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.
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.
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!