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.

(Slate)   Want to know how Apple, Google, MasterCard and Chik-Fil-A responded to the SCOTUS making everyone get gay married? If so, you are probably a lonely person with too much time on your hands. But here it is anyway   (slate.com) divider line 107
    More: Amusing, U.S. Supreme Court, MasterCard, Google, AllThingsD  
•       •       •

14064 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 10:05:58 AM  
Say what you will about IBM, and people are saying some pretty bad things about them recently, but when I worked for them in the mid-1990s they had a well spelled-out policy of giving benefits to domestic partners whether they were married or not or gay or not.
 
2013-06-27 10:13:05 AM  
People may be scoffing at it, but having large brand names weigh in on important social issues...especially on the correct side of history.. is kind of a big farking deal. It shows how much the pendulum has swung in favor of equal rights, and is a milestone in public attitude.

Keep in mind, these places wouldn't do these things if they thought they would hurt their chances at making money since that is the effective singular goal of a corporation. That proves public opinion has shifted.
 
2013-06-27 10:14:25 AM  
Chick-Fil-A had nothing to say on the matter today. "We are leaving political decisions and discussions to others and focusing only on what we do best," the company told the Wall Street Journal.

Chicken.
 
2013-06-27 10:15:25 AM  

show me: Say what you will about IBM, and people are saying some pretty bad things about them recently, but when I worked for them in the mid-1990s they had a well spelled-out policy of giving benefits to domestic partners whether they were married or not or gay or not.


Well, Big Blue is as progressive as they come. They are blatantly anti white male. If you are anything out of the ordinary for race, sexual preference, there are specific leg up programs to promote and train you. If you are a white guy, tough noogies.  They are outsourcing almost everything any way. IBM Burlington is down to 4,000 employees now, was well over 10,000 just a decade ago. Layoffs almost every quarter.

It is a different place now, really. Have to justify yearly why your job can remain here and not be moved to Brazil, India, Argentina, etc. Thank goodness for ITAR.
 
2013-06-27 10:16:01 AM  
Fark Chick Fil-A-tio!  They may hate teh gheys but I bet that they'll gladly take their money!  Hypocritical bastages!
 
2013-06-27 10:16:08 AM  
Free small order of waffle fries to anyone crying
 
2013-06-27 10:16:37 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Chick-Fil-A had nothing to say on the matter today. "We are leaving political decisions and discussions to others and focusing only on what we do best," the company told the Wall Street Journal.

Chicken.


4.bp.blogspot.com

/hot, like delicious chicken
 
2013-06-27 10:17:28 AM  
In ABC Family's case, that may be purely a business move, as the company's tweet was simply promoting a forthcoming show called The Fosters that revolves around an interracial lesbian couple.

You know, there are a lot on the Right out there that would say that they're doing it wrong.
 
2013-06-27 10:17:47 AM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-06-27 10:18:09 AM  
Chick-Fil-A had nothing to say on the matter today. "We are leaving political decisions and discussions to others and focusing only on what we do best,"

Making bland, uninteresting chicken sandwiches?
 
2013-06-27 10:18:09 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Chick-Fil-A had nothing to say on the matter today. "We are leaving political decisions and discussions to others and focusing only on what we do best," the company told the Wall Street Journal.

Chicken.


O-ho!

"Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies."
 
2013-06-27 10:19:05 AM  
Meanwhile, florists across the country salivated.
 
2013-06-27 10:19:39 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: People may be scoffing at it, but having large brand names weigh in on important social issues...especially on the correct side of history.. is kind of a big farking deal. It shows how much the pendulum has swung in favor of equal rights, and is a milestone in public attitude.

Keep in mind, these places wouldn't do these things if they thought they would hurt their chances at making money since that is the effective singular goal of a corporation. That proves public opinion has shifted.


i agree, it certainly shows how the tables have turned.

however, if i ran a major, national-international company, i probably wouldn't make a statement.  while, personally, i support equality, i also believe that it sets a dangerous precedent for juridical personalities like corporations to be vocal with their opinions (unless they are commerce/business opinions).  First off, the entity shouldn't be given any credit.  but, it will be given credit because it's famous.  while i can't change the fact that entities will continue to air their opinions, i would rather not add to the pile of what I think is problematic.
 
2013-06-27 10:20:35 AM  
"We are leaving political decisions and discussions to others and focusing only on what we do best"

What happened to the righteous bravado? The indignant pomposity inflated by a sense of holier than thou outrage? Now that they didn't get their way they all of a sudden don't want to talk about it? Farking pussies.

And fark your chicken too. Bland and dry and WHO PUTS A PICKLE ON CHICKEN SANDVICH??
 
2013-06-27 10:20:50 AM  
Except for the usual suspects, Teahadists and Theocrats were less vocal than I expected them to be.  I was a bit disappointed.

I was not entertained.

Anyone know where I can find some awesome wailing and gnashing of teeth?  Where can I find the best Star-Spangled Taliban butthurt on the Interwebs?
 
2013-06-27 10:24:13 AM  

xalres: Bland and dry and WHO PUTS A PICKLE ON CHICKEN SANDVICH??


People who love deliciousness, that's who. I get mine with extra pickles. I ask them to please hold the bigotry, though.
 
2013-06-27 10:25:33 AM  
FTFA: The lesson: Taking sides on a civil-rights issue isn't necessarily a bad business move. Just don't take the wrong side.

I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

The article seems to focus on one side and says they are right and everyone else is wrong with out respecting their opinion on the matter. Then again, this is politics and in politics, opinions are treated as facts...
 
2013-06-27 10:26:35 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]


...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?
 
2013-06-27 10:27:58 AM  

IntertubeUser: Except for the usual suspects, Teahadists and Theocrats were less vocal than I expected them to be.  I was a bit disappointed.

I was not entertained.

Anyone know where I can find some awesome wailing and gnashing of teeth?  Where can I find the best Star-Spangled Taliban butthurt on the Interwebs?


Try the comment sections on Yahoo.  That's where all the Fox News commenters went when Fox News shut their comments down.
 
2013-06-27 10:28:01 AM  

xalres: rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]

...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?


Is that different than it was before?
 
2013-06-27 10:28:24 AM  

Fark In The Duck: Fark Chick Fil-A-tio!  They may hate teh gheys but I bet that they'll gladly take their money!  Hypocritical bastages!


Part of this "silence is golden" campaign is to get people to stop thinking that. Sure, the Cathys might be (are), but the people that work there probably aren't (especially the ones in/near cities), so best to have corporate say nothing.

I'd prefer benign neglect, frankly, if the only other option is the absurd "We're Bible believers; if that makes us bigots, then we're bigots" crap.
 
2013-06-27 10:28:27 AM  

IntertubeUser: Except for the usual suspects, Teahadists and Theocrats were less vocal than I expected them to be.  I was a bit disappointed.

I was not entertained.

Anyone know where I can find some awesome wailing and gnashing of teeth?  Where can I find the best Star-Spangled Taliban butthurt on the Interwebs?


I was pretty disappointed, too.  I was expecting some weapons grade butthurt.  My derptastic Facebook friends only mustered a single post which implied that Obama was only doing this (how he had anything to do with it was left unexplained) to distract from whatevergate.
 
2013-06-27 10:29:00 AM  
That's a lot of big names for the anti-gay crowd to boycott.
 
2013-06-27 10:30:29 AM  
How did we come to a point where people are obsessed with having their political opinions validated when engaging in activities or making purchases that have nothing to do with politics?  I have little in common with the politics of Ben & Jerry, but their ice cream tastes delicious.  I don't agree with Chick-Fil-A's politics, but their chicken sandwiches are awesome.  The waffle fries, not so much, but the chicken is solid.
 
2013-06-27 10:31:58 AM  

yves0010: FTFA: The lesson: Taking sides on a civil-rights issue isn't necessarily a bad business move. Just don't take the wrong side.

I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

The article seems to focus on one side and says they are right and everyone else is wrong with out respecting their opinion on the matter. Then again, this is politics and in politics, opinions are treated as facts...


Opinions can be wrong. When your opinion is "We should have a law to keep people from entering into a contract because the magical sky wizard I worship tells me they're icky.", you're damn wrong. You're welcome to have that opinion, but you're still wrong, at least in the eyes of the law. You think we should give equal time to segregationists?
 
2013-06-27 10:32:30 AM  
In addition to the increased devaluation of conventional marriage, I can hardly wait to see what happens when millions of straight men marry men and straight women marry women for the tax and legal advantages (like getting all those precious 1,162 federal bennies, whatever they are) and the medical industry and tax code melts down...should be quite a sight....

And regardless of the frantic bleatings of Farkistan, this DOES open the way to polygamy. The fence has been crossed, Hannibal has crossed the Alps, The feds have now said they don't have the right to decide this, it's up to the states, so Utah rubs its hands in glee. They were told by the feds in the 19th century they couldn't have polygamy, and now the fed has said they have no standing to decide the issue. Let the games commence....
 
2013-06-27 10:33:47 AM  
i applaud corporations speaking openly and honestly but doubt we'll get much of that. Chik-Fil-A had the balls to speak their mind for a matter of minutes. Good for them. They'll never see one penny of KrispyKritter money, but good for them.

The only real vote an American has is with their wallets, checkbooks, credit cards and pocketbooks. Stop buying products and services from companies you don't like and it's just a matter of time before they wither up and close their doors. Take the time to find out who makes what, who owns what, and destroy the scumbags. It's fun and most everyone can play.
 
2013-06-27 10:34:00 AM  
Chick-Fil-A's CEO sparked protests by speaking out against gay marriage last year

No. The controversy was over spending $5 million of the company's profits on an anti-gay hate group "charity."
 
2013-06-27 10:34:45 AM  

exick: xalres: Bland and dry and WHO PUTS A PICKLE ON CHICKEN SANDVICH??

People who love deliciousness, that's who. I get mine with extra pickles. I ask them to please hold the bigotry, though.


Way to stick it to some random 17 year old who has no problem with gay people.
 
2013-06-27 10:35:24 AM  

yves0010: FTFA: The lesson: Taking sides on a civil-rights issue isn't necessarily a bad business move. Just don't take the wrong side.

I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

The article seems to focus on one side and says they are right and everyone else is wrong with out respecting their opinion on the matter. Then again, this is politics and in politics, opinions are treated as facts...


If you believe women shouldn't have the right to vote, you are on the wrong side.
If you believe that black people should have to sit at the back of the bus, you are on the wrong side.
If you believe that inter-racial couples should not be able to marry, you are on the wrong side.
And now, if you believe that same-sex couples shouldn't have the same legal recognition as heterosexual couples, you are on the wrong side.

History chooses sides, especially the history of civil rights. And America has always been on a trajectory of attaining more and more equality, and those who oppose that equality are eventually going to be on the losing side of the argument. Inevitably, the American people decide that those who oppose equality are on the wrong side of the issue. This is also retroactive, so while you may have thought you were on the right side 10-20 years ago, now you find out that you were on the wrong side all along.

As the adage goes, there are a lot of people who are going to look really silly 40 years from now.
 
2013-06-27 10:35:58 AM  

xalres: yves0010: FTFA: The lesson: Taking sides on a civil-rights issue isn't necessarily a bad business move. Just don't take the wrong side.

I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

The article seems to focus on one side and says they are right and everyone else is wrong with out respecting their opinion on the matter. Then again, this is politics and in politics, opinions are treated as facts...

Opinions can be wrong. When your opinion is "We should have a law to keep people from entering into a contract because the magical sky wizard I worship tells me they're icky.", you're damn wrong. You're welcome to have that opinion, but you're still wrong, at least in the eyes of the law. You think we should give equal time to segregationists?


I am not saying that. I am saying that even if an opinion is based on something we perceive as wrong. It is still an opinion that needs to be respected regardless. To them, it is not wrong. You can base someones opinion on your own and say they are wrong but in reality.. there is no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to opinions.
 
2013-06-27 10:36:20 AM  

xalres: rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]

...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?


They wanted to come out last November and make a statement......but that extra sauce on that eighth chicken finger left them breathing heavy
 
2013-06-27 10:36:25 AM  

yves0010: I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.


The "wrong" side is the one that loses you more business than you were comfortable losing by publicly supporting it, realistically.

Dr Dreidel: Part of this "silence is golden" campaign is to get people to stop thinking that. Sure, the Cathys might be (are), but the people that work there probably aren't (especially the ones in/near cities), so best to have corporate say nothing.


