If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Advocate) Cool Not news: Corporations biatching about burdensome government regulations. Fark: Like the Defense of Marriage Act   (advocate.com) divider line 89
More: Cool, DOMA, Starbucks, same-sex marriages, Microsoft, Google  
•       •       •

3380 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2011 at 4:18 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
GreenAdder [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 03:30:55 PM
And also think about it this way: Most weddings are expensive. Even "cheap" wedding receptions are expensive. You have to rent a hall, secure entertainment, purchase food, get wedding attire for the couple and their parties, decorations, cake, etc. It all adds up to a large amount of money and several small (or large) businesses all getting a cut.

Ultimately, having more weddings means having more money circulating in the economy. It also means more cake.

You're not going to tell me you hate money and cake, are you?
 
Dan the Schman
2011-11-06 03:37:58 PM
A study estimated that legalizing gay marriage nationally could inject up to 18 Billion dollars into the economy annually.
 
Weaver95 [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 03:46:40 PM
Some of the companies have had to pay consultants to jury-rig systems used to track benefits and taxes so they can accommodate the double records. "These dual regimes have spawned an industry of costly compliance specialists," they complain

soo....DOMA created jobs?
 
Sarsin
2011-11-06 04:27:34 PM
Weaver95: soo....DOMA created jobs?

Yes, part of the gay agenda is putting HR people and lawyers out of work. Curse those fabulously dressed bastards!
 
HMS_Blinkin
2011-11-06 04:31:20 PM
Well, at least they are consistent, unlike some of the usual derpers...
 
Serious Black
2011-11-06 04:37:38 PM
The free market is only free so long as the regulations government places on the market are invisible.
 
apoptotic
2011-11-06 04:39:32 PM
That's excellent, there's some big money on that list. Maybe that'll get some politicians' attention.
 
Sock Ruh Tease
2011-11-06 04:43:19 PM
Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.
 
Serious Black
2011-11-06 04:44:19 PM
Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.shove a gay erect penis up their gay butt.

FTFY.
 
Saners
2011-11-06 04:49:11 PM
Serious Black: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.shove a gay erect penis up their gay butt.

FTFY.

Not so fast gaybalaya...

"The burden on the small employer is especially onerous," the companies point out. Small businesses can't afford to hire consultants, and "such burdens, standing alone, might chill a smaller employer from employing an otherwise qualified employee because she happens to be married to a same-sex spouse."

So these companies are for scissoring but against fudge packing.
 
whidbey
2011-11-06 04:50:22 PM
This thread is now a Homoerotic Locker Room™
 
Benni K Rok
2011-11-06 04:50:48 PM
Weaver95: Some of the companies have had to pay consultants to jury-rig systems used to track benefits and taxes so they can accommodate the double records. "These dual regimes have spawned an industry of costly compliance specialists," they complain

soo....DOMA created jobs?

Think about all the jobs it killed though. You have to be REALLY fabulous to plan a wedding for a gay couple.
 
Notabunny
2011-11-06 04:51:47 PM
Saners: So these companies are for scissoring but against fudge packing.

It's a market penetration thing. (pardon the pun)
 
Jonny Chimpo
2011-11-06 04:52:05 PM
Saners: Serious Black: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.shove a gay erect penis up their gay butt.

FTFY.

Not so fast gaybalaya...

"The burden on the small employer is especially onerous," the companies point out. Small businesses can't afford to hire consultants, and "such burdens, standing alone, might chill a smaller employer from employing an otherwise qualified employee because she happens to be married to a same-sex spouse."

So these companies are for scissoring but against fudge packing.

In a way, isn't everyone?
 
Benni K Rok
2011-11-06 04:52:12 PM
whidbey: This thread is now a Homoerotic Locker Room™

Now it's time to switch roles.

Democrats for deregulation
Republicans for big government
 
mod3072
2011-11-06 04:52:26 PM
Saners: Serious Black: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.shove a gay erect penis up their gay butt.

FTFY.

Not so fast gaybalaya...

"The burden on the small employer is especially onerous," the companies point out. Small businesses can't afford to hire consultants, and "such burdens, standing alone, might chill a smaller employer from employing an otherwise qualified employee because she happens to be married to a same-sex spouse."

So these companies are for scissoring but against fudge packing.

Well, duh.
 
dionysusaur
2011-11-06 04:52:49 PM
Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.

Hey, they're people, too (cf: Citizens United)!
 
spongeboob [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 04:53:13 PM
Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.

You forgot to add NTTAWWT.
Or are you admitting that you are a homophob?
 
