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.
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.
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.