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.
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.