United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Why Won't Rand Paul and Chris Christie Take a Position on Indiana's "Religious Freedom" Law?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/ ... -indiana-religious-freedom-law
Published: Apr 2, 2015
Author: Danny Vinik
Post Date: 2015-04-02 07:30:35 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 6295
Comments: 46
Nearly a week since Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), igniting a nationwide debate about whether the controversial law invites discrimination based on sexual orientation, most potential Republican presidential candidates have taken the opportunity to bolster their conservative credentials. "Governor Pence has done the right thing," said former Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Monday. “I want to commend Governor Mike Pence for his support of religious freedom, especially in the face of fierce opposition,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz said in a written statement. “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." Ben Carson, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, and former Texas Governor Rick Perry all expressed their support for Pence and Indiana's RFRA law. (Meanwhile, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley have come out against it.) ADVERTISEMENT But two likely 2016 candidates have been notably absent from this debate: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. What do they think about the law, and why have they been so quiet on the issue? Samantha Smith, the communications director for Christie’s Leadership Matters for America PAC, did not return a request for comment on Wednesday morning. (I'll update this if I hear back.) Christie’s past statements offer little light on where he will fall on the issue, but he has been shifting to the right on social issues in advance of the Republican primary. On Tuesday, he announced his support for a 20-week abortion ban. Given Christie’s shaky position within the party, and the fact that the rest of the field supports Indiana’s law, it would be very surprising if he joined with liberals in opposing it. As for Paul, Sergio Gor, the communications director of RandPAC, wrote in an email, “The Senator is out of pocket with family this week and has not weighed in at this time.” It makes sense that Paul is unplugging with his family this week: He's expected to announce his presidential bid on April 7, the beginning of a long, grueling journey—and a victory would mean that these are his last moments of real privacy for a very long time. Could anyone blame him if he wanted to spend a few quiet days with his family? I couldn’t. But it also seems a bit convenient that Paul is entirely unreachable while the controversy swirls. If his campaign launch is just six days away, surely Paul and his staff are in close communication. How long does it take to send a tweet or tell your staff to craft a statement? It will be interesting to see how Paul reacts to the law—as he'll be forced to do, probably no later than April 7—in light of his libertarian credentials. If he stuck true to them, not only would he support the law but also support the right of Indiana’s businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, something that the rest of the Republican field opposes. (They just disagree with liberals about whether Indiana’s law would allow discrimination.) But if recent history is any guide, don’t expect Paul to stick true to his libertarian roots. Almost whenever he has faced a choice between traditional libertarian positions and mainstream Republican positions, he has chosen the latter in hope of winning the GOP nomination. Just recently, for instance, he called for more defense spending after saying for years that the military was bloated and needed further cuts. In fact, Paul has already reversed himself on whether private businesses should be allowed to exclude people from their establishments for any reason. “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant,” he told the Louisville Courier-Journal in 2010. “But, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.” He continued, “In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.” Just a few years later, as that position became controversial, Paul (dishonestly) said that he never held the libertarian position to begin with. So while it is taking a while for Paul to give his position, it isn’t hard to deduce where he’ll eventually fall. Maybe he’s just waiting until the spotlight on Indiana dies down a bit, so that his libertarian supporters are less aware when he adopts the party line. But if that's his plan, it's not very presidential.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
I agree with Paul. People cannot exclude people from their business establishments for any reason. They can't exclude people just because those people are black.
and that's a strawman. No law in the country allows any business to discriminate because of race. A business would not be able to exclude service to gays either under the terms of the state and Federal laws . What they would be allowed to do is to use their religious conscious and not be a part,or provide service to a 'relgious ' ceremony they find objectionable . This is such a phony issue . Most Christian businesses would never even inquire about their customer's personal lives . They just don't want to be associated with a ceremony they find religiously objectionable(freedom of association is also a 1st amendment right) . I don't see gays (except the gay Mafia )making a big outcry because a fundamental Christian won't provide services to their "wedding" . Even when a caterer ,bakery ,florist ,band ,dj etc refuses ,do you think they would find any difficulty finding an alternative ? And for that matter ,why would you trust eating something from someone who doesn't want to bake or cook for you ? It's nuts. You have Corporate American businesses like Apple making a grandstand on the issue while setting up shop in Saudi Arabia . Hello ! What happens to gays there ? All these other companies that are racing to be the most pc did not say a thing when 19 other states passes similar laws . That idiot Governor in Connecticut ,Dan Malloy ,got all sanctimonious . I guess he never read his own state's law ,which if anything is more restrictive than Indiana's . Christie and Paul should listen to this from Ted Cruz . This is how to respond. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFbWTt6JyEc#t=148
Amen.
I agree completely that businesses should not have to perform services that are against the deeply-held religious beliefs of their owners. It's the same thing with conscientious objection in the military. Obviously Churches should not be required to rent out halls for gay weddings, and bakers shouldn't have to bake cakes with two grooms in the frosting. But bakers cannot refuse to bake cakes for a black groom and a white bride. Because history.
I agree completely that businesses should not have to perform services that are against the deeply-held religious beliefs of their owners. It's the same thing with conscientious objection in the military. Obviously Churches should not be required to rent out halls for gay weddings, and bakers shouldn't have to bake cakes with two grooms in the frosting. But bakers cannot refuse to bake cakes for a black groom and a white bride. Because history. I think tomder55 said as much. The 'baker' example the liberals are using is flawed. They should have used the general 'diner' example. Can a Christian restaurant owner deny service to a group of gays walking in from a gay pride parade getting a bite to eat? Short answer no. Long answer maybe. Maybe if they come in with signs which disrupts the service of others or lewd behavior. However, that violates different local ordinances. But I agree. If a Catholic shirt maker is given an order to make "Pro-Choice and proud of it" t-shirts, these religious restoration acts should protect the business owner from litigation. In Texas a lot of businesses advertise they are Christian owned. You can usually see in the yellow pages the use of the ichthus. So if a gay person goes in to those shops, they are just looking for a fight. It is akin to a white man standing on a corner in Harlem with a bucket of chicken and wearing KKK whites.
It is overused. However, it does have some relevance. How about asking a baker to bake you a Hitler cake, including the 3d sculpture cakes? This actually happens more often than you'd ever think. Check out some sample images (anonymously) via DDG image search. You'll be surprised at the variety of Hitler cakes there are out there. The left cake is actual Nazis, and the second cake is obviously a joke cake, comparing dear old Dad to Hitler wearing a party hat. If a Jewish bakery objects to a Hitler cake, is that a stronger claim than if a Walmart (Gentile) bakery refused to make a Hitler cake? Maybe we need to reconsider whether some crappy cake is actually constitutionally protected right. In the immortal words of Patrick Henry: "Give me cake or give me death". (BTW, my comment is immune to Godwin's law. Sometimes, it really is about Hitler after all.)
Those fellas look pretty close, no? Let's further complicate this. What if the above 'couple' were gay and Nazi and wanted a gay Nazi cake?
Okay, now you've gone too far. : ) You can readily see the problems when we have to start discussing the Cake Police. Cake is a product, not a constitutional right.
And not very good for you too:)
There are no replies to Comment # 29. End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIn fact, Paul has already reversed himself on whether private businesses should be allowed to exclude people from their establishments for any reason.
#10. To: Vicomte13, Vicomte13, Too Conservative, Redleghunter (#2)
They can't exclude people just because those people are black.
#11. To: tomder55 (#10)
#16. To: redleghunter, tomder55 (#11)
#18. To: Vicomte13, tomder55, TooConservative, liberator (#16)
#22. To: redleghunter (#18)
(Edited)
The 'baker' example the liberals are using is flawed. They should have used the general 'diner' example. Can a Christian restaurant owner deny service to a group of gays walking in from a gay pride parade getting a bite to eat?
#26. To: TooConservative, tomder55, Vicomte13, liberator (#22)
#28. To: redleghunter (#26)
Let's further complicate this. What if the above 'couple' were gay and Nazi and wanted a gay Nazi cake?
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
Cake is a product, not a constitutional right.
Replies to Comment # 29.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]