See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Ted Cruz expresses support for Indiana's 'religious freedom' law (He doesn't pander to fags)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/ted- ... a-religious-freedom-law-2015-3
Published: Mar 31, 2015
Author: Hunter Walker
Post Date: 2015-03-31 06:24:36 by Abraham
Keywords: None
Views: 135
Comments: 12
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) weighed in on one of the week's most hot button political controversies with a statement issued late Monday evening expressing support for Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) and the state's proposed "religious freedom" law. Critics have said Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed by Pence last week, would allow discrimination against lesbians and gays. Its supporters, including Pence, have denied this and said it simply promotes religious freedom. In his statement, Cruz, who launched his 2016 presidential campaign last Monday, described the law as an effort to support "religious liberty." "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," Cruz said. "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." Since he officially launched his White House bid last week, Cruz has made it clear he hopes to appeal to grassroots conservatives and the religious right. Pence has said he's also considering running for president. Legal experts have been divided on the impact of the law, which will take effect July 1. Many supporters say it was simply designed to make it more difficult for the government to interfere with peoples' religious practices. Some opponents argue it would allow individuals to use religion as an excuse to deny housing, employment, or services to gays and lesbians. The law has led to widespread backlash from business leaders, politicians, and even celebrities. Last Saturday, Pence told the Indianapolis Star newspaper that he would try to find "a way to clarify the intent of the law" to make clear that it does not promote discrimination. However, in an interview with ABC the following day, he declined to address whether the law would allow anti-gay discrimination. On Monday, the Republican leaders of the Legislature said they would find a fix to "clarify" the law and make clear it is not discriminatory. As of this writing, Cruz's campaign has not responded to an email asking whether he supports the law being clarified.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Abraham (#0)
Well is DC & Hollywierd oppose the indiana law, it must be a good one. This is a good point for Cruz. But the truth is that Cruz doesn't have to pander to fags. He panders to someone way more powerful, the jews, (who are the ones who promote the fags.) "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
it os a good thing abe aint getting paid to do this here... he has noidea how truly ineffective he is being ... ahh free zealot labor...must be nice to be a fat cat politicalrat.
______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
Refusing service to people is not a religious decision. It's a business decision. No legislative bodies should be passing laws with the words religion or religious anywhere in the body or intent of the law. --Are you a *Jew*?
Chyeah -- go ahead and shred the entire 1st Amendment while you're at it. The "intent" of the Founders (who prayed, and were largely Christian) never took it seriously anyway. OH WAIT.... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What part of what part of that 1A phrase don’t you understand? Is it “Free”? “exercise”? Or “Thereof”? Aaaah -- it's "RELIGION"! Ding-ding-ding! As usual, you and your delusional ilk seek only to re-interpret and dissect USCON so long as it's based on the lies of a Leftist political agenda, is coercive, and without consent of the governed. How any sane person can support fascist policies enforced by judicial fiat; completely one-sided and warped beyond recognition is beyond me. Why is it the God-less Left believes the 1A applies ONLY to them?? Is there some secular humanist academy in Stockholm you are compelled to attend? Many [insane, anti-Constitution] supporters [AKA Leftists, God-less Leftists] say it was simply designed to make it more difficult for the government to interfere with peoples' religious practices. AMEN! Some opponents argue it would allow individuals to use religion as an excuse to deny housing, employment, or services to gays and lesbians. Patently 100% bulls***. On Monday, the Republican leaders of the Legislature said they would find a fix to "clarify" the law and make clear it is not discriminatory. I hope they "clarify" it in crayon....then tell the Leftist and Homofascists to shove the Crayolas (as a parting gift.) This is a good point for Cruz. But the truth is that Cruz doesn't have to pander to fags. He panders to someone way more powerful, the jews, (who are the ones who promote the fags.) HOW in the HELL does this issue wind up being about..."Joos"?? Lol...this place is just un-believable. The intent of the First Amendment was to stop legislatures from passing laws that were in any way connected to religion. Free exercise extends to how you worship and not your business practices which, if you were a true *Christian*, you wouldn't be judging anyone let alone believing that your religious collar allows you to discriminate against anyone. As usual, you and your delusional ilk seek only to re-interpret and dissect USCON so long as it's based on the lies of a Leftist political agenda, is coercive, and without consent of the governed. Huh? Did you hear that on some talk radio show and *think* that it sounded like it meant *something*? No law means exactly that...no law...to you it means ANY law that gives religious practice - and whatever moronic belief that is associated with it - a personal veto over laws. --Are you a *Jew*?
Welcome to 4um... --Are you a *Jew*?
Amen. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Uh, no not quite. That's YOUR short and sweet and convenient interpretation. The intent encompassed many liberties; The "intent" was NOT to abridge the freedom of speech, or compel gubmint to selectively interpret "religious freedom" as "hate speech." Nor is it an excuse to censor ANY one base on religion. Nor was it intended to coerce said censorship of belief via the mechanism of an over-officious, obtrusive fascist Government. Nor was the intent of 1A ANYTHING to do with Christian "judgment." Nice try. Huh? Did you hear that on some talk radio show and *think* that it sounded like it meant *something*? Thanks. I guess you've passed 'Tone Deafness' and 'Everything-Sounds-Like-Rush-Limbaugh' 101 courses with flying colors at Stockholm U. That said....dial down your inner Ron Kuby and study what I've written, click your heels 3 times, then hopefully you'll understand the truth. No law means exactly that...no law...to you it means ANY law that gives religious practice - and whatever moronic belief that is associated with it - a personal veto over laws. Look -- You're still not explaining the 1A phrases which confuse you so much. Moreover, NO "religious law" has been legislated. But keep in mind NO government is constitutionally authorized to coerce ANY religion into changing or subverting their foundational faith. But, go ahead and explain to the class that is in play here and enforced. Thanks. *sigh* I know... The sun just hid behind a cloud. Actually, it seemed as if the cloud purposely obscured the cloud. I identified it immediately as sporting what appeared to be a fluffy grey Yarmelke and wispy dark blue-ish grey beard. The guy who *wrote* it thought so too. NO law means NO law... You're still not explaining the 1A phrases which confuse you so much. Moreover, NO "religious law" has been legislated. What misfiring of your synapse makes you believe that a law which allows a person to use the courts to grant that person a personal veto over laws based solely on that law offending his *religion* is *not* a religious law? --Are you a *Jew*?
Ted Cruz expresses support for ndiana's 'religious freedom' law (He doesn't pander to fags)
#2. To: Abraham, Artisan (#0)
#3. To: Abraham (#0)
#4. To: war (#3)
No legislative bodies should be passing laws with the words religion or religious anywhere in the body or intent of the law.
#5. To: Abraham (#0)
Legal experts have been divided on the impact of the law [promotes religious freedom], which will take effect July 1.
#6. To: Artisan (#1)
Well is DC & Hollywierd oppose the indiana law, it must be a good one.
#7. To: Liberator (#4)
(Edited)
Chyeah -- go ahead and shred the entire 1st Amendment while you're at it. The "intent" of the Founders (who prayed, and were largely Christian) never took it seriously anyway. OH WAIT....
#8. To: Liberator (#6)
HOW in the HELL does this issue wind up being about..."Joos"??
#9. To: war (#7)
Free exercise extends to how you worship and not your business practices which, if you were a true *Christian*, you wouldn't be judging anyone let alone believing that your religious collar allows you to discriminate against anyone.
#10. To: war (#7)
The intent of the First Amendment was to stop legislatures from passing laws that were in any way connected to religion.
"As usual, you and your delusional ilk seek only to re-interpret and dissect USCON so long as it's based on the lies of a Leftist political agenda, is coercive, and without consent of the governed."
#11. To: war (#8)
Welcome to 4um...
#12. To: Liberator (#10)
Uh, no not quite. That's YOUR short and sweet and convenient interpretation
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest