Posted on 09/03/2015 4:13:30 PM PDT by Isara
WASHINGTON – Sen. Ted Cruz has gone further than most 2016 contenders in promoting “religious liberty,” honoring bakers and florists who’ve refused services to gay couples and denouncing the Supreme Court for “lawlessness” in legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
But when it comes to the Kentucky county clerk who is defying a federal court order by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Cruz has struck a more measured tone than many of his rivals.
In a Facebook post tonight, he condemned a “war on faith” and said there needs to be a way to work around religious objections to federal and state law.
“We should make it possible for believers, such as Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in Kentucky, to hold government jobs without having to violate their religious beliefs,” wrote Cruz. “We can work together to come up with alternative ways to ensure that government functions are accomplished without infringing on religious liberty.”
Other 2016 contenders have explicitly endorsed Davis’ actions.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Davis is entitled to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” he said. “I absolutely do believe people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don’t think the court can take that away.”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke with Davis on Wednesday and offered his prayers and support.
“I let her know how proud I am of her for not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty,” he said in a statement his campaign issued. “She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington.”
---
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Give it a rest, eh?
This thread is not about Trump, quit hijacking threads.
I mean, I agree. Even the secular wrath is out of line here. It’s been a long time since courts did anything sensible.
How does that apply to or negate her stated moral objection to homosexual marriage?
If they want to chew out Trump for his position or non-position about this, they can start a different thread, not a feud on this one.
I’d still say, be prepared to be surprised by Trump. He’s virtually forced now to say that this is wrong, that they shouldn’t be treating this woman that way. Even if he says she ought to be fired by the state, which would show ignorance of a lot of pertinent issues.
There shouldn't be a required vesting period for religious beliefs, that is silly.
That sounds like the more common situation, to refer the case.
The Donald sees no potential for profit on this Kentucky deal so he's sitting this one out. He's in it for money, property, power and celebrity.
I agree....when Trump does come out against this, the usual crowd will still think of ways to disparage him for it.
You can't win around here, damned if you do and damned if you don't do it soon enough.
Ya, I knew what you were saying.
No the law is not the law, when the law is immoral. That is what all you "we are a nation of laws" people do not get. An immoral law must be disobeyed by a moral people. Disobeyed not avoided by resigning or other means. I just can't believe how many 1930s Germans we have posting here. Did NAZI Germany teach you nothing?
Well even at the most Machiavellian, you don’t sell a lot of Trump brand to a bunch of browned-off Christians.
There’s really no way he can win, even if he evolves to something to the right of Attila the Hun.
Yep, and this is a theme as old as the Founders, in fact George Washington himself. Step outside the universal standards of right and wrong that we cannot change, and we only invite a curse.
I know I have a differing opinion here, but it is not her place to decide what Job Duties she is responsible for fulfilling.
I think that Gay Marriage, Incestuous Marriage and Polygamous Marriage are things that the States should decide, but the SCOTUS nixed that by eviscerating the Tenth Amendment. Until that decision is reversed, and it will never be, the Law is the Law.
The SCOTUS ruled that Gay Marriage is a Civil Right. If she decided that she wouldn't issue Marriage Licenses to Mixed Race Couples because her Religion forbade it, she would not be looked upon as a Martyr as many are doing now.
Yes, I know that Mixed Race Marriage and Gay Marriage are not the same thing, but the SCOTUS has decided that they both are Civil Rights, whether we agree or not.
I like Huckabee, and Jindal’s responses a little better than Cruz, but I trust Cruz on this issue too (unless he weakens, which I doubt).
see 31, you are wrong.
Good points in post 6.
Frankly I do not see that Cruz was weaker than the other two. I see them all good on this issue.
I once saw a judge in Jackson Michigan refuse a divorce motion for a young couple.
He said all the complaints listed were from family members on both sides with no allegations of abuse, infidelity or failure to support. He pointed to multiple instances when police had gone to the couple’s home only to find fighting between family members outside the marriage. When the judge asked the couple why they wanted a divorce neither could answer without looking at their families.
He gave them a court date 90 days later and strongly suggested that members of both families stay away so he didn’t have to issue a restraining order.
I saw #31, I am not wrong. I have a differing opinion.
BTW, once people start shouting NAZI, the discussion ends.
The woman is practicing Peaceful Non-Violent Protest.
I do not agree she should be Jailed for it, but she should be removed from her position for not performing her Job Duties.
If she worked for me, she would be out of a Job for not doing what she is paid to do, no matter her Duties. Responsibilities within a Job are always subject to revision, so those trying to use that excuse are swatting at imaginary Flies.
I’m still waiting for Holder and Lerner to be Jailed for Contempt, so this situation is nothing but a miscarriage of Justice. She should have been reassigned to another Department or Fired for not fulfilling her responsibilities.
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary.
“the SCOTUS has decided that” the constitution says what EVERY author and ratifier of it would deny it does.
The peaceful defiance of a humble clerk is the least result to be expected from such barbarism.
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.