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.
Thanks. That was pretty much what I was trying to say in number 3.
You said it better.
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.)
-:)