Serious Black
2011-11-06 04:54:32 PM
Jonny Chimpo: Saners: Serious Black: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.shove a gay erect penis up their gay butt.

FTFY.

Not so fast gaybalaya...

"The burden on the small employer is especially onerous," the companies point out. Small businesses can't afford to hire consultants, and "such burdens, standing alone, might chill a smaller employer from employing an otherwise qualified employee because she happens to be married to a same-sex spouse."

So these companies are for scissoring but against fudge packing.

In a way, isn't everyone?

I don't get why people would be so violently against fudge packing.
 
zarberg
2011-11-06 04:54:58 PM
You guys keep saying "gay" like it's a bad thing.
 
ImperialHazman
2011-11-06 04:59:28 PM
GreenAdder: And also think about it this way: Most weddings are expensive. Even "cheap" wedding receptions are expensive. You have to rent a hall, secure entertainment, purchase food, get wedding attire for the couple and their parties, decorations, cake, etc. It all adds up to a large amount of money and several small (or large) businesses all getting a cut.

Ultimately, having more weddings means having more money circulating in the economy. It also means more cake.

You're not going to tell me you hate money and cake, are you?

The cake is a lie.
 
Sock Ruh Tease
2011-11-06 05:02:19 PM
spongeboob: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.

You forgot to add NTTAWWT.
Or are you admitting that you are a homophob?

No, I'm a coprophobe. (I hope that means fear of evil corporations!!)
 
whidbey
2011-11-06 05:02:58 PM
Sock Ruh Tease: spongeboob: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.

You forgot to add NTTAWWT.
Or are you admitting that you are a homophob?

No, I'm a coprophobe. (I hope that means fear of evil corporations!!)

I've had enough of their sh*t, I don't FEAR it.
 
EyeBallStu
2011-11-06 05:08:10 PM
You're not going to tell me you hate money and cake, are you?

The cake is a lie.

The cake is baked.
 
missiv
2011-11-06 05:08:49 PM
When the GOP makes policy, it could resemble a regulation. In reality it is called a Scripture. Biblical enforcement may vary from state to state.
 
Biological Ali [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 05:10:17 PM
GreenAdder: You're not going to tell me you hate money and cake, are you?

Hey, I like money and cake too. We should totally hang out sometime.
 
zarberg
2011-11-06 05:16:03 PM
missiv: When the GOP makes policy, it could resemble a regulation. In reality it is called a Scripture. Biblical enforcement may vary from state to state.

I'd agree - if they actually followed the Bible. When we're talking about rabid Christians we have a group of people that insists the Bible is the divine word of God, inspiring humans to perfection ... and then they pick and choose passages that suit their needs while ignoring other passages that contradict them.

Political use of the Bible is simply finding excuses to keep the poor and disenfranchised at the bottom of the totem pole.
 
fusillade762
2011-11-06 05:16:16 PM
whidbey: This thread is now a Homoerotic Locker Room™

Do you like gladiator movies?


GreenAdder: Ultimately, having more weddings means having more money circulating in the economy. It also means more cake.

mopies.files.wordpress.com
 
CanisNoir [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 05:22:16 PM
Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.
 
magores
2011-11-06 05:25:56 PM
Sock Ruh Tease: spongeboob: Sock Ruh Tease: Google, Microsoft, and Starbucks are against DOMA because they want to get gay-married.

You forgot to add NTTAWWT.
Or are you admitting that you are a homophob?

No, I'm a coprophobe. (I hope that means fear of evil corporations!!)

read that as "cornholophobe"
 
Benni K Rok
2011-11-06 05:26:54 PM
CanisNoir: Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.

Given that people outside of religions can become legally married I don't even think it should be a State's right to say no to it.
 
Sim Tree [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 05:27:41 PM
"such burdens, standing alone, might chill a smaller employer from employing an otherwise qualified employee because she happens to be married to a same-sex spouse."

I love how they mention this as being a problem without realizing this specific result might have been intended on purpose.
 
whidbey
2011-11-06 05:30:10 PM
CanisNoir: Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.

Yes, I want the States to decide that homosexuality is icky and awful enough to ban it and discriminate against US citizens who feel otherwise.

It's totally what I want. Ron Paul.
 
GhostFish
2011-11-06 05:32:26 PM
CanisNoir: Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.

And then after that we can get back to dealing with the women and negros properly.
 
fusillade762
2011-11-06 05:34:10 PM
whidbey: CanisNoir: Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.

Yes, I want the States to decide that homosexuality is icky and awful enough to ban it and discriminate against US citizens who feel otherwise.

It's totally what I want. Ron Paul.

Slavery, too. The bible has nothing but good things to say about slavery. Let the states decide, because that worked out so well last time.
 
