:
sticks are about to make a comeback.
The stick! Throw it, catch it,
set it on fire, just look at it.
The stick's the only toy
you'll ever need!
Which is lucky, because it's also
the only one you'll ever have.
And look, on some level, it makes
sense that Trump is framing this
around dolls, things that
he can pretend are frivolous.
But the fact is, exports to the U.S.
have already begun to slow,
and that'll soon be felt, in the form
of higher prices on lots of things.
So, if you're wondering,
"Is Trump's stupid trade war
about to hurt a lot of people?"
Well, is the Pope Catholic,
and now also some guy
named Bob from Chicago?
The answer is obviously yes.
And now, this.
And Now: Brian Kilmeade Played
with Dolls, and That's Okay.
It's a crew neck,
it's like a crew neck for guys.
I had one on my G.I. Joe,
you snap it around his neck,
it's when it was a little red thing.
Like an ascot.
For a while, it was like,
"Why is Brian playing with dolls?"
It's a G.I. Joe. It's different.
My dad was a little uncomfortable
with me playing with what
he used to call dolls.
And I'm like, "Listen, they're men."
- I love anything G.I. Joe!
- Here we go!
Kung-Fu Grip, Eagle Eye,
it all works.
I remember playing with the G.I. Joes.
Both Eagle Eye and the Kung-Fu Grip.
The only adult toy
that you need is Eagle Eye G.I. Joe.
- Ken was confusing for my generation.
- It was confusing?
Should we play with Ken?
Should we put him with the G.I. Joes?
I tried to get Ken into the G.I. Joe
collection as a kid.
Wait, you had a G.I. Joe,
but you wanted a Ken?
You had a Ken Barbie.
I convinced
my parents to get it for me,
because I thought
I could make a man of him.
I remember borrowing
Ken and putting him with my G.I. Joes,
it was the best move ever.
Ken has never been happier.
But a lot of people
in the previous generation goes,
"He's playing with dolls."
I'm like, "No, this is G.I. Joe."
- Poseable action figure.
- Exactly. Got real hair.
Eagle Eyes, Kung-Fu Grip,
everything you needed.
- There was He-Man too, remember?
- Nope.
Moving on. Our main story tonight
concerns politics and religion.
The top two answers to
the "Family Feud" question,
"Name a reason why you don't
talk to your dad anymore."
Number one: politics.
Number two: religion.
And number three: we talk
but do we really talk, ya know?
I know that, to put it mildly,
there has been a lot going on recently,
so it's understandable if
you missed it, but last week,
a case concerning politics and religion
was argued before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court just heard
arguments in a potentially landmark case
that could open the door to publicly
funded religious charter schools.
At the center,
St. Isidore of Seville,
a proposed Catholic virtual
charter school in Oklahoma
planned and operated
by the local archdiocese.
The school wants to teach Catholic
doctrine while receiving state money,
something never before
allowed in the charter system.
Yeah, an online school, St. Isidore,
is fighting for the right to operate
as the first religious
charter school in the country.
Which is striking
for a number of reasons,
not least that this is how I'm learning
that Saint Isidore is often referred to
as "the patron saint of the internet."
Which just feels wrong.
I thought patron saints only
represented timeless things
like the arts, or orphans,
not the medium that is now
mostly AI slop videos of countries
as presidents' twins.
I don't know exactly what saints
should be watching over,
but that feels like a real waste
of their time.
The school refers to itself as
"a ministry of the Catholic Church"
and many worry that if it's allowed
to directly receive public funding,
it'll be yet another step on
the slippery slope of breaking down
the Establishment Clause
separating church and state.
Now, the Supreme Court isn't likely
to rule on this until next month.
But I actually want to talk less
about this school in particular,
and more about the key group
behind this case,
the Alliance Defending Freedom
or ADF.
Even if you don't recognize
their name,
you'll definitely be aware
of their work.
Because ADF bills itself as
"the world's largest legal organization"
"advancing every person's God-given
right to live and speak the truth."
And in this promotional video
celebrating their 25th anniversary,
they lean in hard on the idea
that they are defenders
of rights and freedom.
For 25 years,
we've pursued this calling.
A commission to stand,
to defend, to persevere.
To be a voice for faith,
for freedom.
Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran
wins a victory for his state.
The U.S. Supreme Court today,
in one of the most closely
watched cases of the term,
Jack, this has been a long road
for you, you started back in 2012.
Religious freedom is a pre-political
right that rests securely
in our dignity as human beings.
It belongs to all of us.
Okay! Although I do have a bit
of an issue with the sentence,
"Religious freedom is a pre-political
right that rests securely"
"in our dignity as human beings."
Because I've listened
to that upwards of 50 times,
and I still have no idea what
the fuck she's talking about there.
It's the legal equivalent
of the actual headline
"Disney to Merge Hulu Live TV
with Fubo, Settling Venu Lawsuit."
All the words feel like
they're in the correct places,
but now I can't even understand
the ones that I thought I knew.
The woman who said that, Kristen
Waggoner, is ADF's current head
and if you're thinking that she looks
like someone who'd have an office filled
with Mickey and Minnie Mouse
memorabilia, you'd be dead wrong.
She used to have an office filled with
Mickey and Minnie Mouse memorabilia,
but got rid of it after Disney's recent
defense of LGBT rights
"ruined the beauty." So, I bet
you feel pretty stupid right now.
But as you've probably already guessed,
the "freedom" ADF fights for
is selective at best,
as, among other things,
they've argued for the Christian baker
who refused to make a cake
for a same-sex couple in Colorado,
orchestrated the attack
on the abortion drug mifepristone
heard by the Supreme Court last year
and were also behind the Dobbs case,
which overturned Roe v. Wade.
And when asked about
that last one,
they'll take credit for it,
but notably, only to a point.
So, what was ADF's role
in this Dobbs case?
We worked very closely with
Mississippi from the very beginning,
including we had a hand in crafting
the legislation of the 15-week bill,
coordinating, advising them
during the pendency of the litigation.
And then at the Supreme Court,
we have been, you know,
alongside them all the way, offering
just as much help as we possibly can.
Would you consider yourselves
co-counsel in this case?
Denise has already said as much as she
can possibly say about our involvement.
So, we really can't
address any more questions.
Okay. But just to clarify,
did you all write the arguments
at the center of this case?
So, again, we really can't
address anything having to do
with our involvement past what
Denise has already addressed.
Okay.
So, here is a quick PR rule of thumb:
stopping your client from answering
a question is a great way
of making them seem like the guiltiest
motherfucker on the planet.
Because a spokesperson doesn't
generally chime in like that
if the answer to a question is "no".
If someone asked me,
"Were you the one that suggested
the Honeycomb cereal monster"
"look like a clump of pubes
fucked Gary Busey?"
and a publicist jumped in to say,
"We can't address
John's involvement in that",
you'd be pretty confident that I was
the brains behind that bush.
But while they might not have wanted
to be seen as pulling the strings there,
the fact is, ADF's been incredibly
successful, as since 2011,
they've directly represented parties
in 15 victories at the Supreme Court
and claim that since their founding,
they've played roles in 77 victories,
from weakening the contraception
mandate in the Affordable Care Act,
to throwing out a law that provided a
protest buffer around abortion clinics.
So, they are way more powerful
than many are aware.
And they're using that power
for, I'll say it, bad!
According to a 2021
internal strategy document,
their goals included stopping
"efforts to elevate sexual orientation"
"and gender identity to protected-class
status in the law akin to race"
and working "to restore an understanding
of marriage, the family,"
"and sexuality
that reflects God's creative order."
And just to be clear: God has
no creative order, only creative chaos.
He didn't need to create the universe
and everything in it in just six days.
That is manic behavior.
He was clearly on coke.
That is the only explanation
for why we have things
like the pink fairy armadillo,
an animal that looks like a shrimp
tail 69-ing a dead chicken.
And when ADF's leaders
are talking among themselves,
they'll sometimes express amazement
at how well they've done.
My view was, I wanted ADF to be
bigger than the ACLU in every measure:
staff, funding, cases, impact,
and the fear we strike
in the hearts of our opponents.
- In a Christlike way.
- In a Christlike way, yeah.
Christian love, Christian love,
kill, kill, kill.
That is quite the sentiment!
