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.
There is a secret conversation that has happened in the wake of the gay marriage decision.
Should we remove tax-exempt status from churches if they are going to get involved in politics?
Now, no one serving in government today is angling to strip it. But that doesn’t stop Ted Cruz for manufacturing a hullabaloo about it:
In an interview with Glenn Beck last Thursday, Ted Cruz once again badly misrepresented an exchange between Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and Justice Samuel Alito during Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, telling Beck’s listeners that the Obama administration may soon try to strip churches of their tax-exempt status if their pastors refuse to officiate gay couples’ weddings.
Verrilli never said that. But perhaps Cruz is onto something; maybe it’s time to look at churches and their tax status. After all, they are barely restraining themselves from electioneering from the pulpit-why not just let ’em have at it? There’s no proper policing of that law anyway.
Fuck it. They’ll live. They have scores of fools to shower them with money-in fact, the revocation will probably open pocketbooks a little bit more because they are finally saying what the flock really wants to hear. And they’re being very selective about what part of the First Amendment they like.They’ll accept the curtailment of their freedom of speech in exchange for tax-free lucre. Which to worship-Mammon or the Lord? We know who wins out in the end.