couple that goes to before the decided to get married and wanted to get a wedding cake went to a baker in colorado and the baker because of his religious beliefs felt he could not with good conscience make the cake and the united states is written in because reef it actually has little storage on his on its cover page and they wrote in there when they started off their argument that this case involves two competing interests an individual's right to speak or remain silent in accord his or her conscience and the government's desire to comment discrimination in commercial transactions both interests are undeniably important and i think that's correct and i think that's one of the problems that judges have all the time i don't know what the correct answer is to that case it's very difficult you have two competing interests and you have to decide which interest is more important than the other justice alito referred to the problem when he had his confirmation hearing he said often there are conflicting freedoms and that makes the case difficult and so in that case with with the masterpiece kick shop you know is it more important that one person have his or her individual rights of religion upheld or is it more important that people don't get discriminated against on the basis of their sexual or your orientation or gender or race or anything else obviously important very difficult questions and i'm glad i don't have to make them but there's a corollary to justice alito statement that often there are conflicting freedoms and that is sometimes there's no conflict in freedom is just one freedom and that's what we have in this case here the only freedoms that we have a room might my client's be half there's no conflict in freedom you haven't heard one from the beginning of this case from the first establishment clause under the free exercise clause of the free speech closed under the equal protection clause and under the religious freedom restoration act and i think we should hear at least from their side at one point what is that what is it they're fighting for what are they trying to uphold we know what they're trying to uphold they're trying to uphold the idea that the majority can put their religious view out there as part and parcel of our government which is exactly what the establishment clause forbids which is start with the text we always say we start with the text let's get this in god we trust you can't have more religious words that's the national motto and we demand that it get imprinted on every coin in currency bill and i think a good way to think of this is to maybe use something else i mean i think if the issue of disenfranchising this country and i don't  know judges as well as the lay public but certainly if we make it something else another because one of the arguments is that it's our history and tradition that you know we have believed in god and atheists didn't really count for beings well we had the same thing with other groups for instance catholics our nation was founded on a on a hatred literal hatred of catholicism you know there's there's a million cases you know roger williams and william penn for instance there are heroes for religious liberty roger williams book of the the romish war and then the rom wolf and we had william penn who wrote a thirty seven page treatise on why catholicism is terrible when the when we were founded we had the the stamp that declaration of the stamp by congress talking about the free protestant colonies we had the declaration of the of the reserves we have this sheffield after declaration when the combat act was formed and was upheld by the parliament in in england the you see in the supreme court the only person who ever said that's unconstitutional is justice o'connor and when she said that she said no one join her right the court has never come up with that and if you look at it in the concurrence and by telly you have justice douglas saying we have all these aides to religion he gives seventeen federal aids to religion and he's in the he's just making a statement we have this right but when they went and looked at it two of those aides one of them was mandatory chapel in the service academies and one of them was bible reading in the district of columbia right when they looked at those individual things they turned out to be wrong if you look carefully at what they wrote they never say that it's ok they just say we have it yet we have at least no denying we have a question and there's also been an indication that it serves a secular purpose that  part of as you've described the national history i'm just i'm just trying to sort of understand how we how we as the court below the supremes would would would not be required or to at least consider that look at what just the blackman said throughout that opinion said government may not promote or affiliated itself with any religious doctrine i would choose that over this dictum about addictive he said that the establishment clause at the very least prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief it not appearing to take a question of religious belief when it says in god we trust knowing that we have people who don't trust in god and again i would go back to make will just change or a change and say we have to have five catholics and three jewish patients justices right now imagine what they would say instead it said in protestant christianity we trust you think that they would hold that is constitutional i think not their thinking in terms of you know what they have their say their lives were does not include atheists and i think they should do that just like they didn't do it  gradual was before a panel of of women would they say no you shouldn't be a lawyer not a chance if i were before a panel of atheist i would have to say a word right it's so clear so i don't think this supreme court has ever said was only one justice who ever said it definitively all they said is we have all these things and we have again in the concurrence in an angle vitally we have the supreme court doing that and finding out that that in fact when we look at the individual situations it's unconstitutional and i doubt that the supreme court knows about the beginning of this i mean we have the part of the the treasury department on its own and its own website it's been there at least fifteen years i just checked this morning it's still there it's says this was caused by brought about by increased religious sentiment the remitting it they go through the whole history how a minister of the gospel wrote so we've got to get god in our government but secretary of the treasury it says the trust of our people in god should be declared on our national front nothing about history nothing about this makes you feel goodness you know expresses confidence in a future or anything else which by the way is a very bigoted view atheists don't think that atheists don't don't find this to be you know encouraging the recognition of what's worthy of society etc we see the exact opposite my clients see that exact opposite and they're looking at it from the point of view of people who believe in god and they need to hear from an advocate to say wait a second you're not seeing everything here and when they don't have that opportunity and when they get briefed on this and they find out that the the director of the men said we claim to be a christian nation our is the principle that the first amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion and between religion and the religion between trust in god and not trust in god in mandates in trouble that's a principled statement which they've made in over forty cases you never see forty cases that have the same principle right they said you was a lower court you have a choice ok do i look at these dicta that mean nothing that have no briefing whatsoever on the issue that they simply refer to knowing that when they do refer to it as we saw in it will be vitally that in fact they can overturn no law respecting having anything to do with an establishment of religion and then we take a national model in god which is like a joke i mean what this is crazy and nobody has been able to get to the supreme court even make that argument and i think you need to oh how that what about your referral claim refer claim it's certainly you know you don't like to do constitutional issues i think we're clearly powerful on that one as well i don't think it's as powerful as the establishment clause and that's why i'm focusing there but if you want to go and stop it refer you certainly can the government is not allowed this is you can't substantially burden anyone's religious exercise right they said and one of the ways you can do that is you can't cause someone to forfeit their benefits there is a benefit to using the coins and currency in our society and my clients cannot do that without violating their religious beliefs and express for me simply what that that belief that religious belief is in using the currency you're carrying around around on their persons all the time and proselytizing as it is intended to do you haven't in the in the record there are multiple occasions where they said the reason we want in god we trust on the coins is so we can go behind the iron curtain so we can go to the world and tell the world we believe in god other you don't put go back to catholicism they believe you have in your in your pocket the words of john jay the first chief justice of the united states supreme court you know that catholics are you know the horror of roman several you carry that would you wear that i mean you know that that's a pretty offensive thing to do it's pretty offensive production it is to carry around this statement that they completely disagree with that not only that attributes to them but it's as in god we trust week clearly means the american people are they not american people they have to cooperate on saying this law i that i trust in god the thought that it think how direct that is and compare that to to hobby lobby where i mean it's this completely attenuated situation in the supreme courts and that's enough it bothers them they sincerely believe it position it's amazing that's what anti atheism does and imagine if it said in protestant christianity we trust you think we'd have five circuits saying no absolutely not they stunk care about atheist we are disenfranchised you have statistically have to sit at the to stick and twenty seven percent of the population doesn't think they should be able to vote i mean this is incredible we in the end the masterpiece cake shop you have the philip mr what's his name mark phillips whatever his name was he said jackals he says oh you know there's we don't brief and the world don't even know their rights go right over me atheists are so disenfranchised in this country every single study shows that and so you have these judges i mean how can you possibly say that in god we trust has nothing whatsoever to do with an establishment of religion  and it's again it's embarrassing if you find anything in those when i come back from a minute and fifty seconds of rebuttal if you can think of anything in any of those decisions that makes any sense that sounds reasonable please let me  good morning put me please the court and lo sturgill from the department of justice representing the federal defendants you believe the district court correctly dismissed each of the claims in place complaint begin with the establishment clause claim because that's where we began this morning as our brief explains in the supreme court and this court decisions have although you could consider addictive it's considered direct and we believe it's controlling and holding for reasons i'll explain but that the the motto on coins and currency linked it up to justice o'connor's endorsement tossed and said by the way this also is consistent with that indorsement principle and this court of the chambers versus marsh case made the same point and called the motto on coins and currency of permissible  ceremonial reference to religion very much like the opening in court today where the court cry was you know you've got it will save us all a court so if that's constitutional then again you know this court has said that the motto is similar that was the case is at least from the supreme court are relatively old i mean the most recent maybe late eighty's and since then we do have refresh i mean do you think that there's any reason that we should be reconsidering the way the court might consider this issue of religion whether it be an establishment clause or in the related refrig clan so i see nothing in the referee over the court cases that would cause the court to reconsider the establishment clause question itself no case of which i'm aware has questioned how lynch and county of allegheny and chambers from this court view the model one coins and court describe it in lynch so i think if you're looking first that was from clause for purposes for a concurrent modern statement of what the purpose is of the motto that's the best place to look and that's where the ninth circuit worked in the pledge case in from god and that's why people could you could feel confident about the fact that those rights would be inalienable and lend their support to the constitution mr newdow continues and leave it or the read any alternative to that that they could use and if so does that have any bearing on how a case like this should be decided we believe it does your honors our brief explains plaintiffs can use credit cards and debit cards and checks for almost all transactions except for those that are fairly trivial you know new bitcoins  seem to be holding this way all over the world and those are used basically for the same purpose and they are i'm not an expert on  court and there are the plaintiffs was unable to obtain unemployment compensation or that was what placed a substantial pressure on the person to give up their religious beliefs and we think that the specifically held that nobody is compelled to proselytize the national motto merely by carrying it on coins and currency so we think that is controlling because again in a riff or case you mentioned refer it's  daily if you're not a credit card user if you don't use it on a daily basis with something that you fundamentally disagree with why doesn't that at least reach some sort of threshold problem for someone who really case but the withholding in the case i think is controlling on the compulsion issue under refer again as you said under riff or of the court is not supposed to second guess the individual's identification of what their religion requires and what their belief is but there's a separate quorum and that is they have to show compulsion they have to show that the burden is pancho enough to count as a riff or a promise facia case and i think here what they're saying is we are compelled to proselytize religion because of the presence of the motto on coins and currency i think will lead expressly rejects that case i think as a matter of precedent you have a supreme court case if that does not amount to the level of compulsion that could create a free speech claim and you know by the same token it there's no sense in which it should be able to then provide a substantial burden to reform so that's that's our first argument our second one is that in cases the ling and bowen cases the supreme court  that was where the players were trying to tell the government what it could do with its own land government wanted to build a road on it and they said we don't just offends our religious police and it would preclude us from using the road but that the land of the road isn't supreme court said that that refer that there was a free exercise class so the free exercise clause the notion of free exercise of religion doesn't give anybody the right to demand that somebody else use their own land the way the religious the person who wanted them to and i think there's a parallel here because essentially what the plaintiffs want is for the government they want to be able to redesign coins and currency to meet their own religious needs and you know it's the government basically in the constitution that's in title two and themselves maintain that the motto on coins and currency constitutes government speech and there is no case of which i'm aware of which would say that referring the other statute gives anybody the right to countermand what would be a government speech and maybe maybe congress could levy a problem little bit by passing a law that says that all coin operated machine is going report that back to my clients and i think that that would certainly leave a problem but i think that under referee or and other the other claims the plaintiffs abroad there's no obligation on the government to do that because in order for example under refresh the government the plaintiff has to show with us a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion in order to trigger the government's obligation to show that it has a compelling interest so you really i think under referent ever get to that question because they can chosen to do that what if you get to the compelling government interest is there one yes the interest is first of all again the plaintiffs contend i think rightly that the motto is government speech and the supreme court of lynch and county of allegheny have rightly held that the motto is really the sui generis way that the government can express this notion that i've mentioned before that the supreme court itself in the shop case which the plaintiff like site if you if you take that as a compelling government interest what links it up to the to the currency so so if that is a compelling governmental interest to express this historical reliance on what you've describe why not put it on something that at an american citizen could honor or not by choice because the currency is something that we even though i know folks are using cards in credit cards more and more i  cash a lot of people do so how is that the compelling part right you know this seems like there's two point parts to that right that that that you've got this motto but why on the currency right so i think it has to do with the fact that currency is  it is ubiquitous and but it does represent something it's of official government statement it's it's it's used by people it's a it's a very if it's really uniquely effective way for the government to communicate that message because again because of currency is so prevalent so if you if the government really does have a controlling interest which we think it does in making this public statement and when it's themselves quote the meant about saying that  know so important to the government that we need soviets there are no soviets anymore but there were at the time of nine hundred fifty four into know what you know that we have a different form of government we have a form of government it's a democratic form based on any of our rights which they didn't have and that's based on this notion that the founders had that they you know they came from a god that those rights couldn't be taken away so even the place you would want to have that is on coins and currency which again is the fischel government coin congress is judgment about what the best way is to proclaim the basic notions that distinguish our form of government from other forms of government that's that's i think what the answer is the other motto just by carrying going to and currency but also if it's the plaintiffs are right and that we think they are in this respect that the motto is government speech while the free speech clause doesn't apply to government speech the pleasant valley vs someone case tells us that so the other claims are the free exercise clause in the protection clause and again those laws are but basically require government neutrality toward religion and we think the establishment clause holdings from lynch and county of allegheny and this court's decision and marsh take care of those claims as well because if you accept the notion which we think you should that the motto again is a shorthand way of referring to this democratic principle that i've laid out then that's a purely secular notion and so it's religiously neutral for purposes again of the free exercise and protection clauses i believe that's all i want to cover this morning be happy to answer your questions or ok minute and forty four seconds this is an official government statement in god we trust i think it was my case with the children can't use credit cards and checks so we still have children playing this year so that's i can take care of it compelling interest again i would substitute protestant christianity we trust would anyone ever say that's a compelling interest because our nation was founded on protestant christianity george washington and john adams signed the articles of association the free printer protestant colonies the government may not compel an unwilling speaker to join the group at odds with his religious or moral beliefs and the government may not compel the dissemination of its own preferred message that's a directly out of the brief and the masterpiece case method piece takes up case from the government  themselves the idea that will be expressed in the refutes coersion i don't know where they get that it's a completely different case delaney had in a government doing something that was not religious here they're making a motto in god we trust the idea that those two things somehow equate is some did not discuss the fact that there's an establishment clause violation yes it's government speech but government speech is not allowed to include references to religion not references endorsements of religion which is clearly we have here just the school is a government may not lead its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious dogma the greatest controversy over religious dogma is whether or not god exists and to tell claim the government is not lending its power to one of the other side that is absolutely absurd in a six seconds left if the government w satisfy i think government should stay out of the religion business but if they're going to get into it and they have to accommodate all views so if they had in god we trust and knowing god we trust and in atheism we trust in god is a mess then that would be fine but if we're going to take sides which government may not do the no that doesn't make it either this isn't even a close case i mean this is ridiculous we have these minimal statements by the supreme court and and clear enunciated principles time and time again we just talked about neutrality we have all the others  problems then you have to go out and find in short coins why don't we just get the government to stay out of the religion this is a not make and they claim that is completely contrary to the first ten words of the bill of rights that would solve it the best i think so very