Cruz goes on the attack in religious freedom debate

[YesI'mALiberal]

Social conservatives are doubling down on their push for state-based religious freedom laws, lashing out at businesses that have vigorously opposed the measures and accusing Democrats of trampling Christians’ civil rights.


While more moderate Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush appeared to soften his stance, GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas stood firm Wednesday night and denounced Democrats who he said “want to persecute anyone that has a good faith religious belief that marriage is a holy sacrament between the union of one man and one woman and ordained as a covenant by God.”

He also took aim at Fortune 500 companies during a stop in Iowa, saying they are “running shamelessly to endorse the radical gay marriage agenda over religious liberty.”

Cruz captured the backlash to the backlash that is energizing evangelicals after Republican Govs. Mike Pence of Indiana and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas in recent days sought legislative changes to religious freedom legislation that critics argue allow for discrimination against the LGBT community.


The bills touched off a national cultural debate and highlighted the competing interests of the socially conservative and business-minded wings of the Republican party. A broad range of corporations and organizations — including Apple, Eli Lilly, Angie’s List, the NCAA and Wal-Mart — have vigorously opposed the bills and pressured vetoes or significant retooling.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...servatives-reaction-116611.html#ixzz3WAiMyrl0


Look at what's going to be waiting for Rand when he comes back from his timeout.

 

[Warlord]

Go away liberal trouble maker

 

[Sola_Fide]

The one good thing about this debate is that Christians (I use that term loosely) are beginning to see their struggle as a civil rights issue rather than a "how can we get government to control things" issue.

 

[Brett85]

Good for him. I wish Rand would be more like Cruz on some of these issues and be more bold and outspoken.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Good for him. I wish Rand would be more like Cruz on some of these issues and be more bold and outspoken.

Me too. Rand is doing himself a disservice by neglecting these issues. It's not going to help him in the primaries.

 

[thoughtomator]

look at that sea of gray hair - for a new, fresh candidate he doesn't seem to attract ANY youth support

 

[Sola_Fide]

look at that sea of gray hair - for a new, fresh candidate he doesn't seem to attract ANY youth support

The flaw there is to think that young people aren't concerned with civil liberties for all people.

 

[invisible]

So where is the religious outrage over biometric id's?

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Given the amount of backlash the law has received nationally, I doubt Cruz would expect to be able to win in a Presidential election with that stance out there. Hell, this law alone would detonate Pence's chance- if he ran in 2016- of reaching certain voters.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Me too. Rand is doing himself a disservice by neglecting these issues. It's not going to help him in the primaries.

The fact that Pence had to back peddle on the legislation due to public pressure contradicts your point.

Rand is smart to avoid addressing this issue.

 

[andym]

The fact that Pence had to back peddle on the legislation due to public pressure contradicts your point.

Rand is smart to avoid addressing this issue.

Disagree. Rand needs to address to satisfy the conservative activist base. Romney & McCain proved that there won't be a strong push by the base to get neocons elected. Rand must win the GOP primary first, else he's going nowhere. ADDITIONALLY, Rand can EDUCATE the public that this is a liberty issue, to not force people to do things that they don't want to do, that's against their conscious, their civil rights. Gay activism has promoted itself far more by the strongarm of government than any other entity, besides possibly by the mindless & soulless entertainment industry.

 

[fisharmor]

So where is the religious outrage over biometric id's?

I'd settle for religious rage over melting the faces off of 4 year old Pakistani girls.

 

[jmdrake]

The one good thing about this debate is that Christians (I use that term loosely) are beginning to see their struggle as a civil rights issue rather than a "how can we get government to control things" issue.

I saw this coming several years ago. I supported the overturn of sodomy laws and I still do. I didn't care about gays being allowed in the military except that takes away one good way to avoid the draft should it return. I have mixed feelings about gay marriage and feel the best way forward is to get the government out of marriage. But now we have pastors having sermons reviewed by the government for "anti-gay" content? This is getting out of hand.

 

[jmdrake]

So where is the religious outrage over biometric id's?

Some religious groups are quite concerned and see that as the precursor to the mark of the beast.

 

[Deborah K]

The fact that Pence had to back peddle on the legislation due to public pressure contradicts your point.

Rand is smart to avoid addressing this issue.

I disagree wholeheartedly. He wants to be President of the United States of America. His primary job is to defend and uphold the Constitution. Religious freedom is protected under the Bill of Rights. If you believe that the priority, and proper role of government is to protect and defend your rights, then your candidate should express his stance on this issue.

 

[jmdrake]

I disagree wholeheartedly. He wants to be President of the United States of America. His primary job is to defend and uphold the Constitution. Religious freedom is protected under the Bill of Rights. If you believe that the priority, and proper role of government is to protect and defend your rights, then your candidate should express his stance on this issue.

Ironically this is a better framework to talk about the property rights argument than any of the abstract crap that was thrown up in Rand's defense after the Rachel Maddow hatchet job. Almost nobody seriously wants to discriminate on the basis of race. And there are no laws anywhere that protect against discrimination on the basis of membership in a particular group like the KKK. But whether or not someone has the right to discriminate on the basis of not wanting to participate is a real issue that real people are divided about. A few years ago I was talking with an older black neighbor about rental property. He said that there were these two women that wanted to rent one of his houses. He told them he'd get back with them but he never did because he thought they were lesbians. I didn't say anything but I thought "If you found out about a white landlord doing this to a black or interracial couple you'd call the NAACP."

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

All of the GOP potentials and candidates who spoke in favor of the bill and then backpedaled once Pence revised the law are easily going to look like flip-floppers, if they don't already.

 

[Deborah K]

Ironically this is a better framework to talk about the property rights argument than any of the abstract crap that was thrown up in Rand's defense after the Rachel Maddow hatchet job. Almost nobody seriously wants to discriminate on the basis of race. And there are no laws anywhere that protect against discrimination on the basis of membership in a particular group like the KKK. But whether or not someone has the right to discriminate on the basis of not wanting to participate is a real issue that real people are divided about. A few years ago I was talking with an older black neighbor about rental property. He said that there were these two women that wanted to rent one of his houses. He told them he'd get back with them but he never did because he thought they were lesbians. I didn't say anything but I thought "If you found out about a white landlord doing this to a black or interracial couple you'd call the NAACP."

And yet how do you legislate against that kind of thinking? I don't think we can, nor do I think we should. Discrimination shouldn't be outlawed in my flea bitten opinion. As I stated in another thread: if individual freedom is the goal, then you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, without the threat of death or imprisonment. And others should have the right to avoid your establishment, and start their own.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...K-in-support&p=5832320&viewfull=1#post5832320 And I will add that this includes refusal to participate.

 

[invisible]

Some religious groups are quite concerned and see that as the precursor to the mark of the beast.

My point exactly. Why do we hear so little outcry over this from said religious groups?

 

[CJLauderdale4]

And yet how do you legislate against that kind of thinking? I don't think we can, nor do I think we should. Discrimination shouldn't be outlawed in my flea bitten opinion. As I stated in another thread: if individual freedom is the goal, then you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, without the threat of death or imprisonment. And others should have the right to avoid your establishment, and start their own.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...K-in-support&p=5832320&viewfull=1#post5832320 And I will add that this includes refusal to participate.

Deb is spot on. This was the trouble with the original Civil Rights Act, that forced private establishments to server everyone no matter what. Your private was "private", except in the case of.............

However, the marriage argument is easy to dismantle.

The issue lies with government, as it always does. Government should not be involved in marriage. Prior to the early 1900's there were no marriage "licenses", only certificates. Why should the government "allow" me to get married? Who the hell are they??

The reason why gays care about this is because the government has used "marriage" as a tool, to give or take away goodies from the people. If you're "married" you get certain tax and insurance benefits that unmarried people don't.

Get government laws out of marriage, and then allow churches and private establishments to do what they want "freely".

My 2 cents...