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 ...
Social issues go hand-in-hand with conservatism. Yes, if someone wants to be queer, they should have the freedom to do so. But they’re not content with that freedom. They want their sick practices approved, even celebrated. They want children to be taught that it’s perfectly normal and healthy. They are trying to force it into every facet of our lives, and to silence even the slightest disagreement.
I’m pretty sure you’ve noticed.
If you believe God is real, you also understand that He won’t look kindly upon a country which dedicated itself to Christ upon founding, but now celebrates a practice He finds detestable.
Sound fiscal policy is a great thing, but it isn’t the only thing. If you believe we can succeed as a country by tending to our money while we become a moral sewer, you’re kidding yourself.
Bob, if they’re his consultants, he’s doing business with them.
If you owned a shop, and a known homosexual walked in to buy something from you, would you yell at him to get out?
During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay.
FReepers are not as stooooooooopid as you apparently choose to think they are (yes, "choose," since the word "problem" was CLEARLY USED IN THE ARTICLE posted at the top of this thread, THIRD PARAGRAPH, first line ...). You are MISTAKEN, and it is very clear and easy to confirm that you are mistaken.
[[There are much bigger fish to fry than a social issue utilized to divide where 1% of the population are the participants]]
first off, it’s m roe than 1% because they have a majority of the left and libertarians, and progressives supporting them- secondly- they ARE destroying this nation by going after Christians and conservatives- driving people out of business, intimidating them, bullying them- ruining their businesses etc- and it’s only going to get worse- much worse- the more we allow them to get away with their bias and hate-
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of a candidate that they NOT ignore a core issue like this (not that Ted is ignoring it) or to ask exactly where they stand on such an issue- Are there other important issues Also? Sure, you betcha= however, this too is an important issue-
[[Wait until the debates start. They’re going to be fantastic.]]
I suspect you are right- looking forward to them-
please explain to everyone how the article on NYT site does NOT contain the words “No problem” but the article posted here on FR DOES contain those words then? It seems pretty clear to me that the article written by Maggie has changed- who changed it finny? The NYT? The thread starter on FR? Someone sure as heck changed-
Do you want to live in a country run by homosexuals?
During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay.
FReepers are not as stooooooooopid as you apparently choose to think they are (yes, "choose," since the word "problem" was CLEARLY USED IN THE ARTICLE posted at the top of this thread, THIRD PARAGRAPH, first line ...). You are MISTAKEN, and it is very clear and easy to confirm that you are mistaken.
Check the article at the link, not as posted at the top of this thread. You will note that the text posted on FR is different than the NYT article. The word "problem" does not appear.
Now I am inclined to believe that the NYT caused this problem rather than the OP, so I sent the following to the Cruz campaign:
In yesterday's NYT article entitled "Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen", the third paragraph began with "During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." Sometime early this mornng, that text was changed to "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."
The original text achieved wide distribution in the blogosphere, e.g. Red State, and had the effect of suppressing support for Sen. Cruz.
The NYT did not note or acknowledge that they made the change, though they did so for two other corrections to the same article.
The title at the NYT URL of the article was changed by them, not the poster of this thread.
Also the text was changed also, in one instance for a correction.
See the note at the top of the article by Admin Mod.
Ted Cruz:
“One person further asked how Heidi and I would react if we found out one of our (4- and 7-year-old) daughters were gay. My reply: ‘We would love her with all our hearts. We love our daughters unconditionally,’” Cruz said.
“A conservative Republican who is willing to meet with individuals who do not agree on marriage and who loves his daughters unconditionally may not reflect the caricature of conservatives promoted by the left, but it’s hardly newsworthy.”
Cruz's comment is an touching bookend to your thread.
please post what his office replys with- or paraphrase-
my apologies- I assumed you changed the text- I didn’t realize NYT issued ‘corrections’-
Check the article at the link, not as posted at the top of this thread. You will note that the text posted on FR is different than the NYT article. The word "problem" does not appear.A bump for your earlier post with my emphasis added.Now I am inclined to believe that the NYT caused this problem rather than the OP, so I sent the following to the Cruz campaign:
In yesterday's NYT article entitled "Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen", the third paragraph began with "During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." Sometime early this morning, that text was changed to "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."
The original text achieved wide distribution in the blogosphere, e.g. Red State, and had the effect of suppressing support for Sen. Cruz.
The NYT did not note or acknowledge that they made the change, though they did so for two other corrections to the same article.
Thanks for following this and sending your findings to the Cruz for President campaign.
I am certain the important change in the text (and title) of the article was the doing of the NYT. It is in character for the NYT to intentionally misrepresent what Ted Cruz said on a hot-button issue and then correct it without acknowledging the change after the damage is done in the blogosphere. I think we've come to expect biased, unethical behavior from the NYT on a variety of topics concerning conservative politicians.
can you provide evidence that the key issue was changed at the source? It just says on NYT site that something completely different was ‘corrected’- and nothing about Ted saying ‘He’d be fine with it if....’
I apologize to you as well, VinL.
The OP got beaten up for the NYT's unethical behavior!
[[I am certain the important change in the text (and title) of the article was the doing of the NYT. It is in character for the NYT to intentionally misrepresent what Ted Cruz said on a hot-button issue and then correct it without acknowledging the change after the damage is done in the blogosphere. I think we’ve come to expect biased, unethical behavior from the NYT on a variety of topics concerning conservative politicians. ]]
Agreed- they’ve been caught numerous times doing this crap- as has CBS and other msm- Dan rather even boasting his reporting was ‘fake but accurate’ AFTER the damage had been done- and never admitting to wrong doing- Those people operate in a sleazy manner
That's because, the NYT, unethical as it is, never acknowledged their misquote. They just changed it and left the damage they had already done to Sen. Cruz to languish on the Internet.
Sen. Cruz's response was excellent, however, and should repair some of the damage.
Geez, I’m appreciative of the apologies- but no need. I was unaware that this thread had proceeded to this extent. In any event, I know where Sen. Cruz stands, I know where I stand-— that’s why I returned to the Board to enthusiastically supporting him. Peace. -:)
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.