Guidette Frankentits
2011-11-06 05:36:42 PM
Sorry peevangelicals, hating gays is really really bad for business.
 
apoptotic
2011-11-06 05:37:42 PM
CanisNoir: Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.

Ah yes, because clearly the signatories of this brief would rather have to deal with 50 different sets of rules than with one.
 
brigid_fitch [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 05:40:19 PM
A woman I know has a male name (long story). Whenever her company (large Fortune 500 firm) changes benefits, she gets a letter saying they don't recognize same sex domestic couples and she has to submit their marriage license for her husband to stay on the policy.

It's a dumb hassle, but she doesn't mind. Sadly, she's a conservative and is glad they check for these things. :(
 
Guidette Frankentits
2011-11-06 05:40:42 PM

I'm surprised this argument hasn't be used yet:

Preventing gays from marrying gives lawyers jobs. We're not bigots, we're job creators!
 
missiv
2011-11-06 05:42:37 PM
zarberg: missiv: When the GOP makes policy, it could resemble a regulation. In reality it is called a Scripture. Biblical enforcement may vary from state to state.

I'd agree - if they actually followed the Bible. When we're talking about rabid Christians we have a group of people that insists the Bible is the divine word of God, inspiring humans to perfection ... and then they pick and choose passages that suit their needs while ignoring other passages that contradict them.

Political use of the Bible is simply finding excuses to keep the poor and disenfranchised at the bottom of the totem pole.

Zero arguments from me. I'm just presenting this in the mindset of an alleged rabid Christian lawmaker, and their beautifully golden showered minions.

Was USA Jesus right handed?
 
Farking While Farking
2011-11-06 05:44:22 PM
zarberg: Political use of the Bible is simply finding excuses to keep the poor and disenfranchised at the bottom of the totem pole.

And the really sick part - they use the religious convictions of the poor and disenfranchised to get them to vote against their own economic interests.
 
taxandspend
2011-11-06 06:20:06 PM
whidbey: This thread is now a Homoerotic Locker Room™

'Bout time

1.bp.blogspot.com

Ye-HAW

\cleanest picture in my google search for gay locker room
 
fusillade762
2011-11-06 06:22:21 PM
Farking While Farking: zarberg: Political use of the Bible is simply finding excuses to keep the poor and disenfranchised at the bottom of the totem pole.

And the really sick part - they use the religious convictions of the poor and disenfranchised to get them to vote against their own economic interests.

^^^So much THIS.

tcfrank.com
 
Karac
2011-11-06 06:31:29 PM
CanisNoir: Say hello to my little unintended consequence!!

See Republicans, *this* is why you don't try to legislate this type of shait from the Fed. Let the *States* deal with it.

Why, pray tell, is a state government deciding to restrict the civil rights of consenting, law-abiding, adults so much better than the federal government doing the same exact thing?
 
zarberg
2011-11-06 06:37:23 PM
The most amusing part of the whole anti-gay-marriage thing, to me, is that every argument against is just a re-hashed argument that was used by anti civil rights folks in the 50's and 60's.

It must really suck to be on the losing side of history and not even know it.
 
whidbey
2011-11-06 06:41:44 PM
zarberg: The most amusing part of the whole anti-gay-marriage thing, to me, is that every argument against is just a re-hashed argument that was used by anti civil rights folks in the 50's and 60's.

It must really suck to be on the losing side of history and not even know it.

Yeah well, history doesn't kick in for decades. We're stuck with these idiots now.
 
Driving Without Pants
2011-11-06 06:50:23 PM
whidbey: Yeah well, history doesn't kick in for decades. We're stuck with these idiots now.

Don't be so sure:
1.bp.blogspot.com

Same-sex marriage will be legal in most of the country in a few election cycles. It may take decades for it to come to Mississippi, but I suspect the SCOTUS may play a part in dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

/I do agree that things will be infinitely better when all the old racist homophobic codgers shuffle off this mortal coil.
//Yes, that graph looks like a dick.
 
Dusk-You-n-Me [TotalFark]
2011-11-06 06:50:38 PM
zarberg: The most amusing part of the whole anti-gay-marriage thing, to me, is that every argument against is just a re-hashed argument that was used by anti civil rights folks in the 50's and 60's.

It must really suck to be on the losing side of history and not even know it.

30.media.tumblr.com
 
whidbey
2011-11-06 06:57:41 PM
Driving Without Pants: //Yes, that graph looks like a dick.

I was gonna say...somebody should go see the doctor about those spots.
 
Darth_Emmel
2011-11-06 07:00:04 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »