TED CRUZ: I’m PROUD to stand with Gov. Mike Pence!

[JakeStarkey]

My position is I sell whatever I want to sell to whom ever I want... and anyone who claims I must sell X to Y, can kiss my American Ass... with a "**** YOU!" bonus. Suffice it to say, I'm a proponent of discrimination and, I do so often and always based upon sound reason... FWIW: over the years, the only time I've ever had a problem in my life has come as a consequence of my failure to ADEQUATELY DISCRIMINATE... . I hope that helps.

You can discriminate all you want privately, but if you are carrying about your business in public, secular laws apply, bright eyes.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

TED CRUZ: I’m PROUD to stand with Gov. Mike Pence!
TheRightScoop ^ | 3/30/2015 | Right Scoop

Unlike Scott Walker and more emphatic than Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz enthusiastically supports Gov. Mike Pence and urges all Americans to do the same:

HOUSTON, Texas — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, issued the following statement today in support of Governor Mike Pence’s effort to defend religious liberty and protect against the government forcing individuals to violate their deeply held beliefs:

“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. 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.”

BOOM! No compromise. No fear.

Read more: TED CRUZ I m PROUD to stand with Gov. Mike Pence The Right Scoop -

Ted cruz is the anti-***!

Wow, I bet that endorsement really pleased Pence. Maybe David Duke will join in on the fun?

LOL!... These clowns are shatting their collective pant.

First they're lying about what the bill says, THEN they're crying that Americans are embracing the fact that NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THE NORMALIZATION OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY, which has no fervently jumped the shark, crossing over from 'can't we all just get along' to 'You'll bake me a cake and take pictures of my wedding or I will RUIN YOU!'

Which of course is why Homosexuals have spent 99.99999~% of human history in the closet... because every time they've been let OUT of the closet the **** THINGS UP and BIG!

It's really a shame that those homosexuals who just want to be left alone and treated like everyone else, accepted for who they are... so to speak, can't get a handle on their mouthy minority... because it won't be much longer before they're all going to pay a horrific price for this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What ever happened to protecting religious freedom?

If we don't protect a person's religious freedom do we get to walk into a delicatessen or a halal store and demand that we are served pork?

Serious question. Because just because pork is against a Jew or Muslim's religious dietary belief it isn't against my Christian faith.

So a deli owner or a halal store would be discriminating against me would they not?

Kosher delis don't stock pork. Demanding pork at a kosher deli is like demanding 6 carat diamonds at a WalMart 'jewelry' counter.

The issue is; should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers.

That's not the issue... It's not anywhere NEAR the issue.

The issue is the service of CEREMONIES WHICH PROMOTE DEVIANCY.

The Baker and the Photographer were not ask for a cake and a photo... They asked for a WEDDING CAKE AND PHOTOGRAPHS TO CELEBRATE THE PERVERSION.

No one has suggested that a baker who spots some queer in their shop, where the queen is dressed appropriately, not disturbing other clients and is behaving as a reasonable person would reasonably be expected to behave... that the baker could reasonably refuse to sell the queer a pastry.

The baker doesn't give a dam'... they're in the business to sell baked goods to the PUBLIC. And the same for ANY BUSINESS.

Now you dam' well know this... yet there you are claiming that people are being licensed to makes nuisance out of themselves by refusing to sell to the public, by singling out the sexual deviants.

Which means the issue: IS YOU and your cult of idiocy, advancing fraudulence and deceit as a means to influence the ignorant.

 

[bendog]

Cruz, "Mike, what's that light in the distance? It seems to be getting larger."

 

[JakeStarkey]

"should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers" is exactly the issue, and those who oppose it oppose American values and the core of Christianity.

 

[Nosmo King]

What ever happened to protecting religious freedom?

If we don't protect a person's religious freedom do we get to walk into a delicatessen or a halal store and demand that we are served pork?

Serious question. Because just because pork is against a Jew or Muslim's religious dietary belief it isn't against my Christian faith.

So a deli owner or a halal store would be discriminating against me would they not?

Kosher delis don't stock pork. Demanding pork at a kosher deli is like demanding 6 carat diamonds at a WalMart 'jewelry' counter.

The issue is; should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers.

That's not the issue... It's not anywhere NEAR the issue.

The issue is the service of CEREMONIES WHICH PROMOTE DEVIANCY.

The Baker and the Photographer were not ask for a cake and a photo... They asked for a WEDDING CAKE AND PHOTOGRAPHS TO CELEBRATE THE PERVERSION.

No one has suggested that a baker who spots some queer in their shop, where the queen is dressed appropriately, not disturbing other clients and is behaving as a reasonable person would reasonably be expected to behave... that the baker could reasonably refuse to sell the queer a pastry.

The baker doesn't give a dam'... they're in the business to sell baked goods to the PUBLIC. And the same for ANY BUSINESS.

Now you dam' well know this... yet there you are claiming that people are being licensed to makes nuisance out of themselves by refusing to sell to the public, by singling out the sexual deviants.

Which means the issue: IS YOU and your cult of idiocy, advancing fraudulence and deceit as a means to influence the ignorant.

The baker is there to bake a cake, not " participate" in the wedding. He does not participate in any way, shape or form. His sole function is to ply his trade as a baker. He does not officiate at the service, he is not an invited guest. He is not in business to provide a mercantile imperamator or approval to anything other than baked goods.

Calling a baker a participant when, in reality, he is simply plying his trade is an untenable stretch of his mandate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cruz...

I'm proud to stand with Governor Pence...hey...wait a minute!

Where did Pence go!!!!!!??????????

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

What ever happened to protecting religious freedom?

If we don't protect a person's religious freedom do we get to walk into a delicatessen or a halal store and demand that we are served pork?

Serious question. Because just because pork is against a Jew or Muslim's religious dietary belief it isn't against my Christian faith.

So a deli owner or a halal store would be discriminating against me would they not?

Kosher delis don't stock pork. Demanding pork at a kosher deli is like demanding 6 carat diamonds at a WalMart 'jewelry' counter.

The issue is; should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers.

That's not the issue... It's not anywhere NEAR the issue.

The issue is the service of CEREMONIES WHICH PROMOTE DEVIANCY.

The Baker and the Photographer were not ask for a cake and a photo... They asked for a WEDDING CAKE AND PHOTOGRAPHS TO CELEBRATE THE PERVERSION.

No one has suggested that a baker who spots some queer in their shop, where the queen is dressed appropriately, not disturbing other clients and is behaving as a reasonable person would reasonably be expected to behave... that the baker could reasonably refuse to sell the queer a pastry.

The baker doesn't give a dam'... they're in the business to sell baked goods to the PUBLIC. And the same for ANY BUSINESS.

Now you dam' well know this... yet there you are claiming that people are being licensed to makes nuisance out of themselves by refusing to sell to the public, by singling out the sexual deviants.

Which means the issue: IS YOU and your cult of idiocy, advancing fraudulence and deceit as a means to influence the ignorant.

You want to operate a business in America you don't get to decide what 'deviancy' is, as it relates to the operation of your business. You get to obey the law. That's it.

To believe otherwise makes you the deviant.

 

[bendog]

"should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers" is exactly the issue, and those who oppose it oppose American values and the core of Christianity.

I don't really agree. The effect of the Indiana law is much larger than that. If the only issue was whether bakers had to bake, or wedding announcement printers had to print .... then I suspect many people would support allowing religious exemption for discrimination, especially when there will be lots of biz's wanting the gay folks' biz.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again... at issue is WHO AMONG YOU ARE ADVOCATING THAT THE NORMALIZING THE MENTAL DISORDER THAT PRESENTS WITH SEXUAL ABNORMALITY SUPERSEDES THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS FOR ANYONE WHO CONTESTS SUCH; MEANING CHRISTIANS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers" is exactly the issue, and those who oppose it oppose American values and the core of Christianity.

I don't really agree. The effect of the Indiana law is much larger than that. If the only issue was whether bakers had to bake, or wedding announcement printers had to print .... then I suspect many people would support allowing religious exemption for discrimination, especially when there will be lots of biz's wanting the gay folks' biz.

The issue is this: that in public no one has the right to treat anyone differently in public business. Why should they?

 

[bendog]

Cruz...

I'm proud to stand with Governor Pence...hey...wait a minute!

Where did Pence go!!!!!!??????????

lol

What's really delicious is that Jeb jumped right in too. So much for his claim to "the thinking man's conservative."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again... at issue is WHO AMONG YOU ARE ADVOCATING THAT THE NORMALIZING THE MENTAL DISORDER THAT PRESENTS WITH SEXUAL ABNORMALITY SUPERSEDES THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS FOR ANYONE WHO CONTESTS SUCH; MEANING CHRISTIANS.

Capitalizing does not help you escape the impression that you have a mental disease.

In public and secular affairs, you cannot treat people differently based on who they are.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Sorry bout that,


1. Homosexuals are evil perverts who should hide!
2. No respect to them.
3. None.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You shove them back in the closet they will have to marry your daughters in order to survive. You really want that? Such a 1960s kinda' guy. You and Rick Santorum or so sympatico.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cruz, "Mike, what's that light in the distance? It seems to be getting larger."

Mike: "Duh, is it the sun rising in the north?"

Cruz: "I don't know, I've never heard the sun makes the noise I'm hearing"

Mike: Gee, it is getting bigger, and louder .. maybe we RUN TED Run!!!!

Cruz: I'm am Mike I .... [final last words].

 

[ScienceRocks]

Absolutely no respect and preference to far right social con thugs.

Their better then loseretrians. Society can do without forcing half of the country to serve 2% of the population along time before it can do without infrastructure, science and r&d investment.

 

[bendog]

"should vendors who offer good to heterosexuals be permitted to deny those EXACT SAME GOODS to homosexual customers" is exactly the issue, and those who oppose it oppose American values and the core of Christianity.

I don't really agree. The effect of the Indiana law is much larger than that. If the only issue was whether bakers had to bake, or wedding announcement printers had to print .... then I suspect many people would support allowing religious exemption for discrimination, especially when there will be lots of biz's wanting the gay folks' biz.

The issue is this: that in public no one has the right to treat anyone differently in public business. Why should they?

It's really back to the debate over public accommodations and blacks.

I think Goldwater was right. Given the marketplace of ideas and commerce, those who do not discriminate will eventually prevail over bigots, or at best decent people who are clinging to myths that comfort them.

However, imo, Dirksen could make a good argument that segregation was so pervasive in the South, and so corrosive to having a civil society, that ideals had to take a backseat to doing the right thing. Or, the ends justified the means .... in this one instance.

I don't think there's a real analogy between segregation and refusing gays services that conceivably implicate religious beliefs of providers. Someone will bake the cake or print the wedding invitations. I would, however, think there's a difference between a simple commercial service and providing a professional service ... like a MD or lawyer or accountant. NOBODY gets that education without tax support, and more importantly all professions are regulated and professionals accredited by govt or quasi govt bodies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Would you expect a jew to serve a neo-nazi?
Would you expect a black man to serve a kkk member?

What happens if they came their dressed up nicely and didn't show any signs of it??? But the jew and the black man knew that their beliefs were deadly to them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You want to operate a business in America you don't get to decide what 'deviancy' is.

False. As an American I am free to open a dictionary and look up the meaning of any word I want... and to kick the living hell out of anyone who tries to stop me... .

I further am free to state the meaning of whatever word I want, in speaking publicly through sound, logical constructs which invokes my position on any issue, of which I deem worthy of speaking.

And I double dog dare anyone to tell me otherwise.

Now here's how that works:

Deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards; See: deviation

Deviation: the action of departing from an established course or accepted standard; See: deviancy

Deviancy: the fact or state of departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

Now... do ya SEE how easy that is?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's really back to the debate over public accommodations and blacks.

No it's not... As THAT is a rationalization.

The issue gets back to the Advocacy to Normalize The Mental Disorder which presents Sexual Abnormality and to do so at the expense of the means of those who contest such to execise their God-given rights to contest such.