I agree with this; the Cathy family is entitled to their beliefs and opinions and they're entitled to deciding whether they want their business to push what selection of their values on it.  I'm fine with them sticking to food prep and fastidious, indoor-playground cleaning regimens.

Nabb1: The waffle fries, not so much, but the chicken is solid.


Now that is a damned lie!  This is tantamount to hate speech!
 
2013-06-27 10:37:23 AM  

xalres: rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]

...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?


Traditionally so, yes, seeing as they make up the largest voting demographic.
 
2013-06-27 10:37:25 AM  
www.dvdizzy.com

'Hey everybody!  We're all gonna get gayed!'
 
2013-06-27 10:38:09 AM  

This text is now purple: xalres: rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]

...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?

Traditionally so, yes, seeing as they make up the largest voting demographic.


Problem is they're all starting to die off.
 
2013-06-27 10:38:26 AM  

mark12A: I can hardly wait to see what happens when millions of straight men marry men and straight women marry women for the tax and legal advantages (like getting all those precious 1,162 federal bennies, whatever they are) and the medical industry and tax code melts down...should be quite a sight....


Seriously?  Seriously!?!
 
2013-06-27 10:39:01 AM  

IntertubeUser: Except for the usual suspects, Teahadists and Theocrats were less vocal than I expected them to be.  I was a bit disappointed.

I was not entertained.

Anyone know where I can find some awesome wailing and gnashing of teeth?  Where can I find the best Star-Spangled Taliban butthurt on the Interwebs?


Free Republic is always a terrible start.

Pretty soon anyone who disagrees with homosexuality will be subject to legal punishment simply for said disagreement, whether said disagreement is voiced or not. Kennedy's opinion paves the way perfectly for laws that remove First Amendment protection from statements and beliefs against homosexuality.

The argument will be thus: "Disagreement with homosexuality acts to disparage, injure, degrade, demean, and humiliate homosexuals. If the First Amendment is used to protect such disagreement, then the First Amendment would be disparaging, injurious, degrading, demeaning, and humiliating to homosexuals. Since the First Amendment cannot be construed-in the courts mind-to be hostile to homosexuality, the obvious implication is that disagreement with homosexuality cannot be construed as protected under the First Amendment."

And the, we all get ordered to the gulags.
 
2013-06-27 10:39:53 AM  

yves0010: xalres: yves0010: FTFA: The lesson: Taking sides on a civil-rights issue isn't necessarily a bad business move. Just don't take the wrong side.

I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

The article seems to focus on one side and says they are right and everyone else is wrong with out respecting their opinion on the matter. Then again, this is politics and in politics, opinions are treated as facts...

Opinions can be wrong. When your opinion is "We should have a law to keep people from entering into a contract because the magical sky wizard I worship tells me they're icky.", you're damn wrong. You're welcome to have that opinion, but you're still wrong, at least in the eyes of the law. You think we should give equal time to segregationists?

I am not saying that. I am saying that even if an opinion is based on something we perceive as wrong. It is still an opinion that needs to be respected regardless. To them, it is not wrong. You can base someones opinion on your own and say they are wrong but in reality.. there is no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to opinions.


Ehhh....I can see your point. Opinions are one thing, but we're talking about codifying bigotry here. That's about as wrong as you can get. By all means, believe whatever silliness strikes your fancy but don't try to use the law to bludgeon other people with it.
 
2013-06-27 10:40:16 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: People may be scoffing at it, but having large brand names weigh in on important social issues...especially on the correct side of history.. is kind of a big farking deal. It shows how much the pendulum has swung in favor of equal rights, and is a milestone in public attitude.

Keep in mind, these places wouldn't do these things if they thought they would hurt their chances at making money since that is the effective singular goal of a corporation. That proves public opinion has shifted.


A couple of years ago I had an extensive debate with a conservative coworker of mine about the issue. I didn't want to argue based on religion and morality, since that's a minefield and you'll never change anyone's mind, so instead of explaining why legalizing it is the "right" thing to do, I told him that it was inevitable, and thus going with it was simply pragmatic.

The whole corporate angle was actually a big part of my argument. This was right about the time Chick-Fil-A was in the news, so I pointed out that they were probably the highest profile corporation in the entire country to actually be publicly against it. I looked it up and found that they were something like the 10th biggest fast food chain in the country.

So of all the corporations in the nation, most of which are probably "conservative" insofar as they want tax breaks and deregulation, the biggest one to actually take a right-leaning stance on an important social issue wasn't some giant megacorp sitting athwart the Fortune 500 like King Kong on the Empire State Building, it was a stupid chain restaurant that sells chicken nuggets and is tenth in its industry.

Basically, there is nothing to be gained for these companies to NOT be progressive on this issue. While painting rainbows on their headquarters and sponsoring a pride parade float might lose them some market share with certain groups, coming out against gay marriage would do the same, and gay peoples' money is as good as anyone else's. Corporations aren't right-leaning because they love Jesus, it's because they love profit, and gay marriage is no threat to their bottom line. As soon as it's clear that the country as a whole supports it, why not support it as well?

Really makes me wonder if any of the big companies during the 50s or 60s ever took an official stance on the Civil Rights Movement. Anyone know?
 
2013-06-27 10:40:30 AM  

Weaver95: This text is now purple: xalres: rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]

...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?

Traditionally so, yes, seeing as they make up the largest voting demographic.

Problem is they're all starting to die off.


Problem?

Sounds great to me.
 
2013-06-27 10:41:06 AM  

Nabb1: How did we come to a point where people are obsessed with having their political opinions validated when engaging in activities or making purchases that have nothing to do with politics?


Corporations and CEOs often make significant political contributions.
 
2013-06-27 10:41:47 AM  

Nabb1: How did we come to a point where people are obsessed with having their political opinions validated when engaging in activities or making purchases that have nothing to do with politics?  I have little in common with the politics of Ben & Jerry, but their ice cream tastes delicious.  I don't agree with Chick-Fil-A's politics, but their chicken sandwiches are awesome.  The waffle fries, not so much, but the chicken is solid.


Well, considering how much of political process (especially legislative) seems to be heavily influenced by "lobbyists" from big companies, I think the concept of voting with your dollar is not so far-fetched any more. It sucks but it seems to be true. Granted, I think the lobbyists in question are mostly from industries like oil and banking, but the principle stands. I agree, the boycotting and whatnot seems sophomoric and almost adolescent at times, but it's probably well-founded.
 
2013-06-27 10:42:59 AM  

xalres: yves0010: xalres: yves0010: FTFA: The lesson: Taking sides on a civil-rights issue isn't necessarily a bad business move. Just don't take the wrong side.

I am sorry if I have a different political and social view and opinion... but tell me.. what is right and wrong when voicing yours and my opinion on something. Just because my view does not match yours does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

The article seems to focus on one side and says they are right and everyone else is wrong with out respecting their opinion on the matter. Then again, this is politics and in politics, opinions are treated as facts...

Opinions can be wrong. When your opinion is "We should have a law to keep people from entering into a contract because the magical sky wizard I worship tells me they're icky.", you're damn wrong. You're welcome to have that opinion, but you're still wrong, at least in the eyes of the law. You think we should give equal time to segregationists?

I am not saying that. I am saying that even if an opinion is based on something we perceive as wrong. It is still an opinion that needs to be respected regardless. To them, it is not wrong. You can base someones opinion on your own and say they are wrong but in reality.. there is no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to opinions.

Ehhh....I can see your point. Opinions are one thing, but we're talking about codifying bigotry here. That's about as wrong as you can get. By all means, believe whatever silliness strikes your fancy but don't try to use the law to bludgeon other people with it.


Sadly, it happens both ways. Law is flawed beyond belief. Then again, we are only human and are always going to be flawed and make mistakes.
 
2013-06-27 10:47:51 AM  
Wait, so now we're mad at CFA for not vocally opposing this?
 
2013-06-27 10:48:48 AM  
"The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, "Our country is starting to understand that it's not about what a family looks like: it's about their love and commitment to one another." Polygamists couldn't agree more.
I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults - who want to make a lifelong commitment to love each other - shouldn't be allowed to do so?
What's magical about the number two?
In fact, you could argue that there is an even better argument for polygamy than for same sex marriage. For one thing, there's a long tradition (just look at the heroes of the Old Testament.) It's also intimately tied to religious practice, which means that by prohibiting polygamy, we might also be undermining the "free exercise thereof."
Why should we impose our values on others?"


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/the-case-for-polygamy/#ixzz2XQatxeKI ">http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/the-case-for-polygamy/#ixzz2XQatx eKI
 
2013-06-27 10:50:26 AM  

Weaver95: This text is now purple: xalres: rufus-t-firefly: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x359]

...so the polling places will be full of fat, bigoted, old, angry white people?

Traditionally so, yes, seeing as they make up the largest voting demographic.

Problem is they're all starting to die off.


There are plenty of young, bigoted, old, angry white people to replace them.
 
2013-06-27 10:51:31 AM  

mark12A: In addition to the increased devaluation of conventional marriage, I can hardly wait to see what happens when millions of straight men marry men and straight women marry women for the tax and legal advantages (like getting all those precious 1,162 federal bennies, whatever they are) and the medical industry and tax code melts down...should be quite a sight....


What makes you think people haven't been marrying for benefits already? While there may be a few same-sex sham marriages, they are still going to be outnumbered by the far larger amount of heterosexual sham marriages that have been going on for a long, long time.

And regardless of the frantic bleatings of Farkistan, this DOES open the way to polygamy. The fence has been crossed, Hannibal has crossed the Alps, The feds have now said they don't have the right to decide this, it's up to the states, so Utah rubs its hands in glee. They were told by the feds in the 19th century they couldn't have polygamy, and now the fed has said they have no standing to decide the issue. Let the games commence....

Whether or not gay marriage opens the door to polygamy was no reason to restrict the rights of same-sex couples. You don't restrict people's rights because of what MIGHT happen. That's now how it works.

The biggest fear of gay-marriage opponents is that the world WON'T end with gay marriage in place, that the system will not break down into anarchy.
 
2013-06-27 10:51:50 AM  

mark12A: In addition to the increased devaluation of conventional marriage, I can hardly wait to see what happens when millions of straight men marry men and straight women marry women for the tax and legal advantages (like getting all those precious 1,162 federal bennies, whatever they are) and the medical industry and tax code melts down...should be quite a sight....


It does open up the potential for abuse like that, but I believe that it is a greater abuse to deny homosexuals the same right to marriage that heterosexuals enjoy.

And regardless of the frantic bleatings of Farkistan, this DOES open the way to polygamy. The fence has been crossed, Hannibal has crossed the Alps, The feds have now said they don't have the right to decide this, it's up to the states, so Utah rubs its hands in glee. They were told by the feds in the 19th century they couldn't have polygamy, and now the fed has said they have no standing to decide the issue. Let the games commence....

And what is wrong with polygamy? Just like with gay marriage, nobody is going to force you into it. The only limitation I believe should be put on marriage should be it must be among consenting adults. That would include a first spouse consenting to his/her spouse marrying a 2nd or 3rd spouse.
 
2013-06-27 10:52:46 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: IntertubeUser: Except for the usual suspects, Teahadists and Theocrats were less vocal than I expected them to be.  I was a bit disappointed.

I was not entertained.

Anyone know where I can find some awesome wailing and gnashing of teeth?  Where can I find the best Star-Spangled Taliban butthurt on the Interwebs?

Free Republic is always a terrible start.

Pretty soon anyone who disagrees with homosexuality will be subject to legal punishment simply for said disagreement, whether said disagreement is voiced or not. Kennedy's opinion paves the way perfectly for laws that remove First Amendment protection from statements and beliefs against homosexuality.

The argument will be thus: "Disagreement with homosexuality acts to disparage, injure, degrade, demean, and humiliate homosexuals. If the First Amendment is used to protect such disagreement, then the First Amendment would be disparaging, injurious, degrading, demeaning, and humiliating to homosexuals. Since the First Amendment cannot be construed-in the courts mind-to be hostile to homosexuality, the obvious implication is that disagreement with homosexuality cannot be construed as protected under the First Amendment."

And the, we all get ordered to the gulags.


The fact that white supremacy groups regularly hold public rallies and parades and enjoy the full protection of the law kind of blows your statement out of the water.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report