Though I will admit,
"Christian Love, Kill, Kill, Kill"
would be a spectacularly good
metal band name.
And while that was
from eight years ago,
ADF's influence
has only grown since then,
even as they've somehow
managed to fly under the radar.
While everyone knows who, say,
the NRA are and what they stand for,
ADF has somehow avoided
that level of notoriety,
which has worked
very much in their favor.
So, given that, tonight,
let's look at the
Alliance Defending Freedom:
their history, their playbook,
and what they're targeting next.
And let's start with
how they came to be.
ADF was originally called
the Alliance Defense Fund,
and was launched in 1994 by prominent
evangelicals who decided to create
an endowment to pay for lawyers
who could take
on the ACLU and its ilk.
One of its key founders
was James Dobson,
a man who looks less like a real person
and more like AI's answer
to the question, "What did they
look like without their hoods?"
We've talked about Dobson before,
in our piece on Mike Pence.
He's the founder
of Focus on the Family,
and over the years,
he's, among other things,
discouraged interracial marriage, argued
one reason spanking children fails
is that
"the spanking may be too gentle"
and has warned that gay marriage is
a slippery slope that can lead to this.
How about group marriage?
Or marriage
between daddies and little girls?
How about marriage between
a man and his donkey?
Anything allegedly linked
to civil rights will be doable.
If I may quote James Dobson
every time he comes,
Jesus fucking Christ.
That is preposterous for many
reasons, but whenever bigots do that,
I kind of want them
to keep playing it out.
Wait, if gay people get married,
next thing, am I gonna have to go
to a wedding between
a man and his donkey?
What gift do I even get them?
They're registered
at Bloomingdales and PetSmart?
That's ridiculous!
And what if I show up late?
Do I have to sit on the bride's side?
It smells like shit over there!
And if they run out
of the human meal option,
what do I do then?
Eat a plate of hay?
Well, do I have to eat a plate of hay
with a fork? Let me get this straight:
you're gonna make me wear
a tuxedo, eat hay with a fork,
drink wine out of a trough,
and watch a father-donkey dance
all because we made gay marriage
legal?! No thank you very much!
Not on my watch!
To head the new organization, Dobson
turned to a man named Alan Sears,
who led the organization
from its founding to 2017,
and during his time there,
it argued for state laws
criminalizing gay sex,
and later against laws
that legalized gay marriage.
He also co-authored a book
called "The Homosexual Agenda",
which sadly isn't nearly as fun
as you want it to be.
In it, he described gay rights
as "the principal threat
to religious freedom,"
and wrote that gay activists
were engaging
in "a war of propaganda, just as Hitler
did so masterfully in Nazi Germany."
One spectacular review of the book
on Amazon said,
"Why are heterosexuals so obsessed
with homosexual sex?"
"I think heterosexual sex
is preposterous,"
"but I don't feel the need
to write a book about it."
"I just don't do it."
"Therefore, this book isn't gay enough
for my tastes, I'm afraid. Pity."
Which is just a perfect review.
"Your book sucks, you're obsessed
with me, be gayer."
That one-star review
gets five stars from me.
The point is, from ADF's outset,
attacking the rights and dignity
of gay people
was at the center of its work,
along with rolling back
access to abortion,
and giving Christians more leeway
to discriminate
against someone
who "offends their faith".
And those ideals have not changed,
even as the organization
has massively grown.
It now has more than 450 employees
in domestic and international offices,
as well as 5,000 network attorneys
who'll work on their behalf.
They also run a training program called
the Blackstone Legal Fellowship,
and a recent count found more
than 60 Blackstone alumni
were clerking on federal courts,
including 18 on appeals courts.
Fun fact: a frequent speaker
at that Blackstone fellowship
was Amy Coney Barrett, who was
paid to speak there five times,
and yet at her Supreme Court
confirmation hearing,
said that "nothing about
any of my interactions"
"with anyone involved
in the Blackstone program"
"were ever indicative
of any kind of discrimination"
"on the basis of anything."
Which I find
a little hard to believe,
given that at the time
she was lecturing there,
the program's recommended reading list
included "The Homosexual Agenda."
And I am not saying
that she read that book,
I'm just saying a roomful of people
who have are going to give you a vibe,
and it is not
"maybe see you at Pride."
And it's not just Coney Barrett
with ADF connections,
current Speaker of the House
Mike Johnson worked for them
for nearly a decade.
Here he is in 2005,
as their senior legal counsel,
appearing on Fox News to do
the critically important job
of defending
the right to "say Christmas",
before being bumped
for more pressing news stories.
We've seen a great backlash
against retailers
who have banned
the saying of "merry Christmas".
And certainly, more and more
Americans are realizing
how easy it is to stand up
against this improper censorship.
Many people are visiting our website
at Say-Christmas-dot-org,
and they're learning the facts,
learning what the law really says
and that's a big step in this.
Mike Johnson, senior attorney and
spokesman for Alliance Defense Fund,
thank you very much.
- Thank you, Judge.
- You're welcome.
Coming up,
an explosion hits a nuclear plant.
Those details in just a moment.
And penguins fight the holiday
weight gain, find out how they do it.
- Look at them go.
- So cute.
First, tough break, getting bumped
by an explosion at a nuclear plant,
but an even tougher break for
that explosion getting bumped
for a story about thick-ass penguins.
Which, by the way, aren't fighting
the "holiday" weight gain,
you fucking heathens,
they're fighting
the Christmas weight gain.
You heard Mike Johnson:
Say-Christmas-dot-org!
But it wasn't just "war on
Christmas" stuff,
while at ADF, Johnson also advocated
for the criminalization of gay sex,
and wrote op-eds saying things
like "homosexual relationships
are inherently unnatural"
and that if society
protects such relationships,
"polygamists, polyamorists,
pedophiles, and others"
"will be next in line
to claim equal protection."
So, that is
who they are at their core.
But how are they so successful
at getting things done?
One major way is through the sheer
volume of legislation they draft.
Last year alone, they worked
on over 100 bills in 24 states
and in Congress, of which 25
wound up being enacted into law.
And back when states were first
passing so-called "bathroom bills"
restricting trans people's access,
reporters noted many used language
strongly similar to model
legislation drafted by ADF,
with at least one state's law
being "a word-for-word copy."
The Dobbs case actually originated
with a Mississippi law
that was born out of a model bill
drafted by ADF.
It banned abortions
after 15 weeks,
a specific cutoff chosen because
they were trying to find
the number of weeks that might force
the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe.
Basically, the idea was to pass a law
that would then trigger a lawsuit
that would then get you
to the Supreme Court,
and everyone knew
that at the time,
to the point that even as Mississippi's
governor signed it, he said this.
We'll probably be sued here
in about a half hour.
That'll be fine with me!
Okay, first, everyone in that video
looks like they've made
someone's shift at the Cheesecake
Factory a living hell.
But second, of course
he is fine with being sued.
That's one of the things Governor
Phil Bryant's most comfortable with,
alongside reportedly helping
Brett Favre secure welfare funding
for a new volleyball stadium,
at the university
where Favre's daughter played.
Bryant will tell you that is a complete
misrepresentation of what happened.
In fact, he cares so much
that this be corrected
that he's sued Mississippi Today and
Sports Illustrated for writing about it
and he definitely won't like
that I just repeated it here.
To which I would say, we'll probably
be sued here in half an hour,
and that'll be fine with me!
But the larger point is,
ADF had a strategy from start
to finish for Dobbs, and it worked.
And the final key component
of the group's success
is selling their desired outcome
to the general public,
which often involves foregrounding
sympathetic individuals
whose liberty
they present as being violated.
ADF goes out of its way to craft
wholesome-sounding stories
that present their side
as the victims.
Here's Kristen Waggoner,
spelling it out.
We need to win back culture.
And I would say, we need you to engage,
to tell the stories in a winsome way,
accurate, but winsome.
Be a storyteller
and tell the narrative,
because we win
when the truth gets out.
Right, it wants its stories to be told
in a "winsome way"
which means portraying themselves
as advocates for upstanding Americans
whose individual liberties
have been trampled on
not, ideally, a bunch of lawyers
in a conference room saying,
"Christian love, kill, kill, kill."
But hearing,
"We win when the truth gets out,"
is a little hard to take,
given ADF's relationship to the truth
can be shaky at best.
For instance, a few years back,
they pushed for a ban
on trans athletes in youth sports
in Arizona.
A key part of that push
was this testimony from a teenage girl,
named Grace,
about what had happened to her team
at her state softball tournament.
We stepped onto the field motivated
to go in and play our hardest
and to display
how hard we'd trained.
But that spirit of determination
was quickly dampened
with one of confusion and doubt when
we discovered that our opponents
were fielding a biological male
who identified as a female.
Our entire team's focus and motivation
was affected as we grappled
with the impact of this new player.
Sure enough, our opposing team won.
The boy gave them an edge both
physically and mentally
that we couldn't match.
I had heard stories like this happening
to other girls in other states,
but I never expected
it would happen at my school.
Well, I've got great news for you:
it didn't!
It didn't happen at your school at all.
Because it turned out,
there was no trans girl
on the opposing team.
That team's coach even told us,
they "thought she was trans because
she had short hair and was good."
And while Grace's team did lose,
they also lost 16 to six,
an ass-whooping so bad no one
player could be responsible for it.
And on top of all that, Grace isn't
just any old high schooler,
it turns out, she's actually
the daughter of Kristen Waggoner.
She's basically the ultimate
transphobic nepo baby.
Or, to put it more winsomely,
transphobic person
of nepotistic descent.
But it's not just anecdotes.
When pushing anti-trans bills,
ADF's loudly cited eye-catching
studies and research.
When one Georgia county was debating
whether to allow trans students
to use the bathroom of their choice,
an ADF member addressed
the Board of Education there,
and told them that science showed,
for the vast majority of trans kids,
it was actually just a phase.
The American College of Pediatricians
just put out an article
stating that if children will
get through puberty,
98% of boys will return
to their biological sex.
98%, when they make it
through puberty,
will go back to their biological sex and
this gender confusion will be cured.
That is a shocking statistic,
almost as shocking as hearing
that 79% of sea turtles
have insomnia,
45% of Americans feel sexual pleasure
when their belly button is touched,
and 98% of celebrities who go through
the Jennifer Hudson spirit tunnel
report "loving their experience".
It turns out, it's easy to be shocking
when you're spewing total bullshit.
Because while the American
College of Pediatricians sounds
like a prestigious organization,
that's because their name sounds
like the American Academy
of Pediatrics.
That is the group that makes
recommendations for policy
based on the vast expertise
of its 67,000 members.
This one, however, is a tiny group
founded in 2002
by conservative physicians
opposed to same-sex adoption,
and who've since provided ADF
with custom-made talking points
on trans issues.
And it's worth knowing,
researchers and doctors
have repeatedly called this group
out for misrepresenting data.
For example,
if you trace that 98% figure
all the way back to its source,
you'll find it comes from this 1987 book
with a striking title that,
as a Yale pediatrician told us,
was actually about a study
of a small group of boys
who were viewed as mentally ill
and subject to conversion tactics
"because they weren't
stereotypically masculine."
So, it wasn't in any way
the comprehensive study of trans kids
that guy just claimed,
it honestly sounds more
like an institutionalized attempt
to make a few dozen boys in the '80s
feel bad about whatever they felt during
the volleyball scene in "Top Gun."
But maybe the best way
to see ADF's game plan
is to look at their attempts to weaken
laws banning discrimination
against gay and trans people.
They've taken multiple runs
at this in the Supreme Court.
Their first attempt
came a decade ago,
in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case,
you may remember it.
It concerned Jack Phillips,
who refused to create a wedding cake
for a gay couple.
His refusal violated Colorado's
anti-discrimination law.
And he did media appearance
after media appearance,
usually with Waggoner right by his
side, telling the story
of how this was really fundamentally
a matter of cake principles.
Well, first of all, I'd like to say
that I serve everybody
who comes into my store,
including David and Charlie.
People of all walks of life
are always welcome in my store.
It's just that there are certain
messages that I don't create.
I don't produce cakes for Halloween.
That would promote sexual things
or anti-American things,
things that would disparage
other people,
including customers
that identify as LGBT.
Has anybody asked you for
a cake that would disparage LGBT?
Yes, they have.
Really? People want cakes that
discriminate against gay people?
Yeah, I had a few of those
and I've turned those down as well
because it's a message
that I can't create.
Okay, first, sure that happened.
But second,
I do wish that Megyn Kelly, sorry about
the jump scare there, by the way,
had actually just let him keep
describing his other cake rules:
no Halloween cakes, no gay cakes,
no unicorn cakes 'cause horn too penis,
no Harry Potter cakes
'cause witches,
but yes to J.K. Rowling
cakes for all other reasons,
and no Sesame Street cakes,
because of what we can all see
with our own two eyes.
ADF argued that Phillips
wasn't denying service,
just declining to promote
the message of same-sex marriage.
Which is ridiculous on its face,
but especially because,
according to a state investigation,
his business had actually turned down
approximately six same-sex couples,
including a lesbian couple
that just wanted to purchase cupcakes
for their family commitment ceremony.
When one of those women called back
and claimed to be a dog breeder,
and stated she planned
to host a dog wedding
between one of her dogs
and a neighbor's dog,
Phillips apparently did not object.
What is more, when a different
lesbian couple spoke to him,
to discuss why he wouldn't create a
cake for their commitment ceremony,
he told them "he is not willing
to make a cake"
"for a same-sex
commitment ceremony,"
"just as he would not be willing
to make a pedophile cake."
And while it is not remotely the point,
what would a pedophile cake even be?
Legally, I'm apparently not allowed
to say it's a giant wooden cake
that Drake jumps out of.
So, I'm not gonna say that.
I'm just saying, it's a weird thing
to bring up in the first place.
Now, Phillips' case
was heard at the Supreme Court,
but its ruling was narrow, and didn't
offer ADF a clear precedent
that Christian business owners
who offered an artistic product
could deny services
to LGBT couples.
So, they took another swing
at the issue, with a similar case,
this time involving a Colorado
website designer, Lorie Smith,
who refused to make
wedding sites for gay couples.
The state of Colorado is forcing me
to create custom, unique artwork,
expression communicating and
celebrating a different view of marriage
that goes against
my deeply held beliefs.
She wants the Supreme Court to rule
that she does not have to comply
with a Colorado law that prohibits
businesses from discriminating
against same-sex couples.
Her lawyer contends it comes down
to Lorie's role as a creator
and free speech.
It's about whether the government
can use the power of law
to force Americans to say things
that they don't believe.
Yeah, it's not about gay marriage,
it's about forcing Americans
to say things they don't believe,
which is pretty fucking rich,
coming from the same people who
brought you Say-Christmas-dot-org.
Say it! You have to say it!
Smith's was just one of several cases
ADF brought all over the country,
possibly trying to trigger
a so-called "circuit split",
where you bring cases
in multiple districts,
hoping to get divergent rulings,
which then increases the chances
of the Supreme Court stepping in.
That's what happened here.
ADF filed cases involving
a photographer from Kentucky,
videographers from Minnesota,
and a pair of Arizona artists
who created stationery.
And Lorie Smith's case ultimately
wound up in the Supreme Court.
Which is when reporters started
noticing weird things about it.
Like the fact that it was built
on a hypothetical.
As ADF's legal filings stated,
Smith was not at that time
in the wedding industry
but just wanted to make sure
that if she entered it,
she'd be able to legally turn
down same-sex couples.
In fact,
at the time the suit was filed,
she'd had no requests from
same-sex couples to design a site.
She did later claim she'd received
an inquiry, which, oddly,
arrived the day after her suit
was originally filed.
That request was apparently from
someone named Stewart,
who'd contacted her
about building a website for
his wedding to a man named Mike.
But it turned out, he was
actually a straight man who,
at the time the request was sent,
had been married to a woman
for nearly a decade
and has since sworn he'd never
requested anything from Lorie Smith.
And why would he?
Because even if he was secretly
engaged to someone else,
which he wasn't, and chose to break
the news of that secret engagement
with the creation of an artistic
website, which he wouldn't,
at the very least
he'd probably choose to go
with a wedding website design
business that already existed.
But if we're being really honest,
he wouldn't do that either,
because he was, and this is true,
a fucking website designer!
