>> SAME SEX WEDDINGS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

A SECRET DEAL FOR A NEW SENECA CASINO.

AND A BILL TO BAN HUNTING CONTESTS.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED AROUND THE TABLE THIS WEEK BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY, AND LUKE PERRY AND RICK FENNER, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

ON IVORY TOWER, THE PANEL'S BEEN DISCUSSING SOME BIG SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN RECENT WEEKS, AND WE HAVE ONE MORE TO DISSECT.

THE COURT DECIDED BY A 6-3 LINEUP, THAT A WHO DESIGN WEBSITES CAN REFUSE ON FREE SPEECH GUIDES.

DOES THIS OPEN THE DOOR TO OTHER BUSINESSES REFUSING SAME SEX COUPLES?

>> IT DOES BECAUSE IT PERMITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PROTECTED CLASS AND IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, NOT THE PRIVATE SPHERE, WHERE, AS A COLLECTIVE BODY POLITIC, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTQ+ NEXT TO IS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT.

AND I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM PERMITTING DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION CLAUSE PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FREE SPEECH PART, WHICH IS WHAT THE COURT GROUNDED THIS DECISION ON, AND ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE WEBSITE DESIGNER IN THIS CASE STATED THAT THAT WAS HER REASON, THAT HER CHRISTIAN VALUES WERE WHY SHE FELT THAT SHE COULD NOT CREATE A WEBSITE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES.

SO I THINK THERE IS A BIT OF A FIG LEAF SUGGESTING THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, BUT I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION.

AND I THINK JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR LAID OUT THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT SAYING IF IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION WHERE IT COMES TO LGBTQS, THERE COULD BE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED IN REGARD TO THE RIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS WHO MAY WANT TO HAVE A FAMILY, TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES, TO ALSO RETAIL STORES THAT MIGHT WANT TO LIMIT THEIR SERVICES TO TRADITIONAL FAMILIES.

>> BUT THEY BASED IT ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND EXPRESSION AND SPEECH.

SO IF YOU HAVE A STORE, FOR INSTANCE, WHO DON'T WANT TO SERVE SOMEONE IN A PROTECTED CLASS, DID YOU TELL US IT HAVE TO BE A SPEECH ISSUE?

>> BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

THEY MADE IT ABOUT FREE SPEECH, BUT THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE IT BEING BASED ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE FUTURE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

ALL OF THOSE ARE GENUINE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED BY THE COURT.

IT IS A VERY NARROW DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY SIX OUT OF THREE OF THEM, TALKING ABOUT, AND SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE RATHER THAN OFF THE SHELF PRODUCTS, WHICH IS MOST THINGS, IT'S THE CUSTOMIZED EXPRESSION OF HAVING TO COME UP WITH CREATIVELY SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF, THINK ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT YOU MAY NOT LIKE AND THE BELIEFS THAT THEY HOLD, BUT THEN HAVING TO COME UP WITH A SPEECH FOR THEM AS IF YOU ARE BACKING WHAT THEY SAY.

SO, YES, IT CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

I DO SEE THE ISSUES WITH IT AND SO DID THE COURT.

THEY STRUGGLED QUITE A BIT WITH THIS.

>> WE ARE ALSO SEEING THIS EXPANSION OF WHAT WE MEAN BY SPEECH.

BECAUSE YOU GO BY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS STRIKING HERE IS THAT COLORADO HAS A PRETTY CLEAR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW THAT NOW IS BEING SHOT DOWN TWICE.

FIRST WITH THE BAKER AND NOW WITH THE WEB DESIGNER.

AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE A LINK OF EXPRESSION AND CREATIVITY.

YOU KNOW, A WEDDING CAKE.

THEY'RE SAYING THEY WON'T PUT CONGRATULATIONS JOHN AND MIKE.

THAT'S NOT THEIR MESSAGE.

THAT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S MESSAGE BUT THEY'RE MAKING IT SOUND AS IF THEY'RE BEING FORCED TO SPEAK SOMETHING.

SAME THING WITH THE WEB DESIGNER, MUCH OF WHAT A WEB DESIGNER DOES IS VERY MECHANICAL AND COULD BE THOUGHT OF AS ONE OF MANY DIFFERENT SERVICES.

SO I'M REALLY AFRAID AT HOW THIS COULD QUICKLY LEAD TO A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES.

>> IT COULD BUT THEY ADDRESS THE MECHANICAL AND ADDRESS THE COMPONENT IS THAT WERE OFF THE SHELF PLUG AND PLAY.

>> THEY DID NOT DESIGN WHAT IS CREATIVE ENOUGH.

WHY IS A WEB DESIGNER WHO TAKES MY PICTURE AND PUTS THEM ON A WEBSITE, HOW IS THAT THEIR MESSAGE, THEIR VOICE, HOW IS THAT SPEECH OF THEIRS?

>> THE ACTIONS VERSUS WORDS HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES NOW, LITIGATED EXTENSIVELY.

>> LET'S GET LUKE IN ON THIS.

>> THE ORAL ARGUMENTS REALLY DELVE DEEP IN THE QUESTION WHETHER CREATIVE DESIGN IS FREE SPEECH.

THE COURT SAID IT WAS.

AS BEN POINTED OUT, ON THE SURFACE, THIS IS A NARROW RULING DEALING WITH A PARTICULAR TYPE OF BEHAVIOR, WHICH IS NOT PARTICULARLY COMMON, BUT TO NINA AND RICK'S POINTED, I THINK THE IMPLICATIONS CAN BE QUITE SIGNIFICANT.

WHEN THIS IS APPLIED TO OTHER FORMS OF POTENTIALLY CREATIVE EXPRESSION, AND TO OTHER PROTECTED GROUPS, RIGHT.

LET'S SAY THERE IS A LANDSCAPER WHO, FOR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, THINKS THAT A WOMAN'S ROLE IS AT HOME AND NOT IN THE WORKPLACE, SO SHE COULD HAVE CHILDREN AND RAISE THEM.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT LANDSCAPER CAN THEN DENY SERVICES TO ALL WOMEN WHO ARE WORKING AND NOT HIRE WOMEN?

POTENTIALLY YES, BASED ON THIS RULING.

>> BUT I WANT TO GET IN HERE AND I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RELIGIOUS THREAD BEHIND BOTH OF THE CASES THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED, ESPECIALLY TROUBLING IS THE DISINGENUOUSNESS ON THE PART OF THE COURT IN THAT IT WON'T STATE THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

THE MASTERPIECE CASE OF 2018 THAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT, RICK, THERE THE COURT RESTED ITS DECISION ON THE IDEA THAT THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION WAS HOSTILE TOWARDS RELIGIOUS VIEWS BUT THE END RESULT WAS TO PERMIT THE WEDDING CAKE DESIGNER TO DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS.

I'LL SAY AGAIN HERE, THAT THIS PETITIONER SAID THIS IS ABOUT MY RELIGIOUS VIEWS BUT THE COURT KEEPS PRETENDING THIS IS NOT WHAT IT IS.

AND THE POLITICAL IMPACT IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT; NOT ONLY BECAUSE YOU ARE BOLSTERING A CONSERVATIVE RIGHT THAT IS JUST GONE OFF THE RAILS IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE, AS A COLLECTIVE, WE HAVE DECIDED THIS IS WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY AS A SOCIETY AND THIS IS UNDERMINES THAT.

>> STRATEGIC, NO?

THE COURT DOESN'T WANT TO PIT FREEDOM OF RELIGION AGAINST ANTIDISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE.

>> WITHOUT DOING IT DIRECTLY.

TO MY MIND IT'S NOT ONLY DISINGENUOUS, IT'S DISHONEST.

>> THOSE SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST TO JUSTIFY OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING SEGREGATION.

>> THERE WAS A CASE IN MISSISSIPPI A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE A WEDDING PLANNER SAID THAT THEY WERE UNCOMFORTABLE DEALING WITH GAY AND LESBIAN WEDDINGS AND INTERRACIAL WEDDINGS, ALL RIGHT?

>> THAT'S PROTECTED.

WHAT THIS DEALT WITH SPECIFICALLY WAS PROTECTING SOMEBODY TO HAVE TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT WAS CUSTOM AND EXPRESSING SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I HEAR YOU, BEN.

MY MOM IS AN ARTIST.

MY DAD IS A MUSICIAN.

I THINK GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION IS PROBLEMATIC.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THAT TRANSLATES TO DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE AGAINST GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, IT'S SOCIALLY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT OF THE 1960s AND BEGINS TO UNRAVEL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT I THINK ARE SO IMPORTANT TODAY.

>> I THINK THE COURT ALWAYS, TO YOUR POINT, LUKE, ALWAYS HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHAT IS THIS CASE A CASE OF.

AND THE FACT THAT IT MADE IT ABOUT FREE SPEECH WAS NOT A GIVEN.

THAT WAS A CHOICE THAT THE COURT MADE IN ORDER TO EVADE, DANCE AROUND, BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME BOLSTER WHAT IS REALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.

>> THE DEADLINE IS APPROACHING FOR A NEW GAMBLING COMPACT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS ANY AGREEMENT THAT GIVES THE STATE A CUT OF GAMBLING REVENUES MUST BY LAW GIVE SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THE SENECAS.

AND THAT'S WHERE THINGS GET STICKY.

THE HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION SECRETLY AGREED TO A NEW SENECA CASINO IN THE ROCHESTER AREA, WITHOUT TALKING TO LOCAL OFFICIALS OR THE RELEVANT STATE LEGISLATORS.

THAT DEAL FELL APART ONCE WORD LEAKED.

WHAT SHOULD THE STATE AGREE TO IN A NEW COMPACT?

>> BEFORE WE DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE COMPACT, WE IT SHOULD BE DECIDED HOW IT SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED.

THIS IS WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION MESSED UP.

THEY FIRST REALIZED THERE WAS A CONFLICT BECAUSE GOVERNOR'S HUSBAND WORKS FOR DELAWARE NORTH, WHICH IS A COMPETITOR TO THE SENECAS, AND SO SHE RECUSED HERSELF, BUT NOT REALLY BECAUSE SHE PUT HER CHIEF OF STAFF IN CHARGE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.

THE FIRST THING I THINK IS THE NEGOTIATIONS NEED TO BE COMPLETED BY SOMEONE WHO IS INDEPENDENT.

THE REPUBLICANS SUGGESTED THE COMPTROLLER OF NEW YORK WHO IS INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED AND A DEMOCRAT AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

THE SECOND IDEA IS THE TRANSPARENCY ISSUE BECAUSE REALLY WHAT WAS VOTED ON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS, BUT SHE WAS CALLING FOR COMPLETE AUTHORITY TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SO THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE NEGOTIATIONS.

THE SENATE PASSED IT.

BUT THEN THE LEAK ABOUT THE CASINO IN ROCHESTER AND THEN THE ASSEMBLY, YOU KNOW, BROKE DOWN THE WHOLE... >> THE SENATE PASSED A BILL GIVING BLANKET AUTHORITY TO THE STATE WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT WAS IN IT.

AND THEN... >> I THINK ARGUMENTS COULD BE MADE THAT THERE IS ALREADY-- NEW YORK STATE DID A STUDY THAT SHOWED THAT THERE WAS SATURATION OF GAMBLING AND SO A FOURTH CASINO FOR THE SENECAS, ONE IN THE ROCHESTER AREA WOULD PROBABLY END UP CUTTING INTO EVERYONE'S PIE THERE.

>> LUKE.

>> I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING RICK, AND I EMPATHIZE WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO GREAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS WHEN THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE LINE AND SOMEHOW THE STATE AND THIS SEMI-SOVEREIGN NATION NEED TO DECIDE ON HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE SPLIT UP.

I THINK THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROACH IS THE STRUCTURE WE HAVE, WHERE YOU HAVE THE GOVERNOR WITH THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE BEING OVERSEEN BY THE LEGISLATURE.

SO I DON'T REALLY FAULT THE GOVERNOR FOR THAT.

I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, HAVING SERVED IN GOVERNMENT, THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ARE HARD, PARTICULARLY AT THIS LEVEL, WHICH IS REALLY HIGH STAKES AND LOTS OF MONEY.

SO I'M NOT TOO CRITICAL THERE.

I THINK THE SENECAS NEED TO HAVE A SMALLER CUT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE.

THEY HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE AROUND 20 TO 25% THAT GOES TO THE STATE AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT.

SO IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, LIKE MOST THINGS.

>> AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN A POLITICAL BACK BEHIND-THE-SCENES KIND OF THING I AND I THINK NOW WE ARE IN THE ING INFORMATION WHERE THE STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITIES IMPACTED DIRECTLY BY THIS SHOULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO IT BEING VOTED ON.

>> YEAH, THEY SHOULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS PRIOR TO IT BEING VOTED ON, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT JUST IMAGINE THAT IF ROCHESTER NEW YORK WAS GIVEN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITHOUT BEING INCLUDED ON THAT CONVERSATION, I REALLY DON'T THINK WE WOULD SEE MUCH OF A KERFUFFLE HERE.

BUT TO THE QUESTION OF TRANSPARENCY, I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE TO WONDER HOW MUCH OF THIS IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS A WOMAN GOVERNOR, BECAUSE ALBANY HAS ALWAYS AND STILL DOES DO BUSINESS IN THE DARK.

AND SO WHAT IS REMARKABLY DIFFERENT HERE?

AND TO THE EXCELLENT POINT THAT YOU RAISED, RICK, ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, THERE, TOO, I DON'T SEE HOW LAWMAKERS CAN SAY I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE BILL WHEN THE SENATE BODY VOTED NEARLY UNANIMOUSLY.

I THINK THE VOTE WAS 62-1.

SO YOU'VE GOT THIS CHAMBER OVER HERE VOTING UNANIMOUSLY.

EVERYBODY IS ON BOARD.

AND THE ASSEMBLY WAS GETTING READY TO VOTE ON THE BILL AND FOR THEM TO NOW SAY, OH BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THE PARTICULARS.

WELL, TO THAT, I SAY YOU SHOULD HAVE.

YOU WERE VOTED BY CONSTITUENTS WHO EXPECT YOU TO REPRESENT THEM.

AND BEFORE YOU EVEN CONSIDER GIVING ANY GOVERNOR A BLANKET-- A BLANK CHECK, YOU SHOULD ASK, WELL, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO USE THIS CHECK AND WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT?

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND SO, AGAIN, I COME BACK TO THE FACT THAT ALBANY DOES THIS ALL THE TIME.

MOST LEGISLATURES DO THIS ALL THE TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GET CLOSE TO RECESS TIME, BREAK TIME, BECAUSE YOU GOT TO GET THE JOB DONE.

AND IN THIS CASE, AS LUKE POINTED OUT, THE SENECA DEAL HAS TO BE WORKED OUT.

SENECA WANTS TO GO FROM 25% TO 20%.

FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THAT NEW YORK STATE GIVE SOMETHING IN RETURN.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

AND SO I CREDIT THE GOVERNOR FOR DOING WHAT APPARENTLY COULD NOT BE DONE BY ALL THE ALBANY.

>> BUT NINA, FIRST OF ALL, SHE PROMISED TO BE DIFFERENT.

SECOND, I HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT OVER THE YEARS, WHETHER IT WAS CUOMO, PATAKI, THREE MEN IN A WOMAN, NOW IT'S A WOMAN AND TWO MEN IN A WOMAN IS NOT THE WAY TOWARD GOOD GOVERNMENT SO I HOPE I'M NOT BEING INCONSISTENT IN JUDGING HER.

AND AGAIN I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THE LEGISLATURE, ESPECIALLY THE SENATE, DESERVES A LOT OF THE BLAME HERE BECAUSE THEY VOTED WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT WAS IN THE PROPOSAL SO THERE IS A LOT OF BLAME AROUND.

>> THEY VOTED FOR IT, BUT THEN THEY LEFT HER TO GET TO THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

AND THEN TO WORK OUT THIS DEAL.

WHAT WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO IF TIME IS RUNNING OUT?

BEN, I DIDN'T MEAN TO... >> IT'S OKAY.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HER HUSBAND IS A DIRECT-- GOING TO DIRECTLY BENEFIT, WHICH MEANS SHE DIRECTLY BENEFITS.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER.

THAT HAS TO DO WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> MAKE IT CLEAR, BENEFIT... >> HIS COMPANY.

>> IF THE CASINO DOES NOT GO THROUGH BECAUSE THEN MORE BUSINESS WOULD GO TO... (ALL TALKING AT ONCE).

>> WHILE SHE IS BEING ACCUSED OF ACCUSED AND I SAID SHE WASN'T OR DEALING WITH HER HUSBAND ISSUE VERY WELL BUT ON THE OTHER HAND SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BENEFITED IF THEY PUT IN THE CASINO.

IT IS CONFUSING.

>> ANOTHER BILL IN THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED THAT WOULD BAN HUNTING CONTESTS IN THE STATE.

IT WOULD OUTLAW ANY COMPETITION IN WHICH THE GOAL IS TO KILL WILDLIFE, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, INCLUDING DEER.

EIGHT OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR BANS.

THE SPONSOR SAYS THE CONTESTS ENCOURAGE "SENSELESS BRUTALITY" AND SERVE NO CONSERVATION PURPOSE.

MANY UPSTATE LEGISLATORS SAY THE BILL ATTACKS THE UPSTATE HUNTING CULTURE.

SO, LUKE, THIS IS A GOOD BILL?

SHOULD WE HAVE SUCH A BAN ON THESE CONTESTS?

>> I LIVE IN THE UPSTATE HUNTING CULTURE.

I LIVE RURALLY IN THE WOODS SURROUNDED BY NEIGHBORS WHO HUNT REGULARLY.

I'M NOT AVERSE TO HUNTING AND HUNTING CULTURE.

IT'S WORTH WHILE FOR THE STATE TO RECONSIDER THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF THESE HUNTING CONTESTS.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE POLICY, I WOULD FLIP WHAT THEY DID IN TERMS OF THE ANIMALS THAT WERE PERMITTED AND EXCLUDED FROM THE LEGISLATION.

FOR INSTANCE, FOXES AND SQUIRRELS, I DON'T SEE A STRONG ETHICAL ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE MADE TO HAVE HUNTING COULD BE TESTS AND PILE UP THESE DEAD ANIMALS FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN QUOTE SPORTS UNQUOTE.

FISH, DEER, ANIMALS WHEN THEY'RE HUNTED OR ARE EATEN, HAVING LIMITED HUNTING CONTESTS THAT FOCUS ON THOSE ANIMALS THAT GO TO CLEAR REASONABLE ETHICAL USES WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER LEGISLATION.

>> IT'S PROBABLY A BIG ECONOMIC REASON TO EXCLUDE FISH BECAUSE BASS FISHING CONTESTS, FOR INSTANCE, ARE BIG BUSINESS.

>> FISHING CONTESTS DO NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE FISH.

MANY OF THEM WILL PUT THE FISH BACK.

WHEREAS IN ALL THESE OTHER CASES, THE ANIMALS ARE KILLED.

I GUESS I HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WERE EXCEPTIONS.

IF IT IS TRULY INHUMANE AND NOT A GOOD WAY OF CONSERVATION, THEN IT SHOULD BE AGAINST THE RULES TO HAVE CONTESTS FOR ANY, COYOTE, OR FOR DEER OR TURKEY OR BEAR.

THE SECOND ISSUE THAT I HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY WITH, IT'S STILL ALLOWING HUNTING FOR SPORT.

YOU CAN STILL KILL THESE THINGS AND PILE THEM UP.

YOU JUST CAN'T COUNT THEM ASHED HAVE A CASH PRIZE FOR THE PURPOSE WITH THE MOST.

SO I COME DOWN IN, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NEVER SHOT A GUN OR AN ARROW AT AN ANIMAL.

I COULDN'T SEE MYSELF DOING THAT.

BUT HAVE I MANY FRIENDS WHO DO IT.

SO IN THIS CASE, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE LAW AS IT IS PROPOSED.

>> I'M GOING TO PLEAD THE FIFTH AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I'VE SHOT AN ANIMAL OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.

BUT I'M KIND OF WHERE YOU ARE IN THIS, RICK.

BUT MORE THAN THAT, I SEE THIS IS A CASE OF ONE SIDE OF THE CULTURAL DIVIDE BEING PREFERRED OVER THE OTHER FOR THE REASONS YOU MENTIONED.

I DON'T SEE A PRINCIPLED LOGIC HERE THAT IS COMPELLING BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE CONTRADICTIONS, THAT YOU CAN STILL HUNT DURING HUNTING SEASON FOR DEER, TURKEY AND BEAR AS WELL AS FISHING CONTESTS AND THE HUNTING SEASONS ARE STILL GOING TO REMAIN IN PLACE FOR COYOTES SQUIRRELS, BOBCATS AND OTHER ANIMALS THAT ARE TARGETED IN THESE HUNTING CONTESTS.

BUT CAN I JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, RATHER INDELICATELY, WE EAT ANIMALS.

WE WEAR ANIMALS.

WE SIT ON ANIMALS WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, BUY LEATHER FURNITURE AND OTHER TYPES OF FURNITURE.

AND TO THE QUESTION OF THE IMPACT, THERE ARE FARMERS WHO ARE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY COYOTE BECAUSE THEY KILL THEIR SHEEP AND THEIR TURKEY AND THERE WAS A STUDY THAT LOOKED AT HOW ELIMINATING THESE CONTESTS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT.

IT WON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN IMPACT AT ALL.

>> JUST REAL QUICK, IT'S ONE THING FOR HUNTING IMPACTS OR ANIMALS PASSING ON OR AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITY WITH LISA DOLAK.

BUT IF IT'S A SPORT, TRACK THEM DOWN AND TAKE A PICTURE OF THEM.

>> WE'LL HUNT WITH A CAMERA AND A LONG LENS.

>> YEAH, I MEAN QUITE HONESTLY, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS ABOUT IS A SPORT, THEN MAKE IT A SPORT.

>> OKAY, NOW LET'S MOVE AHEAD TO OUR As AND Fs, NINA, YOUR F. >> I'M GOING HAVE FUN NOW.

BY NOW WE'VE HEARD THAT FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP POSTED THE HOME ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND INSURRECTIONISTS WENT TO THE OBAMAS' NEIGHBORHOODS WITH MULTIPLE FIREARMS AND MATERIALS FOR MOLOTOV COCKTAIL.

SOME HAVE CALLED TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR IRRESPONSIBLE.

SOME HAVE SAID THAT IT IS RECKLESS AND SOME BELIEVE THAT HE SHOULD STILL HAVE HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON, EVEN THOUGH HE CAN'T USE COMMON SENSE USING THE KEYBOARD.

>> BEN, YOUR F. >> MY F IS GOING TO A DUMPER DUMPSTER FIRE RESPONSE TO A FIRE BALL ROLLER COASTER RIDE WHERE EIGHT INDIVIDUALS WERE HANGING UPSIDE DOWN FOR HOURS PRIOR TO BEING SAVED AND RESCUED.

THEY WEREN'T PREPARED.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE EQUIPMENT THERE TO DEAL WITH IT, THEY HAD TO WAIT 45 MINUTES TO GET A TRUCK WITH 100-FOOT LADDER TO ARRIVE AND GET MOSTLY CHILDREN OFF THAT RIDE WHO WERE STUCK UPSIDE DOWN.

>> AND LUKE, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO THE GROWING EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

THIS WEEK WE HAD RECORD HIGHS IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES THREE DAYS IN A ROW.

>> AND RICK.

>> MY F GOES TO TONY EVERS.

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN, SPENDING BILL THAT INCLUDED INCREASING SCHOOL FUNDING THROUGH THE YEAR 2024-25.

HE USED HIS POWER OF PARTIAL VETO TO VETO SPECIAL CHARACTERS IN THE DATE.

HE VETOED THE 2, THE 4 AND THE HYPHEN SO THAT THE NEW LAW WHICH HE SIGNED INCREASE SPENDING THROUGH THE YEAR 2425.

THIS IS NOT VETOING.

THIS IS MANIPULATIVE EDITING TO CHANGE THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION.

>> YOUR A.

>> THE SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL POST A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER AT EACH OF ITS ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS.

THIS FOLLOWS AN INCIDENT IN WHICH AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENT BROUGHT A GUN TO SCHOOL.

BESIDE KEEPING CHILDREN SAFE FROM THE SPATE OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WE HAVE SEEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THIS SCHOOL SAFETY POLICY WILL ALSO ALLOW STUDENTS TO GET TO KNOW POLICE OFFICERS UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL.

>> BEN.

>> MY A IS GOING TO A PROMISING POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME TREATMENT OUT OF NEW ZEALAND.

SCIENTIST THERE HAS BEEN GRANTED A MILLION DOLLARS TO STUDY THE USE OF TRADITIONAL KAVA, PREPARATIONS AND THE CEREMONY OF TREATING POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME THROUGH CONVERSATION AND UTILIZING THAT METHOD THAT HAS WORKED FOR THEIR CULTURE FOR OVER 200 YEARS.

>> LUKE.

>> MY A GOES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AS OF TODAY, THE U.S. WILL HAVE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED ITS HEINOUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARSENAL.

>> AND RICK.

>> MY A GOES TO SALLY JENKINS OF THE WASHINGTON POST FOR HER MOVING STORY ABOUT CHRIS EFFORT, MARTINA NAVRATILOVA WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN BOTH FIERCE RIVALS ON THE COURT AND CLOSE FRIENDS OFF THE COURT AND THE BOND HAS BECOME STRONGER AS THEY SUPPORT EACH OTHER IN THEIR CURRENT FIGHTS AGAINST CANCER.

>> LUKE, YOU GAVE AN F TO CLIMATE AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.

AND YOU MENTIONED THE HOT WEATHER WE HAVE HAD HERE.

WORLDWIDE TEMPERATURE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE THE OTHER DAY, I THINK IT WAS ON MONDAY, SCIENTISTS SAID WAS THE HOTTEST DAY IN 125,000 YEARS.

AND THEN TUESDAY WAS HOTTER.

>> REMARKABLE.

AND CONCERNING.

>> IT IS.

AND THESE SORTS OF CONDITIONS WERE ESSENTIALLY PREDICTED WHAT, 30 YEARS AGO NOW AND WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

NOW, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