Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul stopped by for a visit on the May 26 edition of the Daily Show, where host Jon Stewart attacked the Kentucky senator for his position on religious liberty. Stewart argued that Christians already serve sinners anyway, so serving gay weddings shouldn’t be any different:
Because then, well, I mean, it seems like gay marriage looms a lot larger in the minds of certain conservatives than it does in the Bible, and the only thing I would say is haven’t – don't they sell cakes to sinners all the time? Adulterers, people that use – when you come in, do you go, ‘I’d like a cake. And they go, do you use the name of the lord in vain?’ I mean, what do you – how do you figure that out?
Earlier on in the segment, Stewart attempted to make an argument that Republicans were using a double standard on the issue because they believe bakers should not be compelled to make cakes for gay weddings, but opposed the building of a mosque at the 9/11 site in New York:
You know, this religious liberty case is an interesting one because I remember back right after 9/11 they had what was called the ground zero mosque and everybody was against that. All the guys – you can't build that. Well, maybe a question of religious liberty, but now, when it comes to a gay couple getting married and somebody wants to buy a cake from a baker, well that's religious liberty. Exact same people standing up for one or the other.
Senator Paul shrewdly beat back the host’s point by saying that while he did oppose the building of the mosque, he was “not for a law to prevent them” from building it. Contrast this with the religious liberty debate of today, where bakers, florists, and photographers are being forced by court order to serve gay weddings.
The Daily Show host – as Senator Paul mentioned about the left in general – clearly failed to grasp the difference between government-mandated acceptance and neutrality of the law.
[h/t Mediaite]
The relevant portion of the transcript is below.
Comedy Central
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
May 26, 2015
11:21 p.m. EasternJON STEWART, host: All right, welcome back! We're talking to Senator Rand Paul. We’re talking about the inconsistencies. You brought up a point that says they're against big government until they’re for it. It almost seems like that's everybody, and I almost think I would be okay with that if they made the individual cases. You know, this religious liberty case is an interesting one because I remember back right after 9/11 they had what was called the ground zero mosque and everybody was against that. All the guys – you can't build that. Well, maybe a question of religious liberty, but now, when it comes to a gay couple getting married and somebody wants to buy a cake from a baker, well that's religious liberty. Exact same people standing up for one or the other.
RAND PAUL (R-KY): I think inconsistencies and lack of genuineness are what bother the public and that's why Congress has about a 10% approval rating. But I think you’re exactly right that people want people to look at things the same way no matter which issue it is and not let personal bias enter into it.
STEWART: Or make an argument, you know, this religious liberty argument feels like they’ve worked
backwards from we are against the courts granting the constitutional right to marriage equality and we need to figure out how to get out of that. Maybe we'll try the states rights argument. Okay, that didn't work, let's try religious liberty.
PAUL: But there’s also something we need to separate out. So, for example, when they told me they were going to build a mosque at 9/11, I was horrified and thought that was a terrible thing, but I'm not for a law to prevent them. If you want to march down the street and you’re part of the KKK, I'm horrified by that and object to it. But there are certain – the First Amendment is about the right to be despicable. It’s easy to accept –
STEWART: You can't equate a mosque with the KKK or gay marriage with the KKK.
PAUL: No, what I'm saying is I think you can personally object to things that the law will allow and it doesn't mean we all have to say that we all accept everyone else's beliefs on everything else. So, for example, I'm absolutely for the law of allowing – of not preventing a mosque to be built, however, at the same time, I think it’s a really, really bad idea for a mosque to be built at the 9/11 site.
STEWART: You do know there was a mosque there?
PAUL: I know, I know.
STEWART: I’m really fascinated by this idea of religious persecution in this country because the depth of feeling seems real.
PAUL: Freedom doesn’t mean that we all have to agree with everybody else’s, who they are, what they are, what their religion is. We don’t have to like everybody. Okay.
STEWART: Nobody’s asking you to be happy baking it!
PAUL: The thing is that, so where I would separate it is, is people who have person opinions, they’re afraid. Some people are afraid in our country that their personal religious opinions will no longer be allowed even in their church and there are people talking about this because what they’re saying is, okay, you give a deduction to your church, so whose money is that? Is that now the government's money and they can regulate the church because it's a deduction. People are arguing this. I think there is a difference between acceptance and neutrality of the law and trying to force your opinion on people in their church or even in their expression.
STEWART: Nobody is forcing it on the church. You know, you stand somewhat, not alone in your party on the thing, but even there when religion enters into the question, it clouds the idea that – because you portray it as, well, we don't want to force people to have to agree with your beliefs, but we're not. We're asking them to do the thing that they do for their business. Like, what is a Christian business? Just – and I don’t mean that disrespectfully.
[...]
PAUL: Now we're getting somewhere. But no, then they chose not make t-shirts supporting gay marriage. The thing is that it does sound to me like a little bit of a freedom issue where you can go down the street and get somebody else to make it. And I'm not one who is intolerant. I someone who believes in letting people live life the way they want to live it but also that I would include Christians in that, too, who have a belief that –
STEWART: I understand that. We have this idea corporations are people and should it be as easy as I don't agree with this and it's because I'm Christian? Because then, well, I mean, it seems like gay marriage looms a lot larger in the minds of certain conservatives than it does in the Bible, and the only thing I would say is haven’t – don't they sell cakes to sinners all the time? Adulterers, people that use – when you come in, do you go I’d like a cake. And they go, do you use the name of the lord in vain? I mean, what do you – how do you figure that out?
