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  
•       •       •

14019 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
 
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.
 
2013-06-27 10:54:45 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.


Right, just like supporting slavery, anti-misogyny laws, Jim Crow, and segregation was the opinion of southerners' and how they wanted their society to be organized. It wasn't wrong, we must respect all opinions. Even those opinions that call for treating a segment of the population as second-class citizens.

Fark off.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:38 AM

CruJones: Wait, so now we're mad at CFA for not vocally opposing this?


Just pointing out how inconsistent they are. They were all about telling us about their opinions of the issue and proud that they donated company profits to anti-gay hate groups but now that they didn't get their way they're sticking to "we're not political, we're just here to make chicken." I GUARANTEE you they'd be very loud right about now had the decision gone the other way.
 
2013-06-27 11:02:08 AM

xalres: CruJones: Wait, so now we're mad at CFA for not vocally opposing this?

Just pointing out how inconsistent they are. They were all about telling us about their opinions of the issue and proud that they donated company profits to anti-gay hate groups but now that they didn't get their way they're sticking to "we're not political, we're just here to make chicken." I GUARANTEE you they'd be very loud right about now had the decision gone the other way.


And the same goes for the others who support the winning side. If they actually lost, they would state the same thing. That is the nature of all loosing sides.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:00 AM

KrispyKritter: The only real vote an American has is with their wallets


Regardless of the issue at hand, this statement can not be overstressed.
 
2013-06-27 11:04:18 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.
.


Sorry, but I'm gonna disagree with a here - they do it for advertising and money, nothing else.  If the majority of  people in the U.S DIDN'T agree with the Supreme court in this matter they would be silent as the grave.

Don't believe me? I heard a spokesperson for some large hotel chain (honestly can't remember who) interviewed on NPR who said something like "This means that when people stay at <company name> hotels they will have a great stay in a great room and no one will judge them." - that's an ad, nothing else. I mean seriously, does the spokesperson mean to say that without this judgement, the employees of the hotel chain were planning on scoffing at and ridiculing same-sex couples?  If DOMA hadn't been struck down, same-sex couples COULDN'T have "a great stay in a great room?"
 
2013-06-27 11:04:21 AM

yves0010: That is the nature of all loosing sides.


Wait, Fark liebruls say anal sex doesn't result in loose insides.
 
2013-06-27 11:06:55 AM

FarkinNortherner: yves0010: That is the nature of all loosing sides.

Wait, Fark liebruls say anal sex doesn't result in loose insides.


Thanks for pointing out my quick typing... Hate it when I double tap a key and not realize it.
 
2013-06-27 11:14:39 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...


Bigots don't deserve any respect because they give any respect to anyone other than their own kind. You don't get to run around crapping all over everyone then expect them to go out their way to "respect" your opinions.

Also the point the author was making was that as a company publicly picking the wrong side of a debate can hurt their bottom line.
 
2013-06-27 11:15:11 AM
So, Chick-Fil-A said they had no opinion about the matter.

Why is this news?
 
2013-06-27 11:16:34 AM

Thunderpipes: 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.


Word.
 
2013-06-27 11:17:47 AM

Wade_Wilson: 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?


It was an era before megabusinesses but you saw a ground swell of support from local businesses even to the point where bitter rivalries were born. IE, Bob stopped buying lumber from Ed's yard to build his homes because of his support of non-segregation.

And eventually Bob went out of business because he was paying too much for lumber and got undercut by Joe who bought his lumber from Ed.


DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sorry, but I'm gonna disagree with a here - they do it for advertising and money, nothing else. If the majority of people in the U.S DIDN'T agree with the Supreme court in this matter they would be silent as the grave.


I didn't make the assumption that it wasn't for profit, keep reading my comment. What I said was that they WOULDN'T be doing it if it hurt their bottom line and the fact that they have made the calculus that it might help their bottom line proves the growing shift in public opinion.
 
2013-06-27 11:17:48 AM

yves0010: 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.


lol... My opinion is water is dry and the earth is flat. I'm not wrong because that's my opinion. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.
 
2013-06-27 11:18:15 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....


If love and sex don't come into it, just benefits, wouldn't they already be marrying members of the opposite sex? Why does this suddenly make marriages of convenience more likely?

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.

If they people there vote for it, why not. That's your actual "democracy", that is.
 
2013-06-27 11:25:28 AM

yves0010: 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.


