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: 5913
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
#1. To: GrandIsland, Hondo68 (#0)
It is getting pretty bad for Rand Paul when even Bush has more balls then him.
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.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service." "Black-tie only." "Members only." Etc.
They can't exclude people just because those people are black. That is what the law says. But that is not what Gods law says. You support tyranny. You support people acting against their conscience. The government shouldn't be able to force you to associate with anyone you don't want to. I'm not for excluding blacks from anyplace. But if someone is it is most certainly their right.
"Black-tie only." "Members only." Etc. That's fine. Those are good reasons. I copied and pasted the assertion. Perhaps I should have modified it a little to make my point: "Businesses can't exclude people for ANY reason." They can't exclude people just because they're black. No shoes, no shirt? Sure. Loud and obnoxious? Sure. Smelly and gross and disturbing the customers? Probably. Black skin? Nope.
You're going to dare assert that GOD'S law allows racist people to exclude people based solely on their skin color? GOD'S law? I'm going to end my side of this particular conversation. You're walking out on a ledge and don't seem to realize it. I'm not going to egg you on. God made everybody your cousin, and every Christian your sister and your brother. And he never privileged mere commerce above his own moral demands and clarity. Mere commerce never trumps the moral law. Ever. "There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Paul Ok, that's it. I'm not going to become a source of temptation to you, such that in your rage you misrepresent God and actually believe it.
GOD'S law? God told the Jews not to intermarry with those other races. God never supported any law forcing people to accommodate blacks, whites, browns or reds. He gave us free will. I am not walking on any ledge and I'm not worried about eggs. I work for myself. I've worked for Indians, Pakistanis, blacks, whites, jews. I even worked for a queer who thought himself a pastor. His name is Sam Kader look him up. I even did a small job for a queer who had homo pics on his walls. It was outside work so I didn't have to look at them except that glance I got. However every man has a right to associate with who they choose. To sell to who they choose. To rent to who they choose. To hire who they choose.
"Businesses can't exclude people for ANY reason." They can't exclude people just because they're black. No shoes, no shirt? Sure. Loud and obnoxious? Sure. Smelly and gross and disturbing the customers? Probably. Black skin? Nope. You can exclude anyone you want from your business for any reason you desire. Even if you are a racist and hate blacks for no reason. It is your god given right to not sell to them if you don't want to. Tell me where the government gets the right by law or morality to question you on why you make the decisions you make? Maybe you kicked that black guy out because you don't like blacks and you are a racist. Maybe you thought he looked untrustworthy. It doesn't matter the reason. You support involuntary servitude. Slavery.
I disagree. There is no greater loss of freedom than when you lose the right to kick out of a building you own, lease or live in, anyone you don't want in YOUR space, for any reason. Peoples feelings shouldn't out trump my right to who stays in my home or business.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
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
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Amen.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
It is neither a straw man nor a phony issue. The issue that CAUSED businesses to lose their absolute right to determine their customers was black exclusion, not 100 years ago, but within our lifetimes. So, if folks like you would say "Businesses can exclude whomever they please, EXCEPT Blacks of course, because of the history of civil rights", then I'd say fine. But ignoring the historical issue and demanding the removal of the concessions for black equality won by oceans of blood won't work. Businesses should be able to refuse to perform services for customers, but not to black customers. Because history.
They're both playing it safe, triangulating on public opinion as it settles, especially how it's playing in the early-primary states (IA/NV/NH/SC). Charging out the gate on a hot-button issue has relatively few upsides, other than thrilling your fanbois. As we've seen before, it can also create a lot of fodder that can return to haunt you later in candidate debates. Cruz never has a problem taking the lead, even on a hot-potato issue. Or just declaring his candidacy without the usual "exploration committee" circus. Strategically, Christie and Paul are likely making the shrewder move by waiting a few days before issuing a me-too statement. Or a me-too-except-for statement. Paul seems to be hatching a stealth candidacy lately. Christie seems in real disarray.
Businesses cannot use race as a criteria for denying service PERIOD . Jim Crow laws were always unconstitutional after the 14th Amendment despite the flawed Plessy decision. But this is not an issue of race . It IS an issue of religious freedom.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Paul can't reconcile his 'libertarian ' positions with a Republican Presidential campaign. If he was being true to his convictions he'd have no ambiguity in his position. Christie is a NE Rockefeller Republican . If he mouths off about this issue and invites the wrath of the corporatists then he's toast in his own state . If he doesn't ,the base is disappointed .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
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.
But this is not an issue of race . It IS an issue of religious freedom. The issue in the public eye right now, yes. But remember, the gays are pressing this as an extension of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and they're winning in almost all of the courts everywhere. And IF the gay marriage/gay rights issue is "just like the blacks", then they win. Highlighting religion is the way that the issue can be made NOT just like the blacks, for there is no defensible Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other real religion argument against equality for blacks, but there IS a bar in virtually all traditional religions against homosexual activity. So, one can legitimately claim that performing services for gay marriage really IS offensive to the legitimate moral sense of a legitimate religion. One never could claim a true religious basis for objecting to black equality. That's why religion is a winner on this argument. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE ON THIS WEBSITE HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH ME. No, THEY have taken a very strong, belligerent "Business owners have the right to exclude service to WHOMEVER they please, for ANY reason or for NO reason." And I cannot accept that argument. It isn't LEGALLY true, of course, but beyond that, it is not morally right either. And the REASON that Business owners CANNOT HAVE plenary liberty is BECAUSE this "liberty" was, IN FACT, historically used explicitly to oppress blacks. So, on the issue before the public, I agree completely with you on the religious exemption issue, and I think that's the way to fight it. BUT, the black issue is NOT a strawman, because there are a large number of conservatives (and a very large number on this site) who DO NOT RECOGNIZE the 14th Amendment limitation on business owners discretion. Some HAVE argued that the 14th Amendment applies to government, not individuals, and that INDIVIDUAL business owners have the absolute right to refuse to serve ANYBODY. They won't write "including blacks", but that's what "anybody" means. And I am calling out this particular "libertarian" stance, because it is DISASTROUS. It is disastrous because it guarantees failure. American businesses, PARTICULARLY in the Southern, politically conservative regions of the country, collectively used their private offices to refuse to hire blacks or to serve them. They did it. And to stop that, specific legislation was passed and enforced that said that no, private business owners DO NOT have the right, in their own private businesses, to refuse to serve or hire blacks. It's illegal. The Supreme Court hung this on the Commerce Clause SO THAT private activity could be FULLY regulated. That's all within yours and my lifetime. So when some conservative who has taken the "plenary rights" position, right here on this board, to me directly, then says "tough shit about the Blacks - slavery ended in 1865", well, that's what I'm talking about. That dog don't hunt. And it don't hunt for the REASON I am keying upon. Businessmen's rights to do as they please were severely curtailed BECAUSE OF the oppression of the blacks. To continue to argue that they have the right to do as they please, and screw the blacks anyway because of 1865, well, that sounds to me like a Rebel Yell. It sounds to me like a stealth way to regain lost ground. And I'd rather bakers go out of business than concede one inch to the Confederates on black rights, ever. That war was fought and lost twice, and if every argument is moved to THAT battlefield, then it's going to be lost again. In short: if you want to win on religious rights, then you cannot take the position that business owners have the right to do as they please. No, they don't. They LOST those rights because of the Civil War - their slaves were taken, and because of the Civil Rights movement - their right to exclude blacks was taken. And that PRECEDENT having been set, the same laws CAN be used to impose gays on them. If you want to fight THAT abomination, and I do, then concede that business owners' rights ARE limited by law, and that the law, and not their liberty, decides who they have to serve. That takes the Blacks and segregation and the Civil War off the table. The PRESUMPTION is that they have to serve whoever comes in the door...which means that hotel chains can't be demanding marriage licenses to rent rooms to couples also, and have to rent to gays. If there's to be an EXCEPTION to the: open your doors, serve everybody, then it has to be based on SOMETHING. And that something is religion. That's good. To argue that business owners have plenary rights because it's their business means you lose. It's false. They lost those rights in the Civil War and 1964 and afterwards. They're never getting those rights back BECAUSE OF the Civil War and 1964. So if we stay on the battleground of reality, then there's plenty of allies to the idea that businesses CAN refuse to do what their owners religions oppose. No religion permits discrimination again Blacks or Hispanics, so THAT issue is defused. The issue is narrowed to a battlefield, and the battle can be won. "Business owners uber alles" is "The South will rise again". Which means "And the South will be put down yet again." We've seen this movie before. The Stars and Bars lose every single time. And if they are raised on this issue, subtly, by asserting business rights that do not in fact exist anymore (BECAUSE OF the Civil War and Segregation), then the South loses again, and bakers will end up baking cakes for gays even it morally repels them...and Catholic hospitals will provide abortions or close their doors. The fight has to be fought on the correct turf, and plenary business owners right is an imaginary turf. Lots of people HERE take that stance. It is a prescription for sure defeat. That's why I fight the way I fight: I am facing down unreality. You seem realistic. And we seem to be allies on the ISSUE, so we shouldn't fight.
