Skip to main content

In Ted Cruz's world, there would be no Civil Rights Act

I thought I'd finally reached a point where no right-wing "religious liberty" argument would surprise me enough to feel the need to write about it. Sadly, Texas Senator Ted Cruz proved me wrong.

In a recent interview with Newsmax's Ed Berliner, Cruz said the following on the matter:

"Imagine if this were inverted. Imagine if there weer a gay florist - now I know that's hard to imagine, a gay florist - but just go with the hypo[thetical] for a second. Imagine if two evangelical Christians came to a gay florist and they wanted to get married, and the florist said, 'You know what? I disagree with your faith. I have problems with your faith.' You have no entitlement to force that florist to provide flowers at the Christians' wedding. We are a pluralistic nation that tolerates diversity."

Actually, history would showcase otherwise, Mr. Cruz, for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that, "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." So while, according to Mr. Cruz and his ilk, it should be perfectly legal for Christian business owners to turn away LGBT customers based on their sexual orientation and LGBT business owners should be able to turn away Christian customers due to their religious affiliation, the latter is not permissible under federal law as the former is. So, from both a historical and logical standpoint, Mr. Cruz's argument fails, and he may want to try finding another.

Even if Cruz's argument held up logically, that would still set quite the disturbing precedent for customer service in this country. There's a good reason certain demographics are protected under the Civil Rights Act - to prevent discriminatory views from clouding one's judgment at the workplace, to the point where equal service isn't provided to people of all stripes. In Ted Cruz's world, sexist men should be able to refuse service to women, racist whites should be able to refuse service to blacks, Jews should be able to refuse service to Muslims, and Christians should be able to refuse service to homosexuals.

There's an old saying that says the customer is always right. According to Ted Cruz, it seems that business owners are always right, and in the country Cruz paints as the freest in the world, customers should only be as free as business owners allow them. It's a wonder if the Civil Rights Act had never been passed and Ted Cruz was turned away by a business owner due to that fact, he'd sing a different tune on the matter.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/25/3695060/ted-cruz-religious-liberty-civil-rights-act/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"