And what a phone call that must
have been for him to receive!
"Guess what, buddy? Some lady
said you're getting gay married,"
"and now the Supreme Court is
involved. You need to call your wife!"
But it doesn't stop there,
as other cases in that flurry
of lawsuits were similarly wobbly.
'Cause while ADF insists,
"our clients are real people"
"who had or still have real businesses
with actual operations"
"in the wedding industry
or real plans to enter it",
the Washington Post found
that two of three vendors cited
in ADF's petition to the Supreme
Court stopped working on weddings.
One had moved away from where
the case was filed in Louisville,
but ADF claimed she'd still
be willing to take work there,
despite it being
600 miles from her home.
Not only that, ADF had also had a hand
in formally establishing companies
for some of its clients,
with lawyers associated with the group
signing incorporation paperwork
and helping draft company policies,
in one instance only a month before
a lawsuit was filed.
But none of that mattered.
Because when Lorie Smith's case
went in front of the Supreme Court,
she won a much broader ruling than
ADF had with the cake shop.
And as Justice Sotomayor
wrote in her dissent,
it was a decision that for the first
time in the Court's history,
"grants a business open
to the public a constitutional right"
"to refuse to serve
members of a protected class."
And yet,
throughout all these lawsuits,
ADF insisted it was just
sticking up for the little guy.
But for all its careful,
winsome positioning,
it is worth remembering:
this is a group that, in 2003,
filed a brief with the Supreme Court
urging them to uphold
state bans on sodomy,
and has sought to uphold bans
on gay sex in India and Belize,
which still fights
for faith-based adoption agencies
that refuse to serve same-sex couples
to get public funding,
and that now is fighting to overturn
bans on conversion therapy.
And however measured
their public remarks may be,
it is worth listening to what they
can sound like behind closed doors,
like in this speech from 2020, to
students at their Blackstone fellowship.
An ADF lawyer introduced
a guest lecturer
to help with what he called
the "theme of the day",
which was "how to talk about certain
issues that are awkward"
"and yet do so winsomely."
She read from a homophobic treatise
and then offered her own commentary.
Dr. Robert Riley helpfully explains
this view of the human body
in a reflection on the different
organs and their limitations.
Male genital organs are perfectly
matched for female genitals.
They are a perfect biological fit.
By contrast,
the anus is solely an excretory organ.
It's an exit, not an entrance.
It is designed to eliminate
fecal matter.
When it is used
in homosexual intercourse
as a stand-in for the female vagina,
it is being subjected to an activity
for which it is clearly not designed.
And one of the indications of this
is the physical harm that it brings.
End of quote.
Many people still share this
understanding of the human body
and wish to see it
upheld as the ideal.
Not only is that incredibly dark,
old-timey homophobia,
"Male genital organs are a perfect
biological fit for female genitals?"
I think there are plenty of women
who might say, "Perfect fit?"
I don't want to be mean, but there
is literally room for improvement.
The point is, despite what it says,
each case ADF brings is in
service of their larger worldview,
one where abortion and the rights
of gays and trans people
are a thing of the past.
And they're gonna keep
chipping away at those rights,
all while cheerily telling you they're
doing so in the service of freedom.
Even that charter school case
the Supreme Court is about to rule on,
the one nominally about
charter school funding,
may well have a larger endgame.
Because while that school insists
it "will not deny admission"
"to any students on the basis
of sexual orientation,"
"gender identity or gender expression,"
it also has policies like,
"On all matters, the school will
interact with students, faculty,"
"and staff according to their
biological sex."
And allowing taxpayer funds
to go directly to a school
with policies like that feels
like we're moving another step closer
to ADF's ultimate goal of eliminating
LGBTQ Americans' status
as protected class citizens.
So, what can we do?
Well, unfortunately,
given the current state of the courts,
a lot of this is out of our hands now.
But I do think at the very least,
there's value in everyone knowing
exactly what we are dealing with here.
Because at least with the NRA,
you understand what its end game is,
as they'll happily tell you
right to your face.
It's for a gun to be elected to
Congress, that's what they want.
ADF, though,
is something different.
It's worked extremely hard
to put a misleadingly friendly face
on what is
an utterly hateful ideology.
And it benefits immensely
from people not knowing
just how poisonous
and disingenuous it is.
But for the record:
this is a group that will talk
winsomely about personal liberty,
all while fearmongering about softball
players that don't exist,
shitty studies that don't apply,
and pedophile cakes
that no one will ever order.
And it might actually be important
for everyone to know
that at the end of the day,
ADF, at its core,
is a lot like the pews
at its imaginary donkey wedding,
which is to say, absolutely
full of shit. And now, this.
And Now: More Delightfully
Bizarre Musings
from Phillies Color Commentator
John Kruk.
When do you think they're gonna
upgrade the umpire's attire?
Like, their pants. They're pleated?
That went out, like, 30 years ago.
That's an excellent point,
that pleats did go out.
Yeah, pleats are out.
Yeah, he's looking at them.
He's saying, "You know what,
John? You're right."
"These do look like crap."
Had a nice conversation with Nick
on the bus last night.
Was it about RBIs?
It was not about anything related
to baseball, Tom.
- We were discussing colonoscopies.
- Interesting.
Wait, who did you watch
the game with?
- Ruell Hollis Martin.
- Ruell Hollis Martin.
Great shortstop
drafted by the Dodgers.
And he had a farming incident
where he cut off part of his finger.
I'm going to talk to this kid.
I ain't got nothing else to do.
See if you can scare him.
Malachi with the call.
You know, I love that name.
It's a good name.
When you and I have a child together,
we should name him Malachi.
That's a good shot there.
- I said that out loud.
- I don't care what he eats.
Did you tell him that?
Since he's a Mets fan,
I hope he chokes a little bit.
One and one.
But since he's your son,
I hope it's not fatal.
- Thank you, John.
- You're welcome.
That's our show, thanks so much
for watching. We'll see you next week.
Good night!
I'm John Oliver, thank you so much for
joining us. It has been a busy week!
Xi Jinping met with Vladimir Putin,
Trump named the world's meanest drunk
aunt as interim U.S. attorney for D.C.,
and of course, this happened.
From the Vatican,
a wholly unexpected announcement.
We have a pope, an American pope.
Pope Leo XIV from Chicago.
The best headline came
from his hometown of Chicago,
in true Chicago style, "Da Pope".
Yeah, we got a Chicago pope!
Cardinal Robert Prevost
is now Pope Leo XIV.
And Chicagoans spent the week
excitedly speculating
about the little Chicago touches
he's gonna bring to the papacy,
from the body of Christ being
a Portillo's gravy bread,
to the official stance
of the church becoming
"no ketchup on hot dogs, but if
the kids want it, that's all right,"
to the hundreds of jokes
about Malort being the new
sacramental wine at communion.
And if you're not from Chicago,
and you're thinking, "What is Malort?"
just know, it's not so much a drink
as it is a city-wide hazing ritual.
It's a liquor with the taste, smell,
and general vibe
of something a Batman villain
would spike the water supply with.
And incredibly, the odds are,
Pope Bob here has actually tried it.
But we're gonna focus on
the president's ongoing trade war.
Last week, Trump got a lot of attention
when he seemed to try
and prepare Americans
for economic pain by saying this.
Maybe the children will have two
dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know,
and maybe the two dolls will cost
a couple of bucks more
than they would normally.
What a very weird thing to say.
And it's just another snapshot
in the chaos album that is
Trump having anything to do
with children.
Because you can now put "kids'll
have two dolls instead of 30"
right up there
with the lawn boy scream
and that time he asked a kid
if she believed in Santa Claus
because, quote,
"at seven it's marginal, right?"
And when pressed on his comments
a few days later, Trump doubled down.
You said, quote,
I'm going to quote what you said,
"Maybe the children will have
two dolls instead of 30 dolls."
"And maybe the two dolls will cost
a couple of bucks more than normally."
I don't think a beautiful baby girl
needs, that's 11 years old,
needs to have 30 dolls. I think they
can have three dolls or four dolls.
Okay, there is so much there.
"A beautiful baby girl
that's 11 years old?"
Don't call an 11-year-old that.
First, it's creepy, and second,
I promise: you call
an 11-year-old girl a baby?