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.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
Paul has observed that the public seems to like to elect liars to the White House over the last 20 years. The Clintons (and Gores), all down-home Southern Baptists who just loved their guns? LOL Bush Junior, no nation building and a modest foreign policy? The Pill Bill? No Child Left Behind? And Obama is probably the most systematically dishonest of the three. Maybe honest guys can't be elected prez any more. Anyway, the liars seem to get rewarded.
That's why religion is a winner on this argument. Thank you for clarifying. You are having three different discussions here and somehow some of us are talking past each other. I agree with your statements quoted above.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
Pence has flip-flopped, and now condemns the gross mischaracterization of Bush and Cruz, the "reckless" crackas. He's baking gay wedding cakes now, and lesbian pizzas. “We want to make it clear that Indiana is open for business, we want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's our way of life.” Pence, who has been seen as a potential GOP presidential candidate, blamed the media and critics of his law for much of the controversy. He said he believes the law “does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples,” and argued it had been mischaracterized. He argued that a clarification is necessary to combat the “perception problem.”
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.)
Forgot to ping you to my comment above. Maybe I should start a Hitler Cake pinglist? : )
He hasn't actually backed down much. I do expect they'll have a followup non-discrimination law. Indiana is one of a handful of states that's never had one.
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. and that's why the 'civil right's ' angle is flawed in this debate . It is not about color . As they say ,it's settled law that there cannot be discrimination due to race. I wonder if those opposed to this law would be cool with a gay baker refusing to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church anti-gay gathering ?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
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?
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
I did not see your response #17 before the above reply. Well done ! I see your point .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
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:)
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
Hmmm...yeah, it doesn't bode well for Rand. He must feel he'll be B-slapped and defenseless. A guy this unprincipled feckless is NOT "Presidential material." He can run, but he can't hide forever from the jackals of the Left.
Great. Then why doesn't he punctuate his position by backing up Pence? A stand on THIS issue is a litmus test for our side. NO stand = NO sack.
I dunno if that's what Vic is supporting. Maybe he's just confused by smoke and mirrors propaganda meme. The government shouldn't be able to force you to associate with anyone you don't want to. Agree 100%. Why is "tolerance" a one-way street with fascist homos and the Left? (oh wait -- because they are HYPOCRITES AND LIARS.) (What?? A restaurant won't seat some tranny just because he/she/it is barefoot and naked, sporting an erection, and loudly swearing like a banshee? How -- HOW intolerant and discriminatory is that restaurant?? SHUT 'EM DOWN!!)
In playing "devil's advocate," the case for "intolerance" and "discrimination" can technically be made in ALL these cases. ANY current standard of "dress code" is rendered illegal, while a "behavior" code is now relative to the "intolerance" of policy.WHO is the arbiter of "loud"? Obnoxious"? "Smelly and gross", and do federal law supersede business and service policy? For conformation, will businesses now be required to retain the services of a psychiatrist? An expert from the CDC?
Fundamentally, this is true liberty. When did the freedom of association and commerce end? Moreover, what mechanism gave the gubmint the authority to favor one citizen over another AND coerce its citizenry into violating its conscience and religious principles? "Public accommodation" was a decent and Biblical attribute...although ironically technically violates the original tenets of the USCON. It's proven to be a sticky-wicket and vcan o' worms. Taken to its (predictable) extreme, it's now totally one-sided and subverted. Rhetorical Example "A": Why shouldn't the RCC be subservient to federal law and auspices of 'accommodation' and thus be compelled to ordain a Satanist or anyone who claims they are "Catholic" as clergy?
The civil rights angle is why the other guys win in the end. The civil rights angle is why Christians will be forced to serve gays. Gays are a minority that has been discriminated against, and they click right in as a perfect substitute for "blacks" in all of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence. The civil rights angle, the 14th Amendment, is WHY the Federal courts, and state courts too, are mowing down state constitutions all over the country. The 14th Amendment trumps state constitutions, and trump economic rights. Equal protection under the law trumps EVERYTHING, and those who wield it are predestined to win any fight that is fought on that ground. Which is why those who care about religious freedom need to NOT fight on THAT ground. That's why they need to take the FIRST Amendment, religious rights, and put them against the 14th, to force a compromise line. That is where the battle has to be fought. In fact, that is the only POSSIBLE avenue of victory. Assertions that business owners have transcendent rights to do as they please are stupid. They have no such rights. THey once did, but they lost them all with Heart of Atlanta. If something is a civil rights/equal protection matter, then economic interests are subordinated to it. Period. You realize that, which is why you want to fight the law on religious grounds/First Amendment grounds. And you're right. Those ARE the grounds to fight. I'm not arguing with you. The people I'm arguing with are the conservatives who are shooting into a circle by proclaiming the sanctity of rights that DO NOT EXIST. Namely, the alleged "right" of business owners to serve or not serve whomever they please, for whatever reason or no reason, because they are business owners and it's their business. This right does not exist anywhere in America. It ceased to exist because of the Civil Rights wars, and Heart of Atlanta put a stake through its heart. There is no absolute right to participate in the stream of commerce. The stream of commerce is a regulated space, and the Federal government sets the rules for participation. Lots of conservatives don't like that. I don't particularly like it either. But that IS the way it is, and the REASON it is that way - the reason the country is structured the way it is with an overmighty federal government, is BECAUSE of slavery, and BECAUSE OF the oppression of blacks. The ONLY WAY to break the power of the states and individuals to oppress them was to massively expand federal power, use guns, and then keep expending it until virtually everything was regulated specifically to punish and publicly destroy anybody who doesn't treat blacks as equals. That's the way it is. And that's WHY. A million people died in that fight, and the victors haven't forgotten that any more than the defeated have. In THIS fight, that gays have latched onto the rights structure erected to ensure equality for blacks, and that structure is SO POWERFUL that it cannot be beaten with anything other than something that people hold AS dear. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, for example, will not defeat the 14th, because there is no history of those Amendments having aroused such passion or moving so many people. Only the First Amendment can stand as something that has equal power both in the general public mind AND in the mind of the LEFT and the CENTER as the Fourteenth. The Courts will respect and listen to a First Amendment argument. No court in America is ever going to disregard the 14th Amendment in favor of the Ninth, or the Tenth, or the Second. The 14th Amendment was the vehicle for obtaining freedom and a government structure, and it is central to our legal structure. Only the First has equal power. Which is why the argument to limit the reach of the 14th Amendment cannot be won except on 1st Amendment grounds, and then only partially. It will never be the case that a for-profit business chain is going to be able to discriminate against gays. Holiday Inn is not going to be able to claim a "religious exemption" from renting out halls to gay wedding parties EVEN IF the shares are bought out by a consortium of Baptists and they have a shareholder vote to establish that the company's values are such that they don't rent to gays. That interest, of passive shareholders in a company, is too attenuated to overcome a 14th Amendment equal protection argument. But the First Amendment CAN overcome the requirement that a devout couple who run a bed and breakfast have to cater overnight in their house to a gay couple. However, the general claim that it's THEIR house and THEIR business, and they don't have to accept those clients - THAT is a guaranteed fail. It's their house, but they have put it in the stream of commerce to make money, and they are only permitted to make money in commerce if they obey all of the government rules. They don't have the right to open their house as a B&B and earn money from it if they do not obey all the rules. Those rules include equal rights and equal protection. So, if they government says they have to take gays, they either take gays or are put out of business. 