To discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's major decisions this week, we turn to

the analysis of Brooks and K-Part, that's New York Times columnist David Brooks and

Jonathan K-Part, associate editor for The Washington Post.

With a welcome to you both, the Supreme Court has given us much to discuss on this Friday.

Let's start with the Supreme Court siding with a web designer in Colorado who said that

she had a first amendment right to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples, despite

a law in Colorado that forbids discrimination against gay people.

David, there are those on the right.

There are religious conservatives who are hailing this as a victory for religious liberty.

And there are others who say this ruling created a constitutional right to discriminate.

How do you see it?

Yeah, I don't have a quality, I'm not qualified to give it a legal opinion, I'm not a lawyer.

So I look at it as a good or bad for society.

And so in this case, you had the right for artistic expression against non-discrimination.

It was a contest between those two and the court chose free expression.

That strikes me just as someone who lives in American society as doing great harm to American

society.

It seems to me that idea that we do not discriminate in our businesses is just, that's

much more serious thing to break that than to restrict someone who's really running a business,

not just painting a painting, but is running a business.

And if that person who's running a business is allowed to discriminate, it seems to me

it's just a poison in our society.

...