Exclusive: "Get Over It"? Cruz Responds To Kasich on Religious Liberty

[libertybele]

Go Ted!  Some pretty bold, but honest statements made by Cruz.

Exclusive: 'Get Over' it? Cruz Responds to Kasich on Religious Liberty

Despite suggestions to the contrary, Americans are not willing to “get over” attacks to their religious liberty, Texas Senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said in an interview with CR.

“I don’t think the American people are willing to get over our basic liberties. We fought a bloody revolution to protect our religious liberty,” Cruz explained. “This nation was founded by men and women fleeing religious oppression, and seeking a land where every one of us could seek out and worship God almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, free of the government getting in the way.”

The statement was in response to comments made yesterday by Ohio Governor and fellow Republican candidate John Kasich said that people who favor state-level legislation similar to the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act should stop trying to allow people to abstain from activities contradictory to their faith.

"What I'd like to say is, just relax," said Kasich on CNN. "If you don't like what somebody's doing, pray for them, and if you feel as though somebody is doing something wrong against you, can you just for a second get over it? You know?"

The Ohio Governor continued saying, "So if we just kind of calm down here, I think things would settle down."

“I suppose King George could have given the same message, ‘get over it, while I strip your freedom,’” said Cruz in response, “But thankfully the American people answered that demand with musket shot.”

Cruz also went on to lament how religious liberty “used to be a bipartisan,” citing the near-unanimous passage of the 1993 RFRA in contrast to the recent vitriol seen over similar legislation .

“Today, when states pass laws virtually identical to that original legislation, the modern Democratic Party is so radical, so extreme that it’s decided that there is no room for religious liberty,” said Cruz. “That’s radical. That is un-American.”

The interview took place Monday after a rally in Towson, Maryland, where Cruz was looking beyond Tuesday’s primary election in New York to a slate of blue state contests on April 26.

In the rest of the interview, Cruz and Madden discussed the Senator’s strategy for the April 26 primaries. With a full slate of blue state contests on the horizon, Cruz said his messaging strategy will not change.

“Our message is the same in blue states, red states, and purple states, which is what we [America] are doing right now isn’t working,” explained the candidate when asked what his messaging to blue state conservatives would be. “The Obama-Clinton economy is a disaster, millions of Americans are hurting, and if anything, our foreign policy is even worse. People are ready to get back to the common sense principles that built this country.”

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/listen-cruz-americans-wont-get-over-loss-of-religious-liberty#sthash.J1n0l7J9.dpuf

[Jazzhead]

Cruz misses the point.  No one objects to religious liberty.  But there's another Constitutional value at stake here - the equal protection of the law.   Kasich is absolutely right - relax and get over it.  If you're in business to make money selling cakes or whatever, serve all your customers that seek your advertised services.    That's the law -  it is vile to use religion as an arbitrary excuse to serve some customers but not others.   

 

I suppose King George could have given the same message, ‘get over it, while I strip your freedom,’” said Cruz in response, “But thankfully the American people answered that demand with musket shot.”

So now Cruz is hinting at violence just like Trump?    Casting the culture wars as a battle over lost "freedom" is ridiculous.   

[libertybele]

Cruz misses the point.  No one objects to religious liberty.  But there's another Constitutional value at stake here - the equal protection of the law.   Kasich is absolutely right - relax and get over it.  If you're in business to make money selling cakes or whatever, serve all your customers.    That's the law -   don't use religion as your excuse to serve some customers but not others. 

 
So now Cruz is hinting at violence just like Trump?    Casting the culture wars as a battle over lost "freedom" is ridiculous.

Violence? Absolutely not!  Cruz merely stated what happened decades ago.  It's more than about selling cakes to a gay couple ... it's the fact that SCOTUS had no business ruling on an issue that wasn't defined in the Constitution.

[Jazzhead]

Violence? Absolutely not!  Cruz merely stated what happened decades ago.  It's more than about selling cakes to a gay couple ... it's the fact that SCOTUS had no business ruling on an issue that wasn't defined in the Constitution.

The Constitution quite clearly guarantees the equal protection of the law.  The SCOTUS's decision was in keeping with this guarantee.   Religious liberty is not being stripped from us - a baker is in business to serve his customers with respect to the products and services he advertises.   Why should he be able to deny such services arbitrarily by citing his religion?  A kosher shop owner isn't obliged to serve pork, nor is a baker obliged to make wedding cakes.  But if they do, shouldn't they be obliged to serve any willing customer?             

[libertybele]

The Constitution quite clearly guarantees the equal protection of the law.  The SCOTUS's decision was in keeping with this guarantee.   Religious liberty is not being stripped from us - a baker is in business to serve his customers with respect to the products and services he advertises.   Why should he be able to deny such services arbitrarily by citing his religion?  A kosher shop owner isn't obliged to serve pork, nor is a baker obliged to make wedding cakes.  But if they do, shouldn't they be obliged to serve any willing customer?           

Again, it isn't about serving cakes to gay couples.  The comment was in reference to religious liberty.  The Constitution under the first amendment clearly stipulates that  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...and yes under the 14th amendment " that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".  With that being stated first of all it is the duty of the SCOTUS is to rule on Constitutional law.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it define marriage therefore it had no business ruling on a marriage law.  Secondly, the 10th amendment provides The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  So ... it we look strictly at equal protection under the law ... and there being no law under the Constitution for marriage ... they had no business ruling.  It we interpret equal protection in a more broad sense; then twins could marry twins, sisters could marry brothers, brothers could marry fathers,etc .  Thirdly, one could argue allowing gay marriage is in violation of certain religions as homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. 

Basically what SCOTUS did was revise the Constitution of which they do not have authority.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6

[Jazzhead]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it define marriage therefore it had no business ruling on a marriage law.

Perhaps, BUT - it is precisely the Court's business to rule on questions of the law's equal protection.   Every state that recognizes marriage, as well as the Federal government, attaches valuable legal benefits and protections to such status.   The fact that gay couples could not lawfully obtain such benefits and protections raised the equal protection issue.

If states recognized the status of marriage but attached no benefits and protections to it,  then I'd agree with you that the SCOTUS had no business ruling.  But its ruling was compelled by the reality that marriage is an extremely valuable and unique form of contract.  In the specific case before the court, if I recall, at stake was tens of thousands of dollars in federal estate taxes that would not have been imposed had the couple's marriage been recognized.   

[libertybele]

Perhaps, BUT - it is precisely the Court's business to rule on questions of the law's equal protection.   Every state that recognizes marriage, as well as the Federal government, attaches valuable legal benefits and protections to such status.   The fact that gay couples could not lawfully obtain such benefits and protections raised the equal protection issue.

If states recognized the status of marriage but attached no benefits and protections to it,  then I'd agree with you that the SCOTUS had no business ruling.  But its ruling was compelled by the reality that marriage is an extremely valuable and unique form of contract.  In the specific case before the court, if I recall, at stake was tens of thousands of dollars in federal estate taxes that would not have been imposed had the couple's marriage been recognized.

Marriage is not a federal issue; nor is it in the Constitution. They ruled on another law -- not marriage; that's was in part what Scalia was stating...the justices are NOT lawyers.  Again, equal protection in a broader sense would allow anyone to marry anyone. Secondly, religion is stated in the Constitution and therefore in essence, SCOTUS rewrote the Constitution.

At any rate, religious liberty falls under the Constitution as a right and for Kasich to so blatantly shrug off the importance of this right is concerning.

[Jazzhead]

At any rate, religious liberty falls under the Constitution as a right and for Kasich to so blatantly shrug off the importance of this right is concerning.

Both religious liberty and the equal protection of law are rights guaranteed by the Constitution.   If Kasich is saying that, for those who cater commercially to the public,  the law's guarantee of equal protection trumps their right to festoon their businesses with religious restrictions, then I agree with him. 

Perhaps the issue is easier to see when we put aside for the moment the contentious issue of gay rights.  Should a restaurant be able to enforce a whites-only lunch counter on the grounds of the restaurant owner's religion?   What about his black customers' right to service on the same basis as other customers? 

Sometimes one Constitutional right conflicts with another.   The SCOTUS will attempt to resolve the conflict, but in reality Kasich's solution is the best - relax, and be good neighbors.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Good debate.   

[geronl]

Kasich and Trump are simply in the wrong party

[Jazzhead]

Kasich and Trump are simply in the wrong party

 Putting the Trump aberration aside, today's GOP has,  unfortunately in my view,  largely rejected Reaganism in favor of TEA party conservatism.   Kasich would have swept the field a decade or so ago, back when folks like me were more prominent in the party.  But I guess that's what the last decade has wrought -  the shining city has been replaced by dog-eat-dog.       

[AnybodyButaDem]

The Constitution quite clearly guarantees the equal protection of the law.  The SCOTUS's decision was in keeping with this guarantee.           

The Constitution also says nothing about sexual preference, which is why 5 liberal judges contorted themselves to rend judgment on what is a 10th Amendment issues by bastardizing the 14th in their ruling.  Why is polygamy still banned?  Do those people not deserve equal protection?

[AnybodyButaDem]

Putting the Trump aberration aside, today's GOP has,  unfortunately in my view,  largely rejected Reaganism in favor of TEA party conservatism.  Kasich would have swept the field a decade or so ago, back when folks like me were more prominent in the party.  But I guess that's what the last decade has wrought -  the shining city has been replaced by dog-eat-dog.     

Yes we need more McCains, Romneys, and Kasiches, because that's how you win national elections.   

People like you running the party is why we now see you all dragging Kasich's bloody carcass along to pull votes from Trump.  He won his home state, barely, and had to campaign for Democrats to cross over and vote for him.  He's a joke.

[HonestJohn]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it define marriage therefore it had no business ruling on a marriage law.

And in no instance has the Federal government made any rulings on marriage.  They have ruled that state licenses must be applied equally to all, regardless of sexual orientation.  The states, however, are the ones that have determined that they have the power to officially recognize marriage via a license.

Perhaps the better argument should be whether a government organized by man should assume that it has the power to determine what is and is not acceptable for religious sacraments?

[AnybodyButaDem]

And in no instance has the Federal government made any rulings on marriage.  They have ruled that state licenses must be applied equally to all, regardless of sexual orientation.  The states, however, are the ones that have determined that they have the power to officially recognize marriage via a license.

Perhaps the better argument should be whether a government organized by man should assume that it has the power to determine what is and is not acceptable for religious sacraments?

Not "all."  Just those who choose to date and sleep with people of their same sex.

[HonestJohn]

Not "all."  Just those who choose to date and sleep with people of their same sex.

By your statement, you claim you now can't get married.

[AnybodyButaDem]

By your statement, you claim you now can't get married.

Along with hetero couples as well.  I was going to add it but assumed that every poster here would understand I was including them even though I didn't mention them.

[Fishrrman]

Jazzhead wrote above:
"No one objects to religious liberty.  But there's another Constitutional value at stake here - the equal protection of the law."

One of the worst phrases ever entered into The Constitution.

The entire Fourteenth Amendment has been a disaster to the nation...

[Bill Cipher]

Jazzhead wrote above:
"No one objects to religious liberty.  But there's another Constitutional value at stake here - the equal protection of the law."

One of the worst phrases ever entered into The Constitution.

The entire Fourteenth Amendment has been a disaster to the nation...

[jmyrlefuller]

The Constitution quite clearly guarantees the equal protection of the law.  The SCOTUS's decision was in keeping with this guarantee.   Religious liberty is not being stripped from us - a baker is in business to serve his customers with respect to the products and services he advertises.   Why should he be able to deny such services arbitrarily by citing his religion?  A kosher shop owner isn't obliged to serve pork, nor is a baker obliged to make wedding cakes.  But if they do, shouldn't they be obliged to serve any willing customer?           

The same constitution also protects against involuntary servitude.

[Bill Cipher]

The same constitution also protects against involuntary servitude.

Anti-discrimination laws aren't involuntary servitude.

[jmyrlefuller]

And in no instance has the Federal government made any rulings on marriage.  They have ruled that state licenses must be applied equally to all, regardless of sexual orientation.  The states, however, are the ones that have determined that they have the power to officially recognize marriage via a license.

Perhaps the better argument should be whether a government organized by man should assume that it has the power to determine what is and is not acceptable for religious sacraments?

They were—in all 50 states, any one was free to marry anyone of the opposite sex and legal age (which, mind you, are not arbitrary criteria, being grounded in basic biology), regardless of sexual orientation. A gay man was just as free to marry a willing woman as a straight man.

They just didn't want to. So they found judges to declare it unfair.

[jmyrlefuller]

Anti-discrimination laws aren't involuntary servitude.

When they force you to serve someone against your will, that's the definition of involuntary servitude.

[Bill Cipher]

When they force you to serve someone against your will, that's the definition of involuntary servitude.

No, it's not, because you can always quit the business.  It's illegal to refuse to rent motel rooms to blacks; that means if you want to run a motel you have to rent rooms to blacks.  That isn't involuntary servitude.

[jmyrlefuller]

To me, that's the bigger issue than just the religious aspect, although I don't want to dismiss it outright. The protection against involuntary servitude is really just a more explicit example of the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This isn't just about religious freedom (something that, in today's increasingly secular world, society wants to reject). It's about freedom, period.