14th Amendment logic. Only the First: these are religious people, it's their HOUSE, it's TOO MUCH of an imposition on them, for they will feel intense personal anguish - THAT argument CAN prevail, because of the power of the First Amendment. But it can never prevail for a large corporation because the shareholders have a religious sense. They are too far from direct contact for their ownership rights to trump the 14th. That's how the courts would come out, if pressed to it. But if conservatives refuse to focus on the religious aspect, and instead take their stand, as they have on this site, on absolute liberty of business owners. And then start trashing folks like me as socialists, fascists and statists because we say, truly, that dog don't hunt. Well, then conservatives are buying themselves another Appomattox moment. That battle cannot be won, because of history. And that's the battle that most people here seem to want to fight. YOU don't. YOU see it. But THEY do not see it. THEY think I'm their enemy because I tell them truly that they are not the absolute ruler of the businesses they own - because they are not and never will be - and because I tell them, again truly, that the REASON that businessmen lost their sovereignty over their businesses is because they chose to discriminate against blacks. When they then start mocking blacks and civil rights and all of that, they reveal themselves as neo-Confederates. And guess what: if the religious freedom argument is co-opted by neo-Confederates, it is LOST, and the order will come down for bakers to make cakes for gays, and eventually, for Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The fight has to be fought properly, and our own allies are choosing to fight it on grounds that are obnoxious. Now, it is true, I am a statist, not a Republican conservative. And the bulk of Americans are statists: they will never tolerate dismantling Social Security or Unemployment insuranace or Medicare. But as a statist who is a Catholic, I DO see that true religion has to trump the state on core moral matters (as long as the religion is Christian, or the tenets of the non-Christian religion comport with something that is acceptable to Christianity). (In other words, no, the state cannot force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, but yes, the state can punish drug use in religious rituals, and can limit marriage to one woman, not four.) This is because the Divine State trumps the Civil State. But if I don't hear RELIGIOUS arguments for protecting Christian business owners, but hear neo-Confederate arguments about the absolute sovereignty of business owners to discriminate against whomever they place - AND THAT IS WHAT I AM MOSTLY HEARING ON THIS SITE - well, then I will side with the gays. The 14th Amendment is important. Christianity is MORE important, but "Business owners have absolute rights' is not a Christian argument. Christ never gave people absolute rights to do ANYTHING. It's a neo-Confederate argument, and if they rise up again, they have to be put down again. Individuals are not sovereign. They have rights under God that trump the state's authority, yes, but those rights are clearly identifiable in the Christian religion, and absolute right to discriminate in business ain't one of them. Mostly, my continuous argumentation on this subject is due to frustration and rising anger at the neo-Confederates. Do people not see and understand that THOSE tired old stupid arguments always lose? Do they WANT to lose, again? They always lose. They lose because nobody in his right mind really thinks that anybody can ever have the right to do just whatever the hell he wants, wherever, because it's HIS...whatever - house, land, business. People who can do whatever, head straight to intolerable evils, and people with common sense won't stand for it. It is not common sensical for gays to be able to impose involuntary servitude in catering to them from Christians. That's bad. But the antidote is: It's a violation of the Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment. THAT can win. That's it's a violation of the principle that all business owners are sovereigns who have the plenary right to decide whom to serve or not, at all times without limit. That's just trying to go back to the plantation, and plantations are museums, like the Louvre and Versailles. The age of masters and lords of the manor is over. It's not going to be permitted to spring up again. Because it's bad. I wish people would SEE THAT. It's important SO THAT we can avoid the collision between the government and the Catholic Church over abortion in Catholic hospitals. That is really what is at stake at the bottom of this. If bakers have to bake cakes for gays, irrespective of their religious objections, then Catholic hospitals are going to be told they have to perform abortions. And then I am going to have to uphold my allegiance to the Church over my allegiance to the government. And many Catholics will do otherwise, and darkness will fall again. That's the ultimate battle. I'd prefer to defeat the charge before it gets anywhere near to that.
+1 Common Sense, 101. Freedom, 101. "Choice", 101. In the extreme, why must ANY one be compelled to rent their home/hire a rapist or murderer?
EXCEPT as of 1973, homosexuality was considered MENTAL ILLNESS. That opinion has NOT changed as far as many can see. The color of one's skin has NEVER been an "illness." Individuals are not sovereign. They sure are. Complete will Free Will. With "certain rights endowed by our Creator." "[The absolute right to discriminate in business ain't one of them [rights under God."] I dispute the subversion of contemporary language and definition of the word "discriminate." I also dispute the definitions of "Rights" AND "intolerance" and legal terms "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crime" while we're at it. Would you be engaging in "discrimination" were you to refuse to legally represent and defend a rapist, a sodomist, a mass murderer of a Catholic congregation? I know this is extreme, but exactly where does principle start and end??
