Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Invoking Reagan, Ted Cruz Discusses His Presidential Campaign... (1st Amend)
Peach Pundit ^ | 5/19/2015 | Jon Richards

Posted on 05/19/2015 10:03:49 AM PDT by VinL

"What’s odd about this issue is that there’s a liberal fascism, an intolerance. Some of the Christians who have been persecuted have been florists or bakers who were asked to provide their services for a gay wedding that contradicted their faith, and so they declined. They are being persecuted and fined and threatened with legal action.

None of us have a right to demand of another that they embrace our lifestyle. Imagine for example a gay florist who was asked to provide flowers for the wedding of two fundamentalist Christians. Now if that florist decided, “this is contrary to my beliefs, and I’m not going to support this Christian marriage,” that florist has the right to do that. We are a free country, and there is no power of government to demand that the faith and individual conscience of citizens be crushed under the jackboot of government.

That’s what’s at issue here, and when it comes to issues of religious liberty, with the people, religious liberty is a powerfully unifying issue.

Chiding Republican politicians who he said were afraid to engage in defense of religious liberty, including some 2016 presidential candidates, Cruz noted that he had spent 20 years, both in private practice and as the Solicitor General of Texas, winning religious rights cases. And as our conversation drew to a close, Senator Cruz again made an analogy to President Reagan.

“I think Indiana was historical. It was, as Reagan put it, a time for choosing. Some leaders chose to stand up and say, ‘I will stand with the first amendment religious liberty rights of Americans.’ Other leaders made different decisions, and I think the voters are going to remember who stood where.”

(Excerpt) Read more at peachpundit.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: Sherman Logan
There is much valid in what you say. The Leftist hold on the mass media, of course, is the biggest problem in a culture war.

But the first step is not to make it a goal to pressure people not to make their own decisions--"discriminate" between alternatives, as free people have always done. While, personally, I would certainly not be happy, were I denied employment or a beneficial contract, because I did not agree with someone else's theology; like Voltaire on free speech, I would defend to my last breath the right of anyone to discriminate against me, based on such difference in fundamental values.

Not suggesting that I am the model; only making a point as to my Conservative priorities. The right to discriminate is fundamental; and allowing those with agendas to change our society, to continually chip or shovel it away, is something that I have been fighting since High School.

21 posted on 05/19/2015 1:13:35 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Time for me to play Devil’s Advocate

**************

JB, here’s my reply to the Devil; in no particular order:

1. Don’t tug on Superman’s cape, don’t spit into the wind, don’t pull the mask off the ol Lone Ranger- and don’t argue the Law with Ted Cruz.

Sen. Cruz won 5 out of 9 cases before the Supreme Court- He knows the Law.

2. Rand Paul blew any chance he had when he endorsed the quintessential Washington insider, McConnell. One can’t claim to be Mr. Outside, when in bed with Mr. Inside.

3. You state that Rand Paul made some misinformed and reactionary statement as to the Civil Rights Act, then, beaten and humiliated, he was forced to retract his ill conceived meanderings in order to preserve his candidacy.

Well, watch and learn. Sen. Cruz has set forth a constitutional position that asserts that - forcing a business to act against its religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st amendment. Unlike Paul, Sen. Cruz will not back down. Unlike Paul, Sen. Cruz will argue law and facts, to demonstrate that his constitutional interpretation is just and proper.

Get thee behind me, Satin! Come to Cruz, see the Light!

(Of course, Jack Black, these comments are not directed at you, but are directed to whom you claim to be the advocate.)

-:)


22 posted on 05/19/2015 1:18:06 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

With no disrespect, which religion held that a interracial couple could not marry?


23 posted on 05/19/2015 1:32:43 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VinL
Various racist Christian sects oppose integration. As group they are usually referred to as "Identity Christians". Here is a link to the Wikipedia article about them.

Until the 1970s the Mormon Church held a very dim view of Blacks and forbid inter-marraiage or membership of Blacks in their church. Here is the Wikipedia article "Black People in Mormon Doctrine".

As in most relgiions there are various splinter groups that don't agree with the latest politically expedient updates to the chuch teachings, and break off and form schismatic sects. There are several well known sects that still do not agree with the poltically expedient decision to end Mormon support for Polygamy, made by the LDS leadership in 1890 to speed the acceptance of Utah into the USA as a State.

The Southern Baptists were founded (schism) to support the institution of black slavery.

24 posted on 05/19/2015 2:30:25 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VinL
Yes, Cruz is both smart and clever and maybe a better campaigner than Paul.

But you are still dodging the main issue: "Freedom of Religion" has not been a useful argument in support of not serving people in a public business since 1964.

Respectfully it doesn't take a Harvard Law degree (Obama has one of those, doesn't he?) to know that.

Cruz has not explained why some religions not wanting to serve gays is in any way different than other religions not wanting to serve blacks.

Can you explain it? It's not a trick question. Cruz has not successfully done so, to date.

25 posted on 05/19/2015 2:34:20 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Ted Cruz: "None of us have a right to demand of another that they embrace our lifestyle. Imagine for example a gay florist who was asked to provide flowers for the wedding of two fundamentalist Christians. Now if that florist decided, “this is contrary to my beliefs, and I’m not going to support this Christian marriage,” that florist has the right to do that."

The law doesn't demand that you "embrace our lifestyle". It demands that if you are a "public accomodation", that is a business, that you not discriminate (ie: refuse service) based on race, religion, sex or national origin.

Any florist refusing to service someone because of their religion would clearly be in violation of Title II of the Act (per Wikipedia)

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Under our law the florist has NO legal "right" like the one Cruz is claiming for him. Obviously if you talk "rights" in the abstract moral sense, it would depend on your religion or philosophy. But Cruz is a legal scholar, not a preacher.

I think he is mistaken, at a minimum he should think about how he will take questions on this if he ever makes it onto Meet the Press or other Sunday shows.

Rand at least showed knowledge of the law he was disagreeing with. Ted seems strangely clueless here.

26 posted on 05/19/2015 2:54:20 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Several family members were involved with Christian Identity and other Anglo-Israelite groups. There are, or at least were, a whole bunch of these tiny groups. Thankfully, my family members have all jumped ship at this point.

I’m not clear on the dates, but Southern Baptists opposed interracial marriage at least into the 70s or 80s, and Bob Jones university didn’t give up its opposition to interracial dating till 2000.

I’m not sure how to go about proving it, but I’m reasonably sure most southern churches opposed interracial marriage through at least the 60s and 70s.

Entirely without any scriptural backing, BTW. Racism is alien to the Bible.


27 posted on 05/19/2015 3:34:18 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black; Sherman Logan

First off, Sen. Cruz is not arguing that one should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals; he is arguing that a person has a 1st amendment right to not participate in a gay marriage ceremony based on religious beliefs.

Now, as to his legal argument, I can’t give you the particulars. I would have to research the case law and precedents. However, I can absolutely assure you that Sen. Cruz has thoroughly researched the matter, and is confident in his position. If he wasn’t sure, he wouldn’t make the argument.

You guys seem to think that he’s pandering to the Christian right, just to get votes. That’s simply not so- he wouldn’t do it. The reason is that if one panders without basis- the media will ultimately call that person out- and he will lose all credibility if the position is baseless. That’s what happened to Rand Paul. Cruz prides himself on his credibility and his intellect- he wouldn’t espouse a legal position that he couldn’t win before a Court.

Cruz believes in religious liberty. He’s taken 3 cases to the Supreme Court in defense of religious liberty: (1) removal of the 10 commandments from a building; (2) the elimination of “under God” in the pledge of allegiance; (3) the removal of a cross that honored veterans. He won all 3.

I’ve always been an independent, I’m not from Texas, I’m not politically connected. I choose Cruz after considering Paul and Walker. I liked Paul, until he endorsed McConnell. That wholly undercut what I thought he was all about; there’s no remedy for that. Walker changed positions to accommodate his presidential run; so I don’t know where he stands.

Cruz is what he says he is. That’s why I support him. If your guy is Rand Paul, that’s fine. But, if you’re looking for someone who is anti-establishment, you should really take the time to vet Cruz objectively. He’s as honest a politician as one can find.


28 posted on 05/19/2015 4:44:42 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Not quite sure why you think I’m criticizing Cruz.

I was simply pointing out that the “can’t discriminate against gays” is simply an extension of the “can’t discriminate against blacks” meme that has been generally accepted, regardless of whether you have a religious rationale for your discrimination or not.

There are at least two good arguments against this equation:

1. Sexual preference or orientation is not necessarily the same thing as race.

2. Participating in a ceremony is pretty different from providing a product or impersonal service.

However, it seems it has been generally accepted that the only reason a person might want to refuse to participate in a gay marriage is that he hates homos. And that is not to be permitted.


29 posted on 05/19/2015 5:42:33 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Sorry, I was just replying to you and Jack Black in one post. I wasn’t trying to be critical of anyone- just replying.

I thought your point was that Cruz’s argument was unavailing because of it’s nexus with 60s/70s civil rights claims. As to that, Ted Cruz has considerable expertise as to the constitutional case law regarding religious freedom- and would certainly be aware of your observations.

He’s not one to advocate a losing position- in fact, he’s been criticized by some for not arguing the Lawrence/Texas case (sodomy law). I would have no way of knowing, but it’s conceivable that he thought it was indefensible.

My sole point was, given his expertise as to this constitutional issue, I’m inclined to think that he’s considered the point you’ve raised, and he believes there is a legal distinction between the 60’s civil rights argument and the gay marriage question relative to religious freedom.

Just my response- no criticism intended.


30 posted on 05/19/2015 6:45:09 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: VinL
First off, Sen. Cruz is not arguing that one should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals; he is arguing that a person has a 1st amendment right to not participate in a gay marriage ceremony based on religious beliefs.

Selling flowers, baking cakes, or renting a space that is for rent can hardly be described as "participating in a gay marriage ceremony". Come on, both you and Ted are more intellectually honest than to make that lame argument.

As to Ted's legal argument: apparently he has none. His defenders keep shucking and jiving to get out of addressing it. I'm told "Ted is legal genius", "Ted won three cases at the Supreme Court". and "Ted Cruz has thoroughly researched the matter, and is confident in his position. If he wasn’t sure, he wouldn’t make the argument."

It's a rare thing to see the formerly independent thinkers of Free Republic reduced to "faith in the man" arguments, but that appears to be where we have arrived.

You go on to say: "You guys seem to think that he’s pandering to the Christian right," but I've never accused him of that. I just think he's making a very poorly thought out argument. It it obviously wrong legally, and from a "higher law" perspective he's failed to make any arguments to support it. Ben Carson (I'm not a fan) did a better job of arguing against gay marriage with his "people go into prison straight and come out gay" comments, and that was not a high point of argumentation against gay marriage.

You go further though, and make this ridiculous statement: "The reason is that if one panders without basis- the media will ultimately call that person out- and he will lose all credibility if the position is baseless. That’s what happened to Rand Paul. "

Who has "lost all credibility"?? Let's take a look at the latest Real Clear Politics poll averages, shall we?

Poll Date Bush Walker Rubio Paul Huckabee Cruz Carson Christie Perry Santorum Kasich Fiorina Jindal Graham Spread
RCP Average 4/16 - 5/12 15.4 13.2 13.2 9.2 8.6 8.6 7.8 5.4 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 Bush +2.2

It's amusing you say that Rand Paul has lost all credibility, while Ted Cruz is languishing two places behind him in the RCP poll average. Yes, it's close. But even if the positions were reversed it would be silly to say that one has lost all credibility and the other is a legitimate, even leading, contender. The facts are: up to now Rand is holding his own against Cruz. But: both are in Tier 1.5. Rubio, Walker and Jeb are the candidates in Tier 1, all in double digits. Rand and Paul are both falling short.

"Cruz is what he says he is."Hopefully that's true. I'm doing my own research though. Stay tuned!

31 posted on 05/19/2015 7:29:24 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson