One of the most important reasons to support Sen. Cruz is that, once President, he will transform and drag the GOP back to its conservative origins.
(I've excerpted this article for effect)
The problem is that this boat sailed decades ago.
There were people in the 60s and 70s with sincere religious beliefs against interracial marriage. Some in my family. I did and do disagree with them, strongly, but I respect their right to believe as they choose.
Well, if any of those people owned a motel, they had to rent to interracial couples. Forced, and nobody cared, because they were just a bunch of racists. Which they most certainly were. That their racism was religiously based buttered no parsnips, then or now.
The gay thing is simply an extension of that. Once we added sexual orientation to the magic list of those nobody was allowed to discriminate against, the game was over.
People who rent facilities and such are just SOL on this issue. Cake decorators, photographers and such still have a chance to bail out. Still based on 1A, but on freedom of speech, not religion.
Freedom of speech requires the freedom not to speak. Nobody should be forced to utter speech with which he disagrees.
IMO
"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."
Ted is the best of the bunch by far. I have no faith in any of the others. Rand Paul is a good guy but cannot get elected. He needs to stay in the Senate and fight for our personal freedoms there.
My biggest fear is that Mitt Walker will get jammed down our throat by the GOPe as their default candidate when Jeb fails.
I'm not yet convinced, but he's got a great PR team at Free Republic. Let's see how he votes on TPP, shall we?
Rand's position on the Patriot Act seems more in line with the Constitution and less of a compromise, to give just one counter-example.
News Max Article on Rand, Ted and Patriot Act Renewal.
What if someone's religion says that Blacks are bad and that Whites should not integrate or mingle with them? Would one then, under the guise of "religious freedom" be permitted not to rent rooms in a motel to them?
I believe we had this whole argument in 1964 and the compromise we came up with was not "you can refuse service to anyone if it offends your religious beliefs", it was "you must serve everyone regardless of race, religion, gender and national origin - regardless of your beliefs."
What has happened is that this franchise has been extended to gays.
To be logical Cruz really must argue against the 1964 Civil Rights act. He can't logically be arguing that some fundamentalist Christian sects that oppose gay marraige be free to discriminate but that other weird Christian sects opposed to integration not be allowed to discriminate.
That's incoherent, it's an unprincipled exception.
Rand Paul argued that the 1964 Civil Rights act went too far, in limiting people's ability to associate with others as they please, famously on the Rachael Maddow show". He was battered by everyone from the left to George Will for saying that, and I think eventually forced to retract his statements. But, it was at least a logical and consistent position.
If you are not going to argue that then I think you are best off arguing that the Civil Rights act should not be extended to gays. If being gay is a lifestyle choice (as Dr. Carson suggested, and again he was beat up for that until he recanted) then you have a place to stand and make that argument.
If you concede that gayness is inherited, then the logic of the Civil Rights Act "public accommodations" law kicks in.
Ted is not impressing me with these statements. He is reminding me of Newt Gingrich, who used to make very forceful statements like this, but was often not able to logically back them up.