Daily Archives: August 26, 2015
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton promises that if elected she will defend the separation of church and state.
Clinton was speaking at a townhall meeting in Las Vegas last week when Daniel Little, a college student and a member of the Secular Student Alliance, asked the former secretary of state her opinion on the separation of church and state.
Little: Hello. My name is Daniel Little and I’m at CSN currently — the College of Southern Nevada. I’m a current political science major. And I’m a part of the Secular Student Alliance. Have you heard of that? Okay, basically, it’s a group of freethinkers and skeptics in schools. And currently — there’s a little fact here for you — in a few states, their Constitution has it written… that it is illegal for a nonbeliever to hold public office. With that, I wanna know: What are your current opinions about the separation of church and state.
Clinton: Well. I am very supportive of the separation of church and state. I think it’s good for both the state and religion. And we have so much diversity of thinking in the country, and part of the reason why this American experiment has lasted is because there’s a lot of different ways for people to express themselves, to believe what they want to believe, or choose not to believe, so I think the separation of church and state has served us very well, and I will certainly defend it.
Now that answer is a little bit prolix, but she gets to the point at the end. Non-traditional people ought to know that there is a candidate that wants to prevent a theocracy.
For a lawyer and educator, Ted Cruz is manifestly ignorant of law and ought to know better than I do:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has built his presidential campaign around defending “religious liberty.” This weekend, he hosted a “Rally for Religious Liberty,” which highlighted the many stories of wedding vendors who have faced legal consequences for refusing service to same-sex couples.
In an interview with Ed Berliner of Newsmax, Cruz suggested that he believes a gay florist should have as much right to refuse service to a Christian couple as the reverse:
CRUZ: Imagine if this were inverted. Imagine if there were a gay florist — now I know that’s hard to imagine, a gay florist — but just go with the hypo[thetical] for a second. Imagine if two evangelical Christians came to a gay florist and they wanted to get married, and the florist said, “You know what? I disagree with your faith. I have problems with your faith.” You have no entitlement to force that florist to provide flowers at the Christians’ wedding. We are a pluralistic nation that tolerates diversity.
Before I point out what’s wrong with his little scenario, I’d love for Ted Cruz to elaborate on why gay florists are “hard to imagine”. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Comedy is not your strong suit, slick. I don’t know what his strong suit is, because he’s a fuckup and a nobody as far as Americans are concerned.
Now grasp hold of this, Ted. We have this little thing call the Civil Rights Act that covers you from being discriminated against by the business community for being religious. However, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is quite legal, except in cities or municipalities that have anti-discrimination laws forbidding it. I expect that to be fixed on a national level as soon as we rid ourselves from conservatives again(knock on wood).
So your premise that everyone is allowed to discriminate because it their business to serve who they wish is false. You’re trying to make it OK to do it by saying its OK for other groups to do it. Try again, Buzz.
This guy is a snake and people actually voted for him and might vote for him again. He doesn’t have a Chinaman’s chance of winning the nomination, so we can take comfort in that. But this “management reserves the right to deny service” concept writ large is fucking dangerous.