Skip to comments.
Rubio: Constitutionally ‘Valid’ For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages
Breitbart ^
| 03/30/2015
| Ian Hanchett
Posted on 03/30/2015 4:45:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum
No Shirt , No Shoes ,No Service
21
posted on
03/30/2015 5:17:00 PM PDT
by
molson209
(Blank)
To: dowcaet
Would have as much effect as Sharpton saying Zero was not “authentically black.
22
posted on
03/30/2015 5:21:41 PM PDT
by
Sasparilla
(If you want peace, prepare for war.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
There is a more solid rebuttal available to Conservatives:
“I am under no obligation to promote, endorse, or participate in behavior that conflicts with my religious beliefs. And, there is no legal basis to force me to do otherwise.”
The Establishment clause of the First Amendment makes clear that “the Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
“Forcing me to PARTICIPATE IN the SHAM of ‘same-sex marriage’, directly violates the free exercise of my religion.”
23
posted on
03/30/2015 5:25:08 PM PDT
by
G Larry
(Obama Hates America, Israel, Capitalism, Freedom, and Christianity.)
To: Maelstorm
I think he was hung out to dry purposely by GOP leadership with the Schumer immigration fiasco. He still took the bait and has rightly suffered for it. He isnt my first choice but given some of the alternatives hes better than many of them.
You are much too kind to Rubio.
A fifth-grader could see that what the "gang-of-eight" was pushing was Amnesty.
Rubio believes in Amnesty from his heart. He is a true believer in it.
24
posted on
03/30/2015 5:26:05 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
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.
It’s pretty simple. If your religion considers a thing a sin, and the government forces you, through the power of the gun, to participate in that event or you lose your livelihood, it is prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.
It can’t get simpler than that.
25
posted on
03/30/2015 5:26:13 PM PDT
by
cuban leaf
(The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Most telegenic candidate of all running, and that includes Hillary & the Indian princess hahaha.
One reason McCain lost so badly was he was short, pudgy, balding and old. Not good in this age of 24-7 cable TV.
26
posted on
03/30/2015 5:34:29 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Real function of economists is to make astrologers look respectable.)
To: entropy12
He looks light-in-the-loafers to me.
27
posted on
03/30/2015 5:35:29 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(If obama speaks and th<uere is no one there to hear it, is it still a lie?)
To: usconservative
Yes!! Thank you!!! WELL SAID!!!
28
posted on
03/30/2015 5:44:25 PM PDT
by
Finny
(Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I havent heard that proposal before, and therefore dont fully understand how something like that would work.Really?? The Left has been trying to add homosexuals to the list of protected categories for awhile now. He has never heard of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act)?
29
posted on
03/30/2015 5:48:35 PM PDT
by
C19fan
To: jwalsh07
I agree with him on this.
30
posted on
03/30/2015 5:49:54 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Looks pretty normal to me...
31
posted on
03/30/2015 5:58:26 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Real function of economists is to make astrologers look respectable.)
To: forgotten man
"Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Rubio already betrayed the citizens with his scheming with Schumer and his Gang to pass amnesty for fraudulently documented foreigners. Why would any rational person vote for him?
He’s completely untrustworthy. He lied about what was in that poisonous bill.
33
posted on
03/30/2015 6:08:56 PM PDT
by
Lurkinanloomin
(Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
To: usconservative
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that he believes people who dont want to provide services for same-sex marriages on religious grounds have a valid constitutional concern, and that it shouldnt be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation on Mondays broadcast of The Five on the Fox News Channel.
I'm confused. Did Rubio double-speak there or is that a misquote?When you read the entire article, you can see that he separated the two:
So, no one here is saying it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation ...
He went on to say:
But I think the flip side of all of this debate is what about the religious liberties of Americans who do not want to feel compelled by law to provide a catering service or a photography service to a same-sex marriage that their faith teaches is wrong? And thats a valid constitutional concern as well.
34
posted on
03/30/2015 6:27:18 PM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 - If you have a 22-year old car, the bumper stickers are still good.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
if we’re not allowed to distance ourselves and our businesses from people of certain behaviors, then why are we bothering to track sex offenders once they leave prison?
behavior is not the same as an inherent, unchangeable part of a person’s dna.
criticizing, admonishing, and distancing oneself based on behaviors is done all the time.
for example, the attack by the left on the right’s behavior to stay away from and be repulsed by fags
35
posted on
03/30/2015 6:28:07 PM PDT
by
sten
(fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
To: E. Pluribus Unum
You can see his loafers? Now that’s gaydar.
To: sten
We are all sex-offenders now.
38
posted on
03/30/2015 6:51:31 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(If obama speaks and th<uere is no one there to hear it, is it still a lie?)
To: Lurkinanloomin
Everyone of us was dismayed by Rubio’s support of that bill. However, I think he learned a lesson. After all, he is a young gun and mostly conservative and a heck of a lot better than anything the DEMONcrats will run. I, am a person who forgives, and hope that the person who is forgiven sees the error of his/her ways - and I think Rubio did. No one is perfect - even those of here who demand perfection from a politician.
39
posted on
03/30/2015 6:57:49 PM PDT
by
Catsrus
To: Catsrus
I do not trust politicians who make wholesale changes to their core beliefs while thinking of running for higher office.
40
posted on
03/30/2015 6:59:46 PM PDT
by
GeronL
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson