Senator Cruz is correct in supporting Mike Pence!

[johnwk]

SEE: TED CRUZ: I’m PROUD to stand with Gov. Mike Pence!

”HOUSTON, Texas — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, issued the following statement today in support of Governor Mike Pence’s effort to defend religious liberty and protect against the government forcing individuals to violate their deeply held beliefs:

“I want to commend Governor Mike Pence for his support of religious freedom, especially in the face of fierce opposition. There was a time, not too long ago, when defending religious liberty enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Alas, today we are facing a concerted assault on the First Amendment, on the right of every American to seek out and worship God according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I’m proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same.”

Senator Cruz is spot on regarding this issue! The irrefutable fact is, one of the most fundamental inalienable rights of mankind is to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. And this in fact means our government must protect, not interfere with, the people’s right to discriminate!

Is there an inherent evil when a person discriminates based upon race, color or religious beliefs when choosing who they marry? What is the evil when people discriminate who they associate with or which employer they choose to work for? What is the evil when employer and employee are left free to mutually agree to enter into a contract based upon their own criterion? There is no evil other than people exercising a fundamental right to discriminate in their contracts and associations. And to use the force of government to interfere with this most sacred and fundamental right of mankind, which is the right to discriminate when making choices in life, is to impinge upon the very essence of a society which was established to protect the fundamental rights of mankind.

JWK


A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

My perspective... Rand needs to keep his mouth shut on this. Coming out in support will give him problems with the young people. Coming out against it will further hurt him with the Breitbart crowd. Just say something ambiguous. Idk.

 

[Warlord]

Cruz is the panderer in chief

 

[johnwk]

My perspective... Rand needs to keep his mouth shut on this. Coming out in support will give him problems with the young people. Coming out against it will further hurt him with the Breitbart crowd. Just say something ambiguous. Idk.

And why would young people object to protecting their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


JWK

 

[Brett85]

Except that Pence is sort of starting to back down.

 

[johnwk]

Mike Pence caves in to intolerant loud mouthed radicals!

See: Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law


But in the face of a growing firestorm and economic boycotts of his state, he argued state lawmakers should act immediately to quell concerns over the measure.

“After much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the general assembly, I've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone,” Pence said at a press conference Tuesday morning.

Well, there you have it. Another politician without a spine who caves in to a vocal and intolerant minority whose ultimate goal is to prohibit the American People to exercise a fundamental inalienable right of mankind which is to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

So tell us Mr. Pence, what Is the inherent evil when a person discriminates based upon race, color or religious beliefs when choosing who they marry? What is the evil when people discriminate who they associate with or which employer they choose to work for? What is the intolerable evil when employer and employee, and those who contract are left free to mutually agree to enter into a contract based upon their own criterion and beliefs?

I wonder if Senator Cruz will be the next to ignore what the real fight is about and will cave in to our nation’s intolerant, radical and loud mouthed lobby which dreads the thought of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

JWK

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

And why would young people object to protecting their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


JWK

Couldn't the same argument be made for choosing not to enter into contracts/do businesses with blacks and jews? If it's "against my religion" to allow blacks and jews into my shop, how is that different? Well, you don't "choose" to be black, but you do "choose" to be jewish... The ONLY difference is that the religious right considers certain aspects of one's identity as a human being worth protecting and others not worth protecting.

If they wanted to protect bakers and photographers from actively participating in wedding ceremonies, they should have passed a narrow-in-scope law that addressed the actual problem at hand. They didn't. They passed a broad law that allows basically anything under the guise of "my religion..."

 

[johnwk]

Couldn't the same argument be made for choosing not to enter into contracts/do businesses with blacks and jews? If it's "against my religion" to allow blacks and jews into my shop, how is that different? Well, you don't "choose" to be black, but you do "choose" to be jewish... The ONLY difference is that the religious right considers certain aspects of one's identity as a human being worth protecting and others not worth protecting.

If they wanted to protect bakers and photographers from actively participating in wedding ceremonies, they should have passed a narrow-in-scope law that addressed the actual problem at hand. They didn't. They passed a broad law that allows basically anything under the guise of "my religion..."

What is your point? Do you object to people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations? Do you have a problem with allowing the magic of a free market system to work?


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson caves in to intolerant homosexual radicals

Arkansas governor says he won’t sign religious liberty bill, asks lawmakers to change it

”Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) said Wednesday morning he will not sign a controversial religious liberty bill, saying he wants lawmakers to recall the bill and change it so that it more closely resembles federal law.

“This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial,” he said during a news conference. “But these are not ordinary times.”




Of course he didn't want to sign it. He's afraid of an intolerant loudmouth radical group who wants to force themselves upon people who feel uncomfortable around them and are offended by homosexual activities.

Why are so many homosexuals determined to use government to force themselves upon people who feel uncomfortable around them or are offended by homosexual activities? Why are so many homosexuals intolerant of those whose only crime, if it really is a crime, want make their own decisions with regard to who they do business with, and who they associate with? What is the big freaken deal? Why is this small intolerant and radical group so opposed to people being free to make their own choices and decisions in life?

Why do our politicians cave into this small intolerant loud mouthed radical group who wants to impinge upon the American People's right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?



JWK

 

[William Tell]

Cruz has a lot to learn. You don't say you are proud to stand with a man if he's about to back down. Just make your position clear on where you stand. It was the legislature that passed it anyway.

 

[Sola_Fide]

My perspective... Rand needs to keep his mouth shut on this. Coming out in support will give him problems with the young people. Coming out against it will further hurt him with the Breitbart crowd. Just say something ambiguous. Idk.

Young people hate liberty? I don't think so.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Young people hate liberty? I don't think so.

Young people support gay marriage and gay rights.... in full disclosure I'm personally affected by this issue, and I'm honestly torn because I'm a libertarian... I do understand the argument for a business being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, and theoretically I probably support it. But unless the entire Civil Rights act is going to be repealed, we're stuck dealing within the framework of the current system. If we're going to create protected classes, they at least need to be equal. If you can't deny service to an inter-racial couple you shouldn't be able to deny service to a gay couple.

But my point wasn't whether I agree or disagree with the law, my point is that there is absolutely nothing for Rand to gain by expressing an opinion one way or another on this law.... vocalizing any sort of disagreement will only further drive away the evangelicals (not sure it matters because most won't vote for him anyway). but coming out in support will only drive away left-libertarians and young independents. Fact of the matter is that young people of all religions and political persuasions are very supportive of gay rights, even 40% of young evangelicals support marriage equality. I could care less what Rand's personal view on the issue is. If I was advising Rand, I would have him respond exactly like this:

"While my personal views and convictions are that marriage is between one man and one woman, this is not, has never been, and will never be an issue that is decided at the executive level".... mention that SCOTUS is once again taking up major cases regarding the issue, we'll see what happens, etc etc... I'm trying to grow the Republican party and want to win the vote of every American regardless of race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc... Big Tent stuff...

You don't have to SUPPORT gay marriage to win the young people, independents, left-libertarians, etc. as long as they otherwise agree with most of what you stand for..... you just need to be ACCEPTABLE.... In my opinion he can even win a decent portion of the GAY vote for god's sake.... we're inherently libertarians at heart and just want the right to self-determination..... I know a TON of gay/bi guys who HATE Republicans but would vote for Rand/Ron..... like it or not this is a highly stigmatized issue and it IS a sticking point for many independents and young people, and if they see the GOP candidate as a religious nut/theocrat they will either vote Democrat or just stay home.

"Live and Let Live"...
"I'm Not A Social Crusader"...
SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHAT WILL WIN RAND PAUL THE PRESIDENCY.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Young people support gay marriage and gay rights.... in full disclosure I'm personally affected by this issue, and I'm honestly torn because I'm a libertarian... I do understand the argument for a business being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, and theoretically I probably support it. But unless the entire Civil Rights act is going to be repealed, we're stuck dealing within the framework of the current system. If we're going to create protected classes, they at least need to be equal. If you can't deny service to an inter-racial couple you shouldn't be able to deny service to a gay couple.

But my point wasn't whether I agree or disagree with the law, my point is that there is absolutely nothing for Rand to gain by expressing an opinion one way or another on this law.... vocalizing any sort of disagreement will only further drive away the evangelicals (not sure it matters because most won't vote for him anyway). but coming out in support will only drive away left-libertarians and young independents. Fact of the matter is that young people of all religions and political persuasions are very supportive of gay rights, even 40% of young evangelicals support marriage equality. I could care less what Rand's personal view on the issue is. If I was advising Rand, I would have him respond exactly like this:

"While my personal views and convictions are that marriage is between one man and one woman, this is not, has never been, and will never be an issue that is decided at the executive level".... mention that SCOTUS is once again taking up major cases regarding the issue, we'll see what happens, etc etc... I'm trying to grow the Republican party and want to win the vote of every American regardless of race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc... Big Tent stuff...

You don't have to SUPPORT gay marriage to win the young people, independents, left-libertarians, etc. as long as they otherwise agree with most of what you stand for..... you just need to be ACCEPTABLE.... In my opinion he can even win a decent portion of the GAY vote for god's sake.... we're inherently libertarians at heart and just want the right to self-determination..... I know a TON of gay/bi guys who HATE Republicans but would vote for Rand/Ron..... like it or not this is a highly stigmatized issue and it IS a sticking point for many independents and young people, and if they see the GOP candidate as a religious nut/theocrat they will either vote Democrat or just stay home.

"Live and Let Live"...
"I'm Not A Social Crusader"...
SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHAT WILL WIN RAND PAUL THE PRESIDENCY.

What is "gay rights"?

 

[William Tell]

Young people hate liberty? I don't think so.

I fear a lot of them may. But its over generalizing. Because I don't. I can't stand this political correctness liberal garbage.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

People are letting their dislike for Cruz, and his stepping on top of Rand's campaign, obscure that fact that he is basically correct in taking a stand against the cultural left. Two sides are fighting the culture war, despite the MSM always implying it's only the right. Staying mum will not work, since the other side is actively pushing the issue and expanding on it.

As with the vaccine case, taking even a partial stand will play well with social conservatives and win some primary votes. Rand's silence on the Indiana law, by contrast, will be taken by evangelicals to mean "we can't count on him at all, wherever push comes to shove."

 

[William Tell]

People are letting their dislike for Cruz, and his stepping on top of Rand's campaign, obscure that fact that he is basically correct in taking a stand against the cultural left. Two sides are fighting the culture war, despite the MSM always implying it's only the right. Staying mum will not work, since the other side is actively pushing the issue and expanding on it.

As with the vaccine case, taking even a partial stand will play well with social conservatives ad win some primary votes. Rand's silence on the Indiana law, by contrast, will be taken by evangelicals to mean "we can't count on him at all, wherever push comes to shove."

Cruz is right here. Rand is on vacation this week though.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You don't have to SUPPORT gay marriage to win the young people, independents, left-libertarians, etc. as long as they otherwise agree with most of what you stand for..... you just need to be ACCEPTABLE.... In my opinion he can even win a decent portion of the GAY vote for god's sake.... we're inherently libertarians at heart and just want the right to self-determination..... I know a TON of gay/bi guys who HATE Republicans but would vote for Rand/Ron..... like it or not this is a highly stigmatized issue and it IS a sticking point for many independents and young people, and if they see the GOP candidate as a religious nut/theocrat they will either vote Democrat or just stay home.

"Live and Let Live"...
"I'm Not A Social Crusader"...
SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHAT WILL WIN RAND PAUL THE PRESIDENCY.

The problems with this argument are:

1) Most young people don't vote, so the advice tries to placate a group that won't be a factor in the election (assuming they even are pro-gay rights, which is disputable).

2) Most voters, young or older, are not single issue voters, so their votes don't turn on a single topic anyway---thus pandering on one issue to a slither of the electorate is an unbalanced and unproductive campaign emphasis.

3) Most single issue voters, whose votes do turn on the issue, are socially conservative (the vote usually cuts 2-1 right, based on decades of election results). For Rand to make no effort to reject social left dogmas will not win him votes, and more likely cost him in the primaries.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Good opinion piece from Penn Jillette:

I'm an atheist, a libertarian and I'm in favor of many, many, many kinds of sex. This puts me in an awkward position with all this chitter chatter about that goofy Indiana law. People want the right to not serve people because their well-established loving religion demands that to get into heaven they not make cake for people who are gay.

I've read the Bible cover to cover, and I've never seen that in there, but, I'm an atheist, so I may have scales over my eyes while I read -- what do I know?

I was listening to some whack job (I should say some other whack job, because I was on the same TV panel) talk about how some Christians might not think gay sex was right and needed the legal right to act on that belief.

It's OK to not like some forms of sex. I'm sure there's some form of sex that I don't like, I just haven't encountered it yet. If anyone invites me to a kind of sex I don't want -- I will say no ... at least after I've tried it a couple times.

My job is doing a Vegas magic show. I bet if I really researched all the people in our audiences, I would find people in our crowds who I had fundamental disagreements with. I would still want to do the show for them. That's my job. I'm trying to sell about a quarter of a million tickets a year to Penn & Teller, and that ain't easy.

I might not agree with Scientologists or chiropractors, but I want them to come to my show. Who knows, just being around us, might wise them up, or even better, might wise me up. I like to change my mind and it's good business to be in business with people you don't agree with.

All that being said, as a libertarian, I believe that people have the right to be stupid and run their businesses in a stupid way. And then the big old invisible hand gets visible and the stupid businesses go out of business. It doesn't always work, but it often does.

I don't think we need a special law that says certain people get to be rude to other people because they think God is on their side, but I also don't want a law that says I have to do business with people I disagree with if I'm a really stupid business person.

If it seems my position is confusing, it's because I'm contradicting myself. I think refusing service to anyone for a theoretical disagreement is stupid, stupid, stupid. And I also think that if we make stupid illegal, everyone goes to prison.

So, I want everyone to be treated equally and I want as much freedom to be stupid as possible.

I'm OK with holding those contrary beliefs and not really deciding, because ... it's not going to be a problem for long. The acceptance of LGBT lifestyle is moving so fast that soon some of these backwards people are going to be worried that they'll need a law to get cake for themselves.

So, yeah, my whole position on this is ... let them eat cake.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/opinions/jillette-indiana-law/index.html

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I fear a lot of them may. But its over generalizing. Because I don't. I can't stand this political correctness liberal garbage.

Most young people I know think that political correctness is retarded.

 

[William Tell]

The problems with this argument are:

1) Most young people don't vote, so the advice tries to placate a group that won't be a factor in the election (assuming they even are pro-gay rights, which is disputable).

2) Most voters, young or older, are not single issue voters, so their votes don't turn on a single topic anyway---thus pandering on one issue to a slither of the electorate is an unbalanced and unproductive campaign emphasis.

3) Most single issue voters, whose votes do turn on the issue, are socially conservative (the vote usually cuts 2-1 right, based on decades of election results). For Rand to make no effort to reject social left dogmas will not win him votes, and more likely cost him in the primaries.

Exactly, Rand is going to need millions of social conservatives to turn out for him. He needs to appeal to independents and others too. But he can't win by trying to out liberal Hillary. Rand should probably continue to focus the most on privacy and non partisan liberty issues.