How do Conservatives Do It?

A married gay republican asked Ted Cruz what he’d do to protect the marriage between he and his husband. Of course Cruz dodged the question by saying he was a champion of Religious Freedom and the government should not intrude into people’s personal lives, should not dictate how they worship etc. And yet in the next breath fundies like him will say how there should be a constitutional amendment banning abortion, gay marriage, etc. How in the world do they reconcile this?

Honesty and integrity are very low on their priority list when it comes to morals.

"Listen, I'm a constitutionalist," Cruz began. "For over 200 years, marriage has been a question for the states. Now, personally, I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman, but if you want to change the marriage laws, the way to do it constitutionally is convince your fellow citizens, go to the state legislature, and change it. It shouldn't be the federal government or unelected judges imposing their own definition of marriage — we should instead respect our constitutional system." Meyers wasn't buying it: "You know, I read the Constitution this morning, and I'm not sure you're right on all that stuff." The federal courts aren't, either. We'll probably find out if the Supreme Court agrees with Cruz sometime soon. —Peter Weber http://theweek.com(… /speedreads/544649/watch-sen-ted-cruz-seth-meyers-politely-debate-gay-marriage)
What is it that scares them so? :-S

Thanks for the quote cc. What hear is, a guy who’s job it is to enforce laws is claiming the used to say something that maybe it didn’t, and is not saying he will defend the law as it currently is. Many states were changing their marriage laws before the Supreme Court stepped in and saved us all the time.
The question is to a law maker, law interpreter, and law protector. He answers it as if he is some low level judge who has no choice in the matter.

Suppose I claim my religion requires me to discriminate against Republicans in all aspects of my life. What then? Could I refuse to sell or remt housing to them? If I were a store owner, could I refuse to serve them? If I were a marriage license clerk could I refuse to issue them a license?
As Mark Twain said, “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”

Suppose I claim my religion requires me to discriminate against Republicans in all aspects of my life. What then? Could I refuse to sell or remt housing to them? If I were a store owner, could I refuse to serve them? If I were a marriage license clerk could I refuse to issue them a license? As Mark Twain said, "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
I actually thought that'd be a great movement to start...a mass creation of all kinds of micro-religions that go on to refuse various others service, etc. and claim religious freedom. And to make the matter even more to the point, they could be things like Won't allow dog owners to purchase cat food.

Atheism is protected as a “religion” Constitutionally. If “religious” freedom is the priority, atheists should be free to deny service or engage in commerce with anyone who believes in “God”.

Atheism is protected as a "religion" Constitutionally. If "religious" freedom is the priority, atheists should be free to deny service or engage in commerce with anyone who believes in "God".
I don't think it works that way. I think it's just that you are protected to NOT believe in the same way you are protected for what you do believe. i.e. you can say publicly you are an atheist or a Catholic and no one can persecute you or threaten you or fire you from your job for it. If you want to not do something, like say go to war, you still have to prove that your philosophy, your upbringing, some deeply ingrained in who you are, leads you to not want to kill people. Conscientious objector of course works for that, without a religion.
Atheism is protected as a "religion" Constitutionally. If "religious" freedom is the priority, atheists should be free to deny service or engage in commerce with anyone who believes in "God".
I don't think it works that way. I think it's just that you are protected to NOT believe in the same way you are protected for what you do believe. i.e. you can say publicly you are an atheist or a Catholic and no one can persecute you or threaten you or fire you from your job for it. If you want to not do something, like say go to war, you still have to prove that your philosophy, your upbringing, some deeply ingrained in who you are, leads you to not want to kill people. Conscientious objector of course works for that, without a religion. So if I am a Christian baker I have to prove that my philosophy, my upbringing, my deeply ingrained self concept, leads me to not want to bake cakes for homosexuals? So with a Religious Freedom Act, the burden of proof would still be on me to show that my refusal to act is in accordance with my stated religion? Or are you saying that such a Religious Freedom Act (that doesn't require such a heavy burden of proof) is unconstitutional?

That’s not how it works, Tim. Discrimination is illegal. These Orwellian named Freedom of Religion laws are just excuses to exercise bigotry. Objecting to war is not bigotry and different laws apply.

That's not how it works, Tim. Discrimination is illegal. These Orwellian named Freedom of Religion laws are just excuses to exercise bigotry. Objecting to war is not bigotry and different laws apply.
Hmm. Killing people (albeit in the context of war) seems to me to be rather discriminating. But the war argument, I think is a red herring in this discussion. My point is that if Freedom of Religion laws are mechanisms to get around proscriptions against bigotry, they should work as well for atheists who might choose to be bigoted towards non-secularists. Why should Christians, Muslims, etc. get to use these laws to exercise bigotry, and atheists not get to do so? Granted bigotry is not good for society, generally speaking, thus we should not have such laws (that promote bigoted actions) at all. But IF WE DO have such laws, let's at least be fair about it.
That's not how it works, Tim. Discrimination is illegal. These Orwellian named Freedom of Religion laws are just excuses to exercise bigotry. Objecting to war is not bigotry and different laws apply.
Hmm. Killing people (albeit in the context of war) seems to me to be rather discriminating. But the war argument, I think is a red herring in this discussion. My point is that if Freedom of Religion laws are mechanisms to get around proscriptions against bigotry, they should work as well for atheists who might choose to be bigoted towards non-secularists. Why should Christians, Muslims, etc. get to use these laws to exercise bigotry, and atheists not get to do so? Granted bigotry is not good for society, generally speaking, thus we should not have such laws (that promote bigoted actions) at all. But IF WE DO have such laws, let's at least be fair about it. Where do you see people who are using religion to be bigots and winning their court cases? I mean currently, and not somewhere that the lawyers, police and judge all go to the same church.
That's not how it works, Tim. Discrimination is illegal. These Orwellian named Freedom of Religion laws are just excuses to exercise bigotry. Objecting to war is not bigotry and different laws apply.
Hmm. Killing people (albeit in the context of war) seems to me to be rather discriminating. But the war argument, I think is a red herring in this discussion. My point is that if Freedom of Religion laws are mechanisms to get around proscriptions against bigotry, they should work as well for atheists who might choose to be bigoted towards non-secularists. Why should Christians, Muslims, etc. get to use these laws to exercise bigotry, and atheists not get to do so? Granted bigotry is not good for society, generally speaking, thus we should not have such laws (that promote bigoted actions) at all. But IF WE DO have such laws, let's at least be fair about it. Where do you see people who are using religion to be bigots and winning their court cases? I mean currently, and not somewhere that the lawyers, police and judge all go to the same church. Laws that allow bigotry in the guise of religious freedom, will promote bigotry wherever they exist. If I am victimized by such bigotry, such laws make it incumbent on me to go through a court system (that I may not be able to afford) in order to have regress for being discriminated against. Whereas, I could much more easily, have a sort of regress by being bigoted against others by using the same laws. My point is, if some American's want to use "religious freedom" as a way of imposing their sense of what is right, on others, then I should have the same latitude in imposing my sense of what is right, on them.