In America, it ended before it began. When the Founders declared that all men are created equal, but then upheld slavery, the freedom of assocation and commerce of a quarter of the population died aborning. They had theoretical rights of equality which were, however, suppressed by the reality of a constitutional and legal system that enforced their enslavement. They were freed in blood, through an unconstitutional war. Released, their former masters acted to reassert dominance through force and law, and things remained that way until the Civil Rights fights of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In those, the government power that had stripped away the liberty of one group, turned and acknowledged their liberty. And to uphold it, used it power to force the former dominant group to make way for them. Today, businesses MUST serve blacks because 50 years ago they refused to. That's when, and that's why. It COULD be confined to the narrow issue of the treatment of blacks by whites, and it OUGHT to be. The current struggle over religious conscience COULD be fought out on freedom of religion grounds, rooted in the First Amendment. If there is to be any hope of victory, that's where it needs to be fought. But as to a general notional idea that people in commerce, labor and property are absolutely free to do whatever they please - that was NEVER true in this land. First there was slavery and segregation, which violently took away the rights of a large part of the population in those regards. To overcome that, the rights of those doing the oppression had to themselves be suppressed significantly enough to strip their power to oppress. And that's where we are today. When did it end? It never began in the first place.
Hey, my father, a retail furniture business owner, taught me that even a fags money is green... so I probably would cater to fags (plus if I didn't, my wife would cut my nuts off, she is more liberal, socially, than I)... but I should still have the right to do business with whomever I choose and not do business with whomever I feel I can afford to turn away. I don't care if fags are offended or not.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Get a new wife.
It shouldn't because it would be wrong. Unlikely example. The more pressing example is that the government orders the Catholic Church to provide abortions due to Obamacare rules. Under such circumstances, the Church can't comply. So the irresistible force meets the immovable object. Long before it gets there, the bedcount and headcount will be done, so the government will only order it in a place where the Church CAN close its hospitals without an immediate disaster. But let's say that the government is imperious and orders it directly. The Church will either comply, or close the hospitals, or keep the hospitals open and let the government come in to close them. Romney actually did order the Church to perform abortion in its hospitals in Massachussetts as part of Romneycare, but the Church avoided doing it by subterfuge. The specific thing that they were ordered to do was to provide the "morning after" pill, which is an abortifacient. What the Church hospitals did was to perform a pregnancy test, and where there was no pregnancy, administer the drug (because they are not, in fact, performing an abortion and knew it). In most cases there was no pregnancy. Where there WAS one, the hospitals didn't perform the service and the patients went elsewhere for it if they wanted it. It didn't end up litigated and soon enough Romney was gone. Romney wasn't keen on forcing the issue, so to the extent that confrontation COULD have happened over the Church's subterfuge, it didn't. With Obama, though, on a national level, the PURPOSE would be to provoke a head on collision between Church and state, to demonstrate the superiority of the state and its laws over the Church and its laws. If such a thing is pressed to that final, fatal confrontation, then obviously I will side with the church against the state, and I will hope that the Church will have muscular support from Rome and other resources abroad to resist and endure. I expect that what would happen is that the Church would close a bunch of hospitals, just as they closed those orphanages in New England. The Catholic Church is not a plaything of any government. It obeys the laws, to the extent that the laws do not violate the laws of God. To the extent they do, obviously the Church remains true to the superior authority, which is not some state but God. And under such circumstances, where there is pressure in one nation, then the resources of the Church in the rest of the world can be brought to bear to either force that nation to change its laws politically, or to provide succor for persecuted Christians within that nation. That's how it works. If the US becomes a place that shuts its Catholic hospitals over abortion, we can expect a great deal of lawbreaking and rule parsing.
That gets expensive. It's already my second. I can tolerate. Besides, she's ruthlessly conservative when it comes to non social issues... like me. She will stand with Rand in 16
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
We should always keep in mind that much of the political will to confront slavery and to free the slaves came from laborers in non-slave states who did not like their wage competition with...slave wages. It's where we get the term apparently. In blunt terms, white men didn't want to work for slave wages and didn't want a country that allowed that situation. We hear the same about illegal alien workers who displace citizens.
And when we hear it, it's right.
It's worth recalling that these nativist and unfair wage competition concerns have surfaced repeatedly throughout American history. The Left acts like this is something new and sinister when in fact modern immigrants are far more easily accepted than past waves of mass immigration. The Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the southern Europeans (Italians, Sicilians, Greeks), the eastern Europeans, now the Mexicans and Central Americans and the various Mideast imports we see now. Asians get off relatively lightly, probably because of shame over the travesty against domestic Japanese during WW II.
Asians were treated little better than slaves or Indians in old California.
"Governor Pence has done the right thing," said former Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Monday.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
In fact, Paul has already reversed himself on whether private businesses should be allowed to exclude people from their establishments for any reason.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
They can't exclude people just because those people are black.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
I agree with Paul. People cannot exclude people from their business establishments for any reason.
#5. To: TooConservative (#3)
"No shirt, no shoes, no service."
#6. To: A K A Stone (#4)
But that is not what Gods law says.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
You're going to dare assert that GOD'S law allows racist people to exclude people based solely on their skin color?
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
That's fine. Those are good reasons. I copied and pasted the assertion. Perhaps I should have modified it a little to make my point:
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
I agree with Paul. People cannot exclude people from their business 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)
#12. To: tomder55 (#10)
(Edited)
and that's a strawman...This is such a phony issue
#13. To: tomder55, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#10)
Christie and Paul should listen to this from Ted Cruz.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
(Edited)
Businesses should be able to refuse to perform services for customers, but not to black customers. Because history.
#15. To: TooConservative (#13)
Paul seems to be hatching a stealth candidacy lately. Christie seems in real disarray.
#16. To: redleghunter, tomder55 (#11)
#17. To: tomder55, redleghunter (#14)
Jim Crow laws were always unconstitutional after the 14th Amendment despite the flawed Plessy decision.
#18. To: Vicomte13, tomder55, TooConservative, liberator (#16)
#19. To: tomder55 (#15)
Paul can't reconcile his 'libertarian ' positions with a Republican Presidential campaign. If he was being true to his convictions he'd have no ambiguity in his position.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
So, one can legitimately claim that performing services for gay marriage really IS offensive to the legitimate moral sense of a legitimate religion. One never could claim a true religious basis for objecting to black equality.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#1)
"Governor Pence has done the right thing," said former Florida Governor Jeb Bush
“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. Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#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?
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#24. To: hondo68 (#21)
Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
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.
#26. To: TooConservative, tomder55, Vicomte13, liberator (#22)
#27. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#25)
#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.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#1)
It is getting pretty bad for Rand Paul when even Bush has more balls then him.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
I agree with Paul. People cannot exclude people from their business establishments for any reason.
#32. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#4)
You support people acting against their conscience.
#33. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative. A K A Stone. (#5)
No shoes, no shirt? Sure. Loud and obnoxious? Sure. Smelly and gross and disturbing the customers? Probably.
#34. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#7)
Every man has a right to associate with who they choose. To sell to who they choose. To rent to who they choose. To hire who they choose.
#35. To: tomder55 (#25)
and that's why the 'civil right's ' angle is flawed in this debate .
#36. To: GrandIsland (#9)
There is no greater loss of freedom than when you lose the right to kick out of a building you own, lease or live in, anyone you don't want in YOUR space, for any reason. Peoples feelings shouldn't out trump my right to who stays in my home or business.
#37. To: Vicomte13, tomder55 (#35)
(Edited)
Gays are a minority that has been discriminated against, and they click right in as a perfect substitute for "blacks" in all of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
#38. To: Liberator (#34)
When did the freedom of association and commerce end? Moreover, what mechanism gave the gubmint the authority to favor one citizen over another AND coerce its citizenry into violating its conscience and religious principles?
#39. To: Liberator (#36)
#40. To: GrandIsland (#39)
#41. To: Liberator (#34)
Why shouldn't the RCC be subservient to federal law and auspices of 'accommodation' and thus be compelled to ordain a Satanist or anyone who claims they are "Catholic" as clergy?
#42. To: rlk (#40)
(Edited)
Get a new wife.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
First there was slavery and segregation, which violently took away the rights of a large part of the population in those regards.
#44. To: TooConservative (#43)
We hear the same about illegal alien workers who displace citizens.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#46. To: TooConservative (#45)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]