Do you respect the opinions that black people are inferior, that the moon landings were faked and that homeopathy works?
 
2013-06-27 11:29:06 AM
My work does domestic partnerships, has an awesome anti discrimination policy, and treats me really well, edu visible tattoos and all. We aren't a small company either. One of the previous CEOs was a buddy of MLK. They've always done good things by me, and I'm pretty proud to work for them.
 
2013-06-27 11:30:00 AM

mark12A: 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?


Frankly, I couldn't care less- I've had friends who have been very happy in poly/open marriages, and I'm generally all in favor of people being as happy as possible as long as it doesn't come at the direct cost of someone else's happiness (though it is interesting to note that as they got older, ALL of the couples I knew with open marriages 'settled down' to a more traditional monogamous relationship...).

If everyone involved consents to the arrangement and can legally consent to it, I don't have too much of an issue with it. My concerns are with situations like those that have been fairly highly publicised with certain religious groups 'marrying' underaged girls to older men against their will, and situations where the collective family is essentially just mooching off welfare (though perhaps ironically, if they were considering the man's income for ALL of the wives it might reduce that by raising the reported income level).

The existing laws would also have to be far more heavily modified to account for plural marriages than they do for same-sex ones since same-sex marriages still just involve 2 people. You'd also have to figure out things like how to handle benefits upon death (if there are two wives and the husband dies, do things get split evenly? proportionate to the time married? number of children between each?), things like child support (and custody), alimony, and division of assets if one of the multiple wives/husbands wanted a divorce, and a multitude of other things that would require completely new laws (especially with regards to taxes).

It does in general worry me how it would work out socially though, especially with how things were/are in the cults that practice it here, where young men were essentially kicked out of the community so there were more girls available for the older, more powerful men...
 
2013-06-27 11:31:34 AM
mark12A, take your bullshiat fear-mongering elsewhere. You've yet to raise a single point that isn't "OMG THIS MEANS [something it doesn't actually mean]!"

That being said, CFA sucks.  So when they said "We'll stick to what we're good at", I'm left wondering what they're sticking to. All that grease?

orbister: yves0010: 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.

Do you respect the opinions that black people are inferior, that the moon landings were faked and that homeopathy works?


I read that as homopathy for a second there and was about to ask what in the nine hells you meant by that. Sounds like you're curing someone with rainbows and glitter.
 
2013-06-27 11:35:59 AM

yves0010: FarkinNortherner: yves0010: That is the nature of all loosing sides.

Wait, Fark liebruls say anal sex doesn't result in loose insides.

Thanks for pointing out my quick typing... Hate it when I double tap a key and not realize it.


Yeah, sorry, that was a fairly dismal troll.
 
2013-06-27 11:35:59 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.


This happened around the time we stopped talking about issues affecting American citizens in public discourse, and started to use the term "consumers" instead. And I think it's linked to the cult of political coverage that bleats about how "The Market will react if the President does XXX".
 
2013-06-27 11:41:40 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.



. . . and yet we have a light-skinned African-American POTUS
 
2013-06-27 11:47:09 AM

here to help: yves0010: 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.

lol... My opinion is water is dry and the earth is flat. I'm not wrong because that's my opinion. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.


Exactly. I don't know why or how we got to the point where we feel the need to treat everyone's opinions and beliefs with respect at all times, even if they're demonstrably wrong or assholish. I've stopped walking on eggshells around this type of thinking, especially when it comes to issues of religiously motivated moral busybodies using the law to tell others what to do. It's great that you think your belief in God gained through your reading of a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of iron age superstitious savages gives you the unique right and insight to tell other people how to live their lives, but fark you. Get your nose out of other people's business and mind your own.
 
2013-06-27 11:47:10 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?



Perhaps not. They are viewing it as a victory for States' rights.
 
2013-06-27 11:49:38 AM

yves0010: Just pointing out how inconsistent they are. They were all about telling us about their opinions of the issue and proud that they donated company profits to anti-gay hate groups but now that they didn't get their way they're sticking to "we're not political, we're just here to make chicken." I GUARANTEE you they'd be very loud right about now had the decision gone the other way.

And the same goes for the others who support the winning side. If they actually lost, they would state the same thing. That is the nature of all loosing sides.


The folks on the "winning side" of this issue have been very vocal for a long time (well, some joined more recently) about their support for marriage equality.  Why do you think they would shut up if they lost?  Instead, I think they would keep at it, getting marriage equality legalized in more states, and take another whack at DOMA after one of the justices has been replaced.
 
2013-06-27 11:49:48 AM

This text is now purple: 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.


"Plenty" is perhaps an accurate word, but it doesn't mean "majority." I'm not citing anything because I'm lazy, but anecdotal wisdom tells me that people under 40 either don't care about or are staunchly in favor of marriage equality. Teh homogheys are now such a big part of pop culture that we're no longer fearful of it. It's just two people wanting what they want, and nothing more. Or less. If Bob wants to marry Frank the same way I want Suzy, go for it, man.

I'm 38, which means I'm a scant 20 years from being one of those guys you'll see shaking his fist at a cloud, but marriage equality will be the farthest thing from my mind. I'll probably be upset about Medicare or whatever. This wedge issue is fast approaching the end of its usefulness.
 
2013-06-27 11:50:24 AM
Comments about this are just dust in the wind. What matters is ... what does God think about this?
 
2013-06-27 11:53:37 AM

Clemkadidlefark: Comments about this are just dust in the wind. What matters is ... what does God think about this?


She sends her blessings.
 
2013-06-27 12:01:17 PM

xalres: here to help: yves0010: 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.

lol... My opinion is water is dry and the earth is flat. I'm not wrong because that's my opinion. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.

Exactly. I don't know why or how we got to the point where we feel the need to treat everyone's opinions and beliefs with respect at all times, even if they're demonstrably wrong or assholish. I've stopped walking on eggshells around this type of thinking, especially when it comes to issues of religiously motivated moral busybodies using the law to tell others what to do. It's great that you think your belief in God gained through your reading of a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of iron age superstitious savages gives you the unique right and insight to tell other people how to live their lives, but fark you. Get your nose out of other people's business and mind your own.


There is a new trend now too where if you disagree with any of their right wing crap YOU are the bigot.

Didn't vote for Mitt Romney? Bigot.

Want equal rights for gays? Bigot.

Want environmental or banking regulations? Bigot.

Want affordable healthcare for all? Bigot.

It'd be hilarious if they didn't actually have any real power... but they do.
 
2013-06-27 12:04:23 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Comments about this are just dust in the wind. What matters is ... what does God think about this?


He's just happy he can finally put Liberace on his spousal benefits.
 
2013-06-27 12:08:18 PM

mark12A: 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?


It's a contract, silly.  Multi-party contracts are notoriously difficult to enforce.  And part of the contract concerns the devise of property after death.  Too many connections among too many spouses and the various progeny thereof would be a nightmare to administer in the way that State probate deals with two-party marriage.

Who are we?  We're the folks who enforce contracts, that's who.  Nothing magic about it.  Simple practicality, and the State's interest in the swift administration of the law.

PS: "Slippery Slope" arguments really are a mark of a sloppy thinker, not that you haven't displayed countless other marks of that trait on a fairly constant basis around here.
 
2013-06-27 12:10:29 PM

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


Um, "Chik-fil-a Appreciation Day" was August 2, 2012. The next election returned Obama to the WhiteHouse, gained seats for the D's in the Senate, saw over a million more Americans vote for a D than an R in theeHouse, and only gerrymandered districts prevented the D's from taking the House back.  As it was, the D's gained 8 seats.

So maybe it was a preview of election day - all the cons were in line to get chicken instead of voting.
 
2013-06-27 12:10:56 PM
Give the U.S. twenty years and Zoophiles will be clamoring for the same treatment... and getting it.

/ This country disgusts me.
//For many reasons, not just this logical derpfest.
 
2013-06-27 12:15:10 PM

washington-babylon: Give the U.S. twenty years and Zoophiles will be clamoring for the same treatment... and getting it.


Call us the day an animal can legally consent to a contract (which is what civil marriage *is*) and we can talk.

Till then you can just wear the same "sloppy thinker" label as the rest of you silly lot.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:42 PM

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.


No.  Prudent.

What is the point of saying something you know is going to spark protests?  There is nothing to be gained.  It's just like telling the obviously fat bride that she's fat on her wedding day.  What is there to be gained from that?

I applaud them for understanding that it's not the place of a company to get involved in political matters.  That is the realm of CITIZENS (which I do not consider corporations to be)
 
2013-06-27 12:26:47 PM

Ashyukun: mark12A: 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?

Frankly, I couldn't care less- I've had friends who have been very happy in poly/open marriages, and I'm generally all in favor of people being as happy as possible as long as it doesn't come at the direct cost of someone else's happiness (though it is interesting to note that as they got older, ALL of the couples I knew with open marriages 'settled down' to a more traditional monogamous relationship...).

If everyone involved consents to the arrangement and can legally consent to it, I don't have too much of an issue with it. My concerns are with situations like those that have been fairly highly publicised with certain religious groups 'marrying' underaged girls to older men against their will, and situations where the collective family is essentially just mooching off welfare (though perhaps ironically, if they were considering the man's income for ALL of the wives it might reduce that by raising the reported income level).

The existing laws would also have to be far more heavily modified to account for plural marriages than they do for same-sex ones since same-sex marriages still just involve 2 people. You'd also have to figure out things like how to handle benefits upon death (if there are two wives and the husband dies, do things get split evenly? proportionate to the time married? number of children between each?), things like child support (and custody), alimony, and division of assets if one of the multiple wives/husbands wanted a divorce, and a multitude of other things that would require completely new laws (especially with regards to taxes).

It does in general worry me how it would work out socially though, especially with how things were/are in the cults that practice it here, where young men were essentially kicked out of the community so there were more girls available for the older, more powerful men...


It'd be a lot easier than you think. A lot of that stuff is already built into law as it pertains to business partnerships.

And every additional spouse that doesn't make enough to file separately should just be considered the same as any other dependant. (Under my tax plan, we'd do that regardless of whether plural marriages were recognized.)
 
2013-06-27 12:31:49 PM

Deucednuisance: mark12A: 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?

It's a contract, silly.  Multi-party contracts are notoriously difficult to enforce.  And part of the contract concerns the devise of property after death.  Too many connections among too many spouses and the various progeny thereof would be a nightmare to administer in the way that State probate deals with two-party marriage.

Who are we?  We're the folks who enforce contracts, that's who.  Nothing magic about it.  Simple practicality, and the State's interest in the swift administration of the law.

PS: "Slippery Slope" arguments really are a mark of a sloppy thinker, not that you haven't displayed countless other marks of that trait on a fairly constant basis around here.


Are you aware of the fact that throughout history, people have died who were unmarried and had multiple equally related heirs?

And that the court didn't just throw up its hands and say, "This is impossible to deal with!"
 
2013-06-27 12:31:55 PM
I can't add much to this thread but I can say I was covered through my girlfriends insurance at Dell. Well she's my ex now but, oh well.
 
2013-06-27 12:58:48 PM

mark12A: In addition to the increased devaluation of conventional marriage


How does this devalue "conventional" marriage? Be specific.
 
2013-06-27 01:00:15 PM

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.


I like their chicken and all, but is it really what they do BEST? Their waffle fries aren't bad either, but I think what they really excel at is hiring middle class white kids and training them in how to be polite.
 
2013-06-27 01:11:05 PM

TOSViolation: I applaud them for understanding that it's not the place of a company to get involved in political matters. That is the realm of CITIZENS (which I do not consider corporations to be)


Companies are involved in political issues regardless of whether they want to be or not. Choosing who to advertise to (do you court the gay demographic?), who you provide benefits to, who you hire, what charities or causes your company contributes to... even choosing not to get involved in a political issue usually actually means choosing the status quo on whatever said issue is... which is picking a side whether you like to admit it or not. If every major corporation started providing benefits to same sex partners over a number of years, at what point has the company that doesn't provide benefits gone from not making a political decision to having made one, simply by not doing anything?
 
2013-06-27 01:23:19 PM
i don't care if you're left, right, or in the middle
i don't care if you're gay or straight

the one thing that bothers me about this thread?

in my quick scanning, i noticed not 1 but 2 people who say that chick-fil-a's chicken is both bland and dry!

this is WRONG!
 
2013-06-27 02:31:51 PM

BMFPitt: Are you aware of the fact that throughout history, people have died who were unmarried and had multiple equally related heirs?

And that the court didn't just throw up its hands and say, "This is impossible to deal with!"


Dude, your hypothetical excludes itself with a single word: unmarried.

And I never said it was impossible, I said it is a decision that a state can legitimately make about how it chooses to enforce contracts.
 
2013-06-27 02:39:56 PM

bungle_jr: i don't care if you're left, right, or in the middle
i don't care if you're gay or straight

the one thing that bothers me about this thread?

in my quick scanning, i noticed not 1 but 2 people who say that chick-fil-a's chicken is both bland and dry!

this is WRONG!


Only one or the other, then?
 
2013-06-27 03:03:17 PM
Where is Astro Glide on this whole issue?
 
2013-06-27 03:12:12 PM

Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Where is Astro Glide on this whole issue?


Yeah, I'd run away, too, if I was you.

/Never before has the beauty of the sexual act been so crassly exploited!
 
2013-06-27 04:23:51 PM

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


Heh.  The "November" that goes with that picture and caption is November, 2012.  We know how it turned out.
 
2013-06-27 04:34:39 PM

Deucednuisance: washington-babylon: Give the U.S. twenty years and Zoophiles will be clamoring for the same treatment... and getting it.

Call us the day an animal can legally consent to a contract (which is what civil marriage *is*) and we can talk.

Till then you can just wear the same "sloppy thinker" label as the rest of you silly lot.


Heheheh. Got one!
 
2013-06-27 04:45:54 PM

KrispyKritter: 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.


Yes but for every one of you there is one of them. So its a wash. Just dont worry about the who supports who and have a dang chicken sandwich with pickles if you like them.
 
2013-06-27 05:58:27 PM

Deucednuisance: Dude, your hypothetical excludes itself with a single word: unmarried.


Why?
 
2013-06-27 07:34:35 PM
who gives a shiat??
 
2013-06-27 09:15:12 PM

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


Quite the microcosm of America in that picture.

Although to be fair, people that are white and over 70 years old were more likely to vote for Romney than Obama.
 
2013-06-27 09:35:55 PM
If so, you are probably a lonely person with too much time on your hands.

You're new to Fark, aren't you subby?
 
2013-06-28 09:36:27 AM

washington-babylon: Deucednuisance: washington-babylon: Give the U.S. twenty years and Zoophiles will be clamoring for the same treatment... and getting it.

Call us the day an animal can legally consent to a contract (which is what civil marriage *is*) and we can talk.

Till then you can just wear the same "sloppy thinker" label as the rest of you silly lot.

Heheheh. Got one!


No fair!  People have been honestly making that argument all over the place, ya big meanie!

BMFPitt: Deucednuisance: Dude, your hypothetical excludes itself with a single word: unmarried.

Why?


Seriously?

Because "marriage" is the name for the nice little package of contracts that the state enforces, and which are the subject of discussion.

Unmarried people are not entered into such contracts, so their affairs are not what is being discussed.

Can you honestly be this unaware of  what's being discussed and the utter irrelevance of what you're saying?
 
2013-06-28 09:54:36 AM
Deucednuisance: Seriously?

Because "marriage" is the name for the nice little package of contracts that the state enforces, and which are the subject of discussion.

Unmarried people are not entered into such contracts, so their affairs are not what is being discussed.

Can you honestly be this unaware of what's being discussed and the utter irrelevance of what you're saying?


Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses. I pointed out that they handle identical situations among children, siblings, etc, all the time.

Your response seems to be to say that they are completely different, because of a ring or something.
 
2013-06-28 10:18:33 AM

BMFPitt: Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses.


Not at all.

It was that it chooses not to.

(see: 2:31:51)

 And again, stop referring to "spouses" when using an example where the entanglements of the marriage contract don't exist.
 
2013-06-28 10:30:46 AM

Deucednuisance: BMFPitt: Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses.

Not at all.

It was that it chooses not to.

(see: 2:31:51)

 And again, stop referring to "spouses" when using an example where the entanglements of the marriage contract don't exist.


OK, so then you are completely giving up and admitting you have no rational basis for discriminating?
 
2013-06-28 11:18:53 AM

BMFPitt: Your response seems to be to say that they are completely different, because of a ring or something.


You know, this flippant a response deserves its own smackdown.

Even thought I've said the word "contract" at least once in every post on the subject, you seem to think I'm some dewy-eyed naif who is only concerned with "putting a ring on it".

Nonsense.  I was partnered for 16 years before I married Ms. Nuisance twelve years ago, precisely because of an aspect of that many-faceted contract: to get her on my health insurance.  (And curiously enough, her current job has better health care than I get as a Fed, so she's off mine, but guess what?  We're still married!  Crazy, huh?)

But let's play your game.  Four people, A, B, C, and D, two males and two females want to enter into a four-way marriage.  Great.  Let's see how current property law plays out in a Joint Property state, that is, each partner continues to individually own property brought to