Joe Miller in Salon.com

On Civil Rights: Opposes ENDA; ok to decide whether a business serves gays

A: No. I would not have. No, I think that private employers should be able to make decisions as to what they do in their private businesses, and I think the people then are entitled to make decisions as to whether or not they use their services. They can boycott. If, for example, somebody that is a traditionalist, that believes in traditional marriage, that runs a bakery for weddings, should necessarily be compelled to do something that's against their conscience.

Q: Should a hotel be able to turn away a couple because they're gay?

A: I believe that if you're a private employer, you have the right to do what you want with respect to your business, and that the people of the country then have the right to do as they will, with respect to whether or not they boycott or take other action to financially penalize. I don't think the government has a role in that.

On Civil Rights: Let states decide about gay rights & minority rights

A: I believe that if you're a private employer, you have the right to do what you want with respect to your business. And if somebody wants something like that, then they should be encouraged to move to a state that provides for that. At the federal level, the better thing is not to impose the one-size-solution-fits-all, but to reduce the involvement of the federal government, in favor of the people in the states.

Q: So at the federal level, then, should it be legal for that hotel to turn someone away because they're African-American?

A: I'm a state's right advocate in those areas.

Q: So should a restaurant then be able to turn someone away because they're African-American?

Q: I've said my piece on that.

Q: And so would you repeal the Civil Rights Act?

Q: Of course not. I've said my piece on the issue of ENDA. That was your specific question, that's my response to it.

On Corporations: Multinational corporations exert power over party duopoly

A: The nation to a certain degree faces a duopoly where both parties are effectively doing the same thing, and that's growing the expanse of power in Washington, D.C. There's an enormous degree of power that's exerted against both parties by multinational corporations. You see that with the [Trans-Pacific Partnership]. You see that with respect to crony regulations and statutes that are embedded in the laws at the behest of lobbyists. You see that even down to the impact that we're seeing today economically in the country, with middle class having immediate net worth that is lowest in decades. The people aren't being properly represented.

On Government Reform: Stop federal systematic spiritual and religious apartheid

A: We've seen a president with a complete disrespect for religious institutions to decide whether or not they want to provide certain things under their health plan that they pay for. if you have a religious organization, they certainly have the right not do things that they believe violate their doctrine and their conscience.

Q: What is the apartheid comparison? Is there one group that you think is being privileged over another group?

A: Well, we're talking about religious groups and irreligious groups.

Q: So are you suggesting that irreligious groups have more rights than religious groups?

A: Well, a religious group has a free exercise right to practice their religion--a right to be free of government interference and government mandates that require them to act in a way that violates their fundamental worldview.

On Technology: NSA recording digital cell phone calls is turnkey tyranny

And I agree with what some have said, that this is essentially turnkey tyranny. That you've got a government with now so much information that's gathered unconstitutionally, that it does pose a threat to freedom.

The expanse of the federal government in ways that the founders didn't intend--intruding on states' rights--another area that gives me great cause for concern.