Posted on 03/30/2015 4:45:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that he believes people who don’t want to provide services for same-sex marriages on religious grounds have “a valid constitutional concern,” and that it shouldn’t be legal “to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation” on Monday’s broadcast of “The Five” on the Fox News Channel.
Rubio was initially asked if he would support adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, to which he responded “I haven’t heard that proposal before, and therefore don’t fully understand how something like that would work.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
He’s fooled enough FReepers already.
I think Marco is genuine on this. Its an issue he has been very consistent on. 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 isn’t my first choice but given some of the alternatives he’s better than many of them.
“I think Marco is genuine on this.”
I agree. I have to give it to him the way the media is going after Indiana for passing the law. Good for Rubio.
When a baker has to write, God Bless your marriage Adam and Steve on a cake or find two dudes embracing as the statues on top of the cake, or a photographer is forced to witness the debauchery firsthand, the red line is crossed.
This law isn’t saying they can be kicked from a restaurant, unless they are engaging in lude (kissing, petting...PDA) behavior that isn’t appropriate for people/kids to be forced to witness.
I'm confused. Did Rubio double-speak there or is that a misquote?
Here's the thing.
One's rights end when they trample on those of another. That has been the Constitutional history of our country, backed up by over two centuries of case law.
In this case, gay's DEMANDING that those who have a religious / moral objection to their lifestyle, be forced to perform a service that validates that lifestyle against the religious belief holders moral conscience.
What the big gay agenda wants is an end to religious freedom in this country because only then will their choice of lifestyles and behavior no longer have a moral barrier or boundry, or protections for them in the public square.
The issue of gay marriage and special rights for gays is, and always has been a secularist pipe dream to eliminate God from every aspect of American life.
And some people wonder why this nation is in a state of moral decline, and has been for the last 50 years.
BTW I certainly believe a business should be able to deny service for ANY reason whether I like it or not. It isn’t like being gay is stamped in a person’s forehead like a birthmark and even then I would choose freedom of the individual who owns a business or is providing a service. This creeping paternalistic corporatism is ridiculous. Freedom isn’t limited to just things we like or agree with.
Agree with him or not, Marco Rubio is knowledgeable on the issues and can hold his own in any debate. He won’t get the nomination, but he will be on a short list of potential cabinet appointees in a Republican administration.
My only gripe is he isn’t being clear enough. He and others should be putting up their flag in favor of freedom not just the freedom that is popular. The last thing we need is more of this PC antidiscrimination crap which is just passive aggressive forcing of leftism into every facet of public and private life.
Pretty soon Jeb will be telling us if elected he'll propose a symbolic statute decrying US flag burning.
Rubio is exactly right.
Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?
Cruz/Rubio
Cruz/Rubio
has anyone here read about a restaurant refusing service to homosexuals? why would they? (crickets)
bakeries refusing to make homosexual union cakes- yes
B&Bs refusing to rent rooms to unmarried couples or premises to homosexual union ceremonies- yes
what next, homosexuals claiming they are forced to use separate drinking fountains and sit at the back of the bus?
What a nightmare duo that would be for the Democrats. Of course they would dismiss them as not being authentic Hispanics.
I’m waiting for the person who is going to say “how a person decides to have sex does not make them a protected person under the civil rights act.”.
14th Amendment, Section 1:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The low-information states that have been using equality policies to bully Christian business owners who didn't want to provide certain services to constitutionally unprotected gay couples have unthinkingly violated 14A imo.
Also note that the Founding States respected the right not to do business with someone. This is evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be [emphasis added], for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ...
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.