Posted on 04/23/2015 10:54:38 AM PDT by VinL
Edited on 04/24/2015 11:05:15 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
[Admin note] Title and text changed at source. New title: "Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen"Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential candidate, has positioned himself as a strong opponent to same-sex marriage, urging pastors nationwide to preach in support of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, which he said was “ordained by God.”
But on Wednesday night, at a reception for him at the Manhattan apartment of two prominent gay hoteliers, the Texas senator struck quite a different tone.
During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.
The dinner and “fireside chat” for about a dozen people with Mr. Cruz and his wife, Heidi, was at the Central Park South penthouse of Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, longtime business partners who were once a couple and who have been pioneers in the gay hospitality industry.
“Ted Cruz said, ‘If one of my daughters was gay, I would love them just as much,’” recalled Mr. Reisner, a same-sex marriage proponent who described himself as simply an attendee at Mr. Weiderpass’s event.
Mr. Reisner and Kalman Sporn, who advises Mr. Cruz’s Middle East team and served as the moderator for the evening, said that the senator told the group that marriage should be left up to the states.
He did not bring up his own opposition to same-sex marriage during the evening, which focused mainly on foreign policy.
An aide to Mr. Cruz, reached on Thursday, reiterated that the senator is opposed to same-sex marriage.
Mr. Cruz has honed his reputation as a grassroots firebrand, who was strongly supportive of the Indiana religious freedom law that was recently blasted as discriminatory by gay rights activists. [snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Jesus also said to sell the cloaks and buy swords, if I remember correctly.
[[Then Cruz’s presence at the function is keeping within God’s rules, because it involved none of the above.]]
there are some verses that talk about soemthign along htel iens of not even beign in league with such people- such as preachers appearing on networks which teach heresy - God warns to stay away from such- while it’s tough because we have to ‘be in the world but not OF the world’ it’s tough to know what ‘being in the world’ means, and what ‘be not in league with the world’ means- It’s my understanding that from that article, if I read it right, that Cruz uses one of the gay people or both as consultants? Advisors? And then he has dinner with them? IF he’s having them as advisors, then He’s invited them to be a part of His world- being in league with them- But then I don’t know If in understood the article right- I’ll have to read it again- I was more concentrating on what the topic of the article was about than the details about the two gays-
It wasn’t tiem NYT- it was the poster of this article on FR that chaged the words
again you intentionally relate the two issues that were being discussed as one subject- they were not- loving is much different than ‘being ok with it’. Christians are NOT ok with a deviant lifestyle no matter who is practicing it=- it doesn’t mean they don’t love the person- Not sure what you’re not getting about that? The article made it seem that Ted said he’d be fine with it- you kept pointing to the statement that he’d love her anyways- two entirely different issues-
But the fact of the matter is the poster of the article intentionally misled the readers by adding words Ted never said-
Wrong, Bob. The Federal government's role in regulating how free people deal with pretend "gay marriage" is a CORE issue, and Cruz has made it quite clear where he stands on it, and his stand is right, good, and conservative.
How Cruz personally deals with open homosexuals, peacefully and civilly, in his personal, business, and civic circles, is entirely irrelevant, just as how YOU peacefully, civilly deal with open homosexuals in your personal, business, and civic circles is irrelevant to the issue of Federal involvement.
The issue is not "gay marriage," which is by definition pretend, it's the role of the Federal government in using force to make people deal with it a certain way.
The ribbon cutters, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, hosted the reception which is the subject of the article.
Quoth Reisner, "If a gay couple checks into a hotel, often they’ll ask if you’d like two separate beds. We would never ask."
If you guys want to hear preaching, go to church.
I want to hear a limited government Christian conservative talk about reining in government tyranny, turning government into a servant again and letting people live morally. That's what Cruz is doing.
You want a preacher go to church or turn the radio on to one of the excellent Christian stations that are popping up everywhere.
Let Cruz deal with Constitutional politics, the Constitution written by God-fearing people much like yourselves, and please have the vision to see that Cruz is offering the solution most likely to lead to more Godly living in America.
Amen, AC, Halleluliah!
Prax, the word "problem" was introduced by the *smirk* "journalist" *snort* who wrote the story.
So yes, the word "problem" DOES appear in the article.
Prax, the word "problem" was introduced by the *smirk* "journalist" *snort* who wrote the story.
So yes, the word "problem" DOES appear in the article.
THE NYT ARTICLE NEVER USES THE WORD "PROBLEM". The sentence you refer to reads: During the gathering, according to two people present, Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay.
This text appears in the NYT link, but not as posted.
The culprit here is the OP.
Please refer to my post #250. The text in the article was changed by the OP and this caused great consternation, as well as unfairly characterizing a statement by Sen. Cruz. Please compare the text as posted to the original NYT article. Thank you from all those needlessly upset by this.
Another possibility is that the NYT edited/changed the article after the OP posted it. Ethics would dictate that they memorialize the change with a note at the end, which does not appear, but then this is the NYT.
The NYT changed their article and removed "Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." The NYT did not acknowledge their error. They just made the change. The damage was done, of course. The NYT, IMO, knew exactly what they were doing, lied, and then changed their article after the lie had been repeated in countless blogs. Mission accomplished from their perspective.
Haven’t you heard: TED CRUZ VISITED A BATHHOUSE! Well, maybe he just WALKED BY a bathhouse. Perhaps he looked at one down the block. No, he visited a city which CONTAINS a bathhouse! And, don’t forget: HE MISSED THE LORETTA LYNCH VOTE!!!
Conservatives, abandon him NOW!!!`
I’ll just say civilizations made it through medieval times where homosexuality was rampant however economic reasons and weak military sacked Rome. There are much bigger fish to fry than a social issue utilized to divide where 1% of the population are the participants
Apparently not.
I think you may also need to have your sarcasm detector re-calibrated.
many on this site don’t need re-calibration; an entire new sarcasm detector is the only thing that’ll work...hard to fit it in, though, what with all the heightened social tensions and the knee jerking going on...
Apparently not.
I’ll never cease being amazed at what tin ears people have to the mellifluous undertones of sarcasm...
Wait until the debates start. They’re going to be fantastic.
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.