She'll fucking kill you.
But also, to think the prime age
for playing with dolls is 11
is almost impressively wrong.
Everyone knows, the breakdown
of what people play with by age goes:
blocks from ages one to three,
dolls from ages three to seven,
and our phones
from ages eight until we die.
And then, incredibly, on
Air Force One, he tripled down.
All I'm saying is that a young
lady, a 10-year-old girl,
nine-year-old girl, 15-year-old
girl, doesn't need 37 dolls.
She could be very happy
with two or three or four or five.
Every single way this man
refers to girls
makes my skin
want to turn inside out.
That said, I did also want
to see him keep going there,
just to see how many variations
of ages and numbers
he could cycle through.
"All I'm saying is, a young lady,
10-year-old girl, nine-year-old girl,"
"15-year-old girl, 45-year-old
girl that's still young at heart,"
"doesn't need 37 dolls. She could be
very happy with two or three"
"or four or six or eight.
But also nine."
"And in its own way, 10. 10 dolls,
she could be happy with, couldn't she?"
"Or maybe 11,
we can't rule out 11 dolls."
"Or 12.
12's a good number, isn't it, folks?"
"12 apostles. 12 days of Christmas.
12 Angry Men. Henry Fonda, great guy."
"The other men? Very angry.
Very angry men."
That's who we've gotta get out of this
country that's coming over illegally."
"Or you know what?
13 dolls, that's my final offer."
So, now it appears he thinks that
15-year-old girls play with dolls.
Has he ever met a 15-year-old girl?
That's a dumb question,
of course he has,
he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
But the thing is,
Trump's actually right
that toys are about
to get more expensive.
Mattel, the maker of Barbie,
has already said
that it "plans to raise prices
on American toys due to tariffs",
and when Trump was asked
about Mattel's CEO claiming
toy manufacturing won't come
to America, but price hikes will,
he had a pretty odd response.
If Mattel, I don't know if some,
I'm not so sure they also said,
they're the only country I've heard,
they said,
"Well we're going to go counter. We're
going to try going someplace else."
That's okay, let him go, and
we'll put a 100% tariff on his toys,
and he won't sell
one toy in the United States,
and that's their biggest market.
Okay. Set aside that, within the space
of a single human sentence,
Mattel switched from being
a company to a country to a guy,
it seems Trump's about
to go to war with them,
so you know what this means, kids:
sticks are about to make a comeback.
The stick! Throw it, catch it,
set it on fire, just look at it.
The stick's the only toy
you'll ever need!
Which is lucky, because it's also
the only one you'll ever have.
And look, on some level, it makes
sense that Trump is framing this
around dolls, things that
he can pretend are frivolous.
But the fact is, exports to the U.S.
have already begun to slow,
and that'll soon be felt, in the form
of higher prices on lots of things.
So, if you're wondering,
"Is Trump's stupid trade war
about to hurt a lot of people?"
Well, is the Pope Catholic,
and now also some guy
named Bob from Chicago?
The answer is obviously yes.
And now, this.
And Now: Brian Kilmeade Played
with Dolls, and That's Okay.
It's a crew neck,
it's like a crew neck for guys.
I had one on my G.I. Joe,
you snap it around his neck,
it's when it was a little red thing.
Like an ascot.
For a while, it was like,
"Why is Brian playing with dolls?"
It's a G.I. Joe. It's different.
My dad was a little uncomfortable
with me playing with what
he used to call dolls.
And I'm like, "Listen, they're men."
- I love anything G.I. Joe!
- Here we go!
Kung-Fu Grip, Eagle Eye,
it all works.
I remember playing with the G.I. Joes.
Both Eagle Eye and the Kung-Fu Grip.
The only adult toy
that you need is Eagle Eye G.I. Joe.
- Ken was confusing for my generation.
- It was confusing?
Should we play with Ken?
Should we put him with the G.I. Joes?
I tried to get Ken into the G.I. Joe
collection as a kid.
Wait, you had a G.I. Joe,
but you wanted a Ken?
You had a Ken Barbie.
I convinced
my parents to get it for me,
because I thought
I could make a man of him.
I remember borrowing
Ken and putting him with my G.I. Joes,
it was the best move ever.
Ken has never been happier.
But a lot of people
in the previous generation goes,
"He's playing with dolls."
I'm like, "No, this is G.I. Joe."
- Poseable action figure.
- Exactly. Got real hair.
Eagle Eyes, Kung-Fu Grip,
everything you needed.
- There was He-Man too, remember?
- Nope.
Moving on. Our main story tonight
concerns politics and religion.
The top two answers to
the "Family Feud" question,
"Name a reason why you don't
talk to your dad anymore."
Number one: politics.
Number two: religion.
And number three: we talk
but do we really talk, ya know?
I know that, to put it mildly,
there has been a lot going on recently,
so it's understandable if
you missed it, but last week,
a case concerning politics and religion
was argued before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court just heard
arguments in a potentially landmark case
that could open the door to publicly
funded religious charter schools.
At the center,
St. Isidore of Seville,
a proposed Catholic virtual
charter school in Oklahoma
planned and operated
by the local archdiocese.
The school wants to teach Catholic
doctrine while receiving state money,
something never before
allowed in the charter system.
Yeah, an online school, St. Isidore,
is fighting for the right to operate
as the first religious
charter school in the country.
Which is striking
for a number of reasons,
not least that this is how I'm learning
that Saint Isidore is often referred to
as "the patron saint of the internet."
Which just feels wrong.
I thought patron saints only
represented timeless things
like the arts, or orphans,
not the medium that is now
mostly AI slop videos of countries
as presidents' twins.
I don't know exactly what saints
should be watching over,
but that feels like a real waste
of their time.
The school refers to itself as
"a ministry of the Catholic Church"
and many worry that if it's allowed
to directly receive public funding,
it'll be yet another step on
the slippery slope of breaking down
the Establishment Clause
separating church and state.
Now, the Supreme Court isn't likely
to rule on this until next month.
But I actually want to talk less
about this school in particular,
and more about the key group
behind this case,
the Alliance Defending Freedom
or ADF.
Even if you don't recognize
their name,
you'll definitely be aware
of their work.
Because ADF bills itself as
"the world's largest legal organization"
"advancing every person's God-given
right to live and speak the truth."
And in this promotional video
celebrating their 25th anniversary,
they lean in hard on the idea
that they are defenders
of rights and freedom.
For 25 years,
we've pursued this calling.
A commission to stand,
to defend, to persevere.
To be a voice for faith,
for freedom.
Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran
wins a victory for his state.
The U.S. Supreme Court today,
in one of the most closely
watched cases of the term,
Jack, this has been a long road
for you, you started back in 2012.
Religious freedom is a pre-political
right that rests securely
in our dignity as human beings.
It belongs to all of us.
Okay! Although I do have a bit
of an issue with the sentence,
"Religious freedom is a pre-political
right that rests securely"
"in our dignity as human beings."
Because I've listened
to that upwards of 50 times,
and I still have no idea what
the fuck she's talking about there.
It's the legal equivalent
of the actual headline
"Disney to Merge Hulu Live TV
with Fubo, Settling Venu Lawsuit."
All the words feel like
they're in the correct places,
but now I can't even understand
the ones that I thought I knew.
The woman who said that, Kristen
Waggoner, is ADF's current head
and if you're thinking that she looks
like someone who'd have an office filled
with Mickey and Minnie Mouse
memorabilia, you'd be dead wrong.
She used to have an office filled with
Mickey and Minnie Mouse memorabilia,
but got rid of it after Disney's recent
defense of LGBT rights
"ruined the beauty." So, I bet
you feel pretty stupid right now.
But as you've probably already guessed,
the "freedom" ADF fights for
is selective at best,
as, among other things,
they've argued for the Christian baker
who refused to make a cake
for a same-sex couple in Colorado,
orchestrated the attack
on the abortion drug mifepristone
heard by the Supreme Court last year
and were also behind the Dobbs case,
which overturned Roe v. Wade.
And when asked about
that last one,
they'll take credit for it,
but notably, only to a point.
So, what was ADF's role
in this Dobbs case?
We worked very closely with
Mississippi from the very beginning,
including we had a hand in crafting
the legislation of the 15-week bill,
coordinating, advising them
during the pendency of the litigation.
And then at the Supreme Court,
we have been, you know,
alongside them all the way, offering
just as much help as we possibly can.
Would you consider yourselves
co-counsel in this case?
Denise has already said as much as she
can possibly say about our involvement.
So, we really can't
address any more questions.
Okay. But just to clarify,
did you all write the arguments
at the center of this case?
So, again, we really can't
address anything having to do
with our involvement past what
Denise has already addressed.
Okay.
So, here is a quick PR rule of thumb:
stopping your client from answering
a question is a great way
of making them seem like the guiltiest
motherfucker on the planet.
Because a spokesperson doesn't
generally chime in like that
if the answer to a question is "no".
If someone asked me,
"Were you the one that suggested
the Honeycomb cereal monster"
"look like a clump of pubes
fucked Gary Busey?"
and a publicist jumped in to say,
"We can't address
John's involvement in that",
you'd be pretty confident that I was
the brains behind that bush.
But while they might not have wanted
to be seen as pulling the strings there,
the fact is, ADF's been incredibly
successful, as since 2011,
they've directly represented parties
in 15 victories at the Supreme Court
and claim that since their founding,
they've played roles in 77 victories,
from weakening the contraception
mandate in the Affordable Care Act,
to throwing out a law that provided a
protest buffer around abortion clinics.
So, they are way more powerful
than many are aware.
And they're using that power
for, I'll say it, bad!
According to a 2021
internal strategy document,
their goals included stopping
"efforts to elevate sexual orientation"
"and gender identity to protected-class
status in the law akin to race"
and working "to restore an understanding
of marriage, the family,"
"and sexuality
that reflects God's creative order."
And just to be clear: God has
no creative order, only creative chaos.
He didn't need to create the universe
and everything in it in just six days.
That is manic behavior.
He was clearly on coke.
That is the only explanation
for why we have things
like the pink fairy armadillo,
an animal that looks like a shrimp
tail 69-ing a dead chicken.
And when ADF's leaders
are talking among themselves,
they'll sometimes express amazement
at how well they've done.
My view was, I wanted ADF to be
bigger than the ACLU in every measure:
staff, funding, cases, impact,
and the fear we strike
in the hearts of our opponents.
- In a Christlike way.
- In a Christlike way, yeah.
Christian love, Christian love,
kill, kill, kill.
That is quite the sentiment!
Though I will admit,
"Christian Love, Kill, Kill, Kill"
would be a spectacularly good
metal band name.
And while that was
from eight years ago,
ADF's influence
has only grown since then,
even as they've somehow
managed to fly under the radar.
While everyone knows who, say,
the NRA are and what they stand for,
ADF has somehow avoided
that level of notoriety,
which has worked
very much in their favor.
So, given that, tonight,
let's look at the
Alliance Defending Freedom:
their history, their playbook,
and what they're targeting next.
And let's start with
how they came to be.
ADF was originally called
the Alliance Defense Fund,
and was launched in 1994 by prominent
evangelicals who decided to create
an endowment to pay for lawyers
who could take
on the ACLU and its ilk.
One of its key founders
was James Dobson,
a man who looks less like a real person
and more like AI's answer
to the question, "What did they
look like without their hoods?"
We've talked about Dobson before,
in our piece on Mike Pence.
He's the founder
of Focus on the Family,
and over the years,
he's, among other things,
discouraged interracial marriage, argued
one reason spanking children fails
is that
"the spanking may be too gentle"
and has warned that gay marriage is
a slippery slope that can lead to this.
How about group marriage?
Or marriage
between daddies and little girls?
How about marriage between
a man and his donkey?
Anything allegedly linked
to civil rights will be doable.
If I may quote James Dobson
every time he comes,
Jesus fucking Christ.
That is preposterous for many
reasons, but whenever bigots do that,
I kind of want them
to keep playing it out.
Wait, if gay people get married,
next thing, am I gonna have to go
to a wedding between
a man and his donkey?
What gift do I even get them?
They're registered
at Bloomingdales and PetSmart?
That's ridiculous!
And what if I show up late?
Do I have to sit on the bride's side?
It smells like shit over there!
And if they run out
of the human meal option,
what do I do then?
Eat a plate of hay?
Well, do I have to eat a plate of hay
with a fork? Let me get this straight:
you're gonna make me wear
a tuxedo, eat hay with a fork,
drink wine out of a trough,
and watch a father-donkey dance
all because we made gay marriage
legal?! No thank you very much!
Not on my watch!
To head the new organization, Dobson
turned to a man named Alan Sears,
who led the organization
from its founding to 2017,
and during his time there,
it argued for state laws
criminalizing gay sex,
and later against laws
that legalized gay marriage.
He also co-authored a book
called "The Homosexual Agenda",
which sadly isn't nearly as fun
as you want it to be.
In it, he described gay rights
as "the principal threat
to religious freedom,"
and wrote that gay activists
were engaging
in "a war of propaganda, just as Hitler
did so masterfully in Nazi Germany."
One spectacular review of the book
on Amazon said,
"Why are heterosexuals so obsessed
with homosexual sex?"
"I think heterosexual sex
is preposterous,"
"but I don't feel the need
to write a book about it."
"I just don't do it."
"Therefore, this book isn't gay enough
for my tastes, I'm afraid. Pity."
Which is just a perfect review.
"Your book sucks, you're obsessed
with me, be gayer."
That one-star review
gets five stars from me.
The point is, from ADF's outset,
attacking the rights and dignity
of gay people
was at the center of its work,
along with rolling back
access to abortion,
and giving Christians more leeway
to discriminate
against someone
who "offends their faith".
And those ideals have not changed,
even as the organization
has massively grown.
It now has more than 450 employees
in domestic and international offices,
as well as 5,000 network attorneys
who'll work on their behalf.
They also run a training program called
the Blackstone Legal Fellowship,
and a recent count found more
than 60 Blackstone alumni
were clerking on federal courts,
including 18 on appeals courts.
Fun fact: a frequent speaker
at that Blackstone fellowship
was Amy Coney Barrett, who was
paid to speak there five times,
and yet at her Supreme Court
confirmation hearing,
said that "nothing about
any of my interactions"
"with anyone involved
in the Blackstone program"
"were ever indicative
of any kind of discrimination"
"on the basis of anything."
Which I find
a little hard to believe,
given that at the time
she was lecturing there,
the program's recommended reading list
included "The Homosexual Agenda."
And I am not saying
that she read that book,
I'm just saying a roomful of people
who have are going to give you a vibe,
and it is not
"maybe see you at Pride."
And it's not just Coney Barrett
with ADF connections,
current Speaker of the House
Mike Johnson worked for them
for nearly a decade.
Here he is in 2005,
as their senior legal counsel,
appearing on Fox News to do
the critically important job
of defending
the right to "say Christmas",
before being bumped
for more pressing news stories.
We've seen a great backlash
against retailers
who have banned
the saying of "merry Christmas".
And certainly, more and more
Americans are realizing
how easy it is to stand up
against this improper censorship.
Many people are visiting our website
at Say-Christmas-dot-org,
and they're learning the facts,
learning what the law really says
and that's a big step in this.
Mike Johnson, senior attorney and
spokesman for Alliance Defense Fund,
thank you very much.
- Thank you, Judge.
- You're welcome.
Coming up,
an explosion hits a nuclear plant.
Those details in just a moment.
And penguins fight the holiday
weight gain, find out how they do it.
- Look at them go.
- So cute.
First, tough break, getting bumped
by an explosion at a nuclear plant,
but an even tougher break for
that explosion getting bumped
for a story about thick-ass penguins.
Which, by the way, aren't fighting
the "holiday" weight gain,
you fucking heathens,
they're fighting
the Christmas weight gain.
You heard Mike Johnson:
Say-Christmas-dot-org!
But it wasn't just "war on
Christmas" stuff,
while at ADF, Johnson also advocated
for the criminalization of gay sex,
and wrote op-eds saying things
like "homosexual relationships
are inherently unnatural"
and that if society
protects such relationships,
"polygamists, polyamorists,
pedophiles, and others"
"will be next in line
to claim equal protection."
So, that is
who they are at their core.
But how are they so successful
at getting things done?
One major way is through the sheer
volume of legislation they draft.
Last year alone, they worked
on over 100 bills in 24 states
and in Congress, of which 25
wound up being enacted into law.
And back when states were first
passing so-called "bathroom bills"
restricting trans people's access,
reporters noted many used language
strongly similar to model
legislation drafted by ADF,
with at least one state's law
being "a word-for-word copy."
The Dobbs case actually originated
with a Mississippi law
that was born out of a model bill
drafted by ADF.
It banned abortions
after 15 weeks,
a specific cutoff chosen because
they were trying to find
the number of weeks that might force
the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe.
Basically, the idea was to pass a law
that would then trigger a lawsuit
that would then get you
to the Supreme Court,
and everyone knew
that at the time,
to the point that even as Mississippi's
governor signed it, he said this.
We'll probably be sued here
in about a half hour.
That'll be fine with me!
Okay, first, everyone in that video
looks like they've made
someone's shift at the Cheesecake
Factory a living hell.
But second, of course
he is fine with being sued.
That's one of the things Governor
Phil Bryant's most comfortable with,
alongside reportedly helping
Brett Favre secure welfare funding
for a new volleyball stadium,
at the university
where Favre's daughter played.
Bryant will tell you that is a complete
misrepresentation of what happened.
In fact, he cares so much
that this be corrected
that he's sued Mississippi Today and
Sports Illustrated for writing about it
and he definitely won't like
that I just repeated it here.
To which I would say, we'll probably
be sued here in half an hour,
and that'll be fine with me!
But the larger point is,
ADF had a strategy from start
to finish for Dobbs, and it worked.
And the final key component
of the group's success
is selling their desired outcome
to the general public,
which often involves foregrounding
sympathetic individuals
whose liberty
they present as being violated.
ADF goes out of its way to craft
wholesome-sounding stories
that present their side
as the victims.
Here's Kristen Waggoner,
spelling it out.
We need to win back culture.
And I would say, we need you to engage,
to tell the stories in a winsome way,
accurate, but winsome.
Be a storyteller
and tell the narrative,
because we win
when the truth gets out.
Right, it wants its stories to be told
in a "winsome way"
which means portraying themselves
as advocates for upstanding Americans
whose individual liberties
have been trampled on
not, ideally, a bunch of lawyers
in a conference room saying,
"Christian love, kill, kill, kill."
But hearing,
"We win when the truth gets out,"
is a little hard to take,
given ADF's relationship to the truth
can be shaky at best.
For instance, a few years back,
they pushed for a ban
on trans athletes in youth sports
in Arizona.
A key part of that push
was this testimony from a teenage girl,
named Grace,
about what had happened to her team
at her state softball tournament.
We stepped onto the field motivated
to go in and play our hardest
and to display
how hard we'd trained.
But that spirit of determination
was quickly dampened
with one of confusion and doubt when
we discovered that our opponents
were fielding a biological male
who identified as a female.
Our entire team's focus and motivation
was affected as we grappled
with the impact of this new player.
Sure enough, our opposing team won.
The boy gave them an edge both
physically and mentally
that we couldn't match.
I had heard stories like this happening
to other girls in other states,
but I never expected
it would happen at my school.
Well, I've got great news for you:
it didn't!
It didn't happen at your school at all.
Because it turned out,
there was no trans girl
on the opposing team.
That team's coach even told us,
they "thought she was trans because
she had short hair and was good."
And while Grace's team did lose,
they also lost 16 to six,
an ass-whooping so bad no one
player could be responsible for it.
And on top of all that, Grace isn't
just any old high schooler,
it turns out, she's actually
the daughter of Kristen Waggoner.
She's basically the ultimate
transphobic nepo baby.
Or, to put it more winsomely,
transphobic person
of nepotistic descent.
But it's not just anecdotes.
When pushing anti-trans bills,
ADF's loudly cited eye-catching
studies and research.
When one Georgia county was debating
whether to allow trans students
to use the bathroom of their choice,
an ADF member addressed
the Board of Education there,
and told them that science showed,
for the vast majority of trans kids,
it was actually just a phase.
The American College of Pediatricians
just put out an article
stating that if children will
get through puberty,
98% of boys will return
to their biological sex.
98%, when they make it
through puberty,
will go back to their biological sex and
this gender confusion will be cured.
That is a shocking statistic,
almost as shocking as hearing
that 79% of sea turtles
have insomnia,
45% of Americans feel sexual pleasure
when their belly button is touched,
and 98% of celebrities who go through
the Jennifer Hudson spirit tunnel
report "loving their experience".
It turns out, it's easy to be shocking
when you're spewing total bullshit.
Because while the American
College of Pediatricians sounds
like a prestigious organization,
that's because their name sounds
like the American Academy
of Pediatrics.
That is the group that makes
recommendations for policy
based on the vast expertise
of its 67,000 members.
This one, however, is a tiny group
founded in 2002
by conservative physicians
opposed to same-sex adoption,
and who've since provided ADF
with custom-made talking points
on trans issues.
And it's worth knowing,
researchers and doctors
have repeatedly called this group
out for misrepresenting data.
For example,
if you trace that 98% figure
all the way back to its source,
you'll find it comes from this 1987 book
with a striking title that,
as a Yale pediatrician told us,
was actually about a study
of a small group of boys
who were viewed as mentally ill
and subject to conversion tactics
"because they weren't
stereotypically masculine."
So, it wasn't in any way
the comprehensive study of trans kids
that guy just claimed,
it honestly sounds more
like an institutionalized attempt
to make a few dozen boys in the '80s
feel bad about whatever they felt during
the volleyball scene in "Top Gun."
But maybe the best way
to see ADF's game plan
is to look at their attempts to weaken
laws banning discrimination
against gay and trans people.
They've taken multiple runs
at this in the Supreme Court.
Their first attempt
came a decade ago,
in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case,
you may remember it.
It concerned Jack Phillips,
who refused to create a wedding cake
for a gay couple.
His refusal violated Colorado's
anti-discrimination law.
And he did media appearance
after media appearance,
usually with Waggoner right by his
side, telling the story
of how this was really fundamentally
a matter of cake principles.
Well, first of all, I'd like to say
that I serve everybody
who comes into my store,
including David and Charlie.
People of all walks of life
are always welcome in my store.
It's just that there are certain
messages that I don't create.
I don't produce cakes for Halloween.
That would promote sexual things
or anti-American things,
things that would disparage
other people,
including customers
that identify as LGBT.
Has anybody asked you for
a cake that would disparage LGBT?
Yes, they have.
Really? People want cakes that
discriminate against gay people?
Yeah, I had a few of those
and I've turned those down as well
because it's a message
that I can't create.
Okay, first, sure that happened.
But second,
I do wish that Megyn Kelly, sorry about
the jump scare there, by the way,
had actually just let him keep
describing his other cake rules:
no Halloween cakes, no gay cakes,
no unicorn cakes 'cause horn too penis,
no Harry Potter cakes
'cause witches,
but yes to J.K. Rowling
cakes for all other reasons,
and no Sesame Street cakes,
because of what we can all see
with our own two eyes.
ADF argued that Phillips
wasn't denying service,
just declining to promote
the message of same-sex marriage.
Which is ridiculous on its face,
but especially because,
according to a state investigation,
his business had actually turned down
approximately six same-sex couples,
including a lesbian couple
that just wanted to purchase cupcakes
for their family commitment ceremony.
When one of those women called back
and claimed to be a dog breeder,
and stated she planned
to host a dog wedding
between one of her dogs
and a neighbor's dog,
Phillips apparently did not object.
What is more, when a different
lesbian couple spoke to him,
to discuss why he wouldn't create a
cake for their commitment ceremony,
he told them "he is not willing
to make a cake"
"for a same-sex
commitment ceremony,"
"just as he would not be willing
to make a pedophile cake."
And while it is not remotely the point,
what would a pedophile cake even be?
Legally, I'm apparently not allowed
to say it's a giant wooden cake
that Drake jumps out of.
So, I'm not gonna say that.
I'm just saying, it's a weird thing
to bring up in the first place.
Now, Phillips' case
was heard at the Supreme Court,
but its ruling was narrow, and didn't
offer ADF a clear precedent
that Christian business owners
who offered an artistic product
could deny services
to LGBT couples.
So, they took another swing
at the issue, with a similar case,
this time involving a Colorado
website designer, Lorie Smith,
who refused to make
wedding sites for gay couples.
The state of Colorado is forcing me
to create custom, unique artwork,
expression communicating and
celebrating a different view of marriage
that goes against
my deeply held beliefs.
She wants the Supreme Court to rule
that she does not have to comply
with a Colorado law that prohibits
businesses from discriminating
against same-sex couples.
Her lawyer contends it comes down
to Lorie's role as a creator
and free speech.
It's about whether the government
can use the power of law
to force Americans to say things
that they don't believe.
Yeah, it's not about gay marriage,
it's about forcing Americans
to say things they don't believe,
which is pretty fucking rich,
coming from the same people who
brought you Say-Christmas-dot-org.
Say it! You have to say it!
Smith's was just one of several cases
ADF brought all over the country,
possibly trying to trigger
a so-called "circuit split",
where you bring cases
in multiple districts,
hoping to get divergent rulings,
which then increases the chances
of the Supreme Court stepping in.
That's what happened here.
ADF filed cases involving
a photographer from Kentucky,
videographers from Minnesota,
and a pair of Arizona artists
who created stationery.
And Lorie Smith's case ultimately
wound up in the Supreme Court.
Which is when reporters started
noticing weird things about it.
Like the fact that it was built
on a hypothetical.
As ADF's legal filings stated,
Smith was not at that time
in the wedding industry
but just wanted to make sure
that if she entered it,
she'd be able to legally turn
down same-sex couples.
In fact,
at the time the suit was filed,
she'd had no requests from
same-sex couples to design a site.
She did later claim she'd received
an inquiry, which, oddly,
arrived the day after her suit
was originally filed.
That request was apparently from
someone named Stewart,
who'd contacted her
about building a website for
his wedding to a man named Mike.
But it turned out, he was
actually a straight man who,
at the time the request was sent,
had been married to a woman
for nearly a decade
and has since sworn he'd never
requested anything from Lorie Smith.
And why would he?
Because even if he was secretly
engaged to someone else,
which he wasn't, and chose to break
the news of that secret engagement
with the creation of an artistic
website, which he wouldn't,
at the very least
he'd probably choose to go
with a wedding website design
business that already existed.
But if we're being really honest,
he wouldn't do that either,
because he was, and this is true,
a fucking website designer!
And what a phone call that must
have been for him to receive!
"Guess what, buddy? Some lady
said you're getting gay married,"
"and now the Supreme Court is
involved. You need to call your wife!"
But it doesn't stop there,
as other cases in that flurry
of lawsuits were similarly wobbly.
'Cause while ADF insists,
"our clients are real people"
"who had or still have real businesses
with actual operations"
"in the wedding industry
or real plans to enter it",
the Washington Post found
that two of three vendors cited
in ADF's petition to the Supreme
Court stopped working on weddings.
One had moved away from where
the case was filed in Louisville,
but ADF claimed she'd still
be willing to take work there,
despite it being
600 miles from her home.
Not only that, ADF had also had a hand
in formally establishing companies
for some of its clients,
with lawyers associated with the group
signing incorporation paperwork
and helping draft company policies,
in one instance only a month before
a lawsuit was filed.
But none of that mattered.
Because when Lorie Smith's case
went in front of the Supreme Court,
she won a much broader ruling than
ADF had with the cake shop.
And as Justice Sotomayor
wrote in her dissent,
it was a decision that for the first
time in the Court's history,
"grants a business open
to the public a constitutional right"
"to refuse to serve
members of a protected class."
And yet,
throughout all these lawsuits,
ADF insisted it was just
sticking up for the little guy.
But for all its careful,
winsome positioning,
it is worth remembering:
this is a group that, in 2003,
filed a brief with the Supreme Court
urging them to uphold
state bans on sodomy,
and has sought to uphold bans
on gay sex in India and Belize,
which still fights
for faith-based adoption agencies
that refuse to serve same-sex couples
to get public funding,
and that now is fighting to overturn
bans on conversion therapy.
And however measured
their public remarks may be,
it is worth listening to what they
can sound like behind closed doors,
like in this speech from 2020, to
students at their Blackstone fellowship.
An ADF lawyer introduced
a guest lecturer
to help with what he called
the "theme of the day",
which was "how to talk about certain
issues that are awkward"
"and yet do so winsomely."
She read from a homophobic treatise
and then offered her own commentary.
Dr. Robert Riley helpfully explains
this view of the human body
in a reflection on the different
organs and their limitations.
Male genital organs are perfectly
matched for female genitals.
They are a perfect biological fit.
By contrast,
the anus is solely an excretory organ.
It's an exit, not an entrance.
It is designed to eliminate
fecal matter.
When it is used
in homosexual intercourse
as a stand-in for the female vagina,
it is being subjected to an activity
for which it is clearly not designed.
And one of the indications of this
is the physical harm that it brings.
End of quote.
Many people still share this
understanding of the human body
and wish to see it
upheld as the ideal.
Not only is that incredibly dark,
old-timey homophobia,
"Male genital organs are a perfect
biological fit for female genitals?"
I think there are plenty of women
who might say, "Perfect fit?"
I don't want to be mean, but there
is literally room for improvement.
The point is, despite what it says,
each case ADF brings is in
service of their larger worldview,
one where abortion and the rights
of gays and trans people
are a thing of the past.
And they're gonna keep
chipping away at those rights,
all while cheerily telling you they're
doing so in the service of freedom.
Even that charter school case
the Supreme Court is about to rule on,
the one nominally about
charter school funding,
may well have a larger endgame.
Because while that school insists
it "will not deny admission"
"to any students on the basis
of sexual orientation,"
"gender identity or gender expression,"
it also has policies like,
"On all matters, the school will
interact with students, faculty,"
"and staff according to their
biological sex."
And allowing taxpayer funds
to go directly to a school
with policies like that feels
like we're moving another step closer
to ADF's ultimate goal of eliminating
LGBTQ Americans' status
as protected class citizens.
So, what can we do?
Well, unfortunately,
given the current state of the courts,
a lot of this is out of our hands now.
But I do think at the very least,
there's value in everyone knowing
exactly what we are dealing with here.
Because at least with the NRA,
you understand what its end game is,
as they'll happily tell you
right to your face.
It's for a gun to be elected to
Congress, that's what they want.
ADF, though,
is something different.
It's worked extremely hard
to put a misleadingly friendly face
on what is
an utterly hateful ideology.
And it benefits immensely
from people not knowing
just how poisonous
and disingenuous it is.
But for the record:
this is a group that will talk
winsomely about personal liberty,
all while fearmongering about softball
players that don't exist,
shitty studies that don't apply,
and pedophile cakes
that no one will ever order.
And it might actually be important
for everyone to know
that at the end of the day,
ADF, at its core,
is a lot like the pews
at its imaginary donkey wedding,
which is to say, absolutely
full of shit. And now, this.
And Now: More Delightfully
Bizarre Musings
from Phillies Color Commentator
John Kruk.
When do you think they're gonna
upgrade the umpire's attire?
Like, their pants. They're pleated?
That went out, like, 30 years ago.
That's an excellent point,
that pleats did go out.
Yeah, pleats are out.
Yeah, he's looking at them.
He's saying, "You know what,
John? You're right."
"These do look like crap."
Had a nice conversation with Nick
on the bus last night.
Was it about RBIs?
It was not about anything related
to baseball, Tom.
- We were discussing colonoscopies.
- Interesting.
Wait, who did you watch
the game with?
- Ruell Hollis Martin.
- Ruell Hollis Martin.
Great shortstop
drafted by the Dodgers.
And he had a farming incident
where he cut off part of his finger.
I'm going to talk to this kid.
I ain't got nothing else to do.
See if you can scare him.
Malachi with the call.
You know, I love that name.
It's a good name.
When you and I have a child together,
we should name him Malachi.
That's a good shot there.
- I said that out loud.
- I don't care what he eats.
Did you tell him that?
Since he's a Mets fan,
I hope he chokes a little bit.
One and one.
But since he's your son,
I hope it's not fatal.
- Thank you, John.
- You're welcome.
That's our show, thanks so much
for watching. We'll see you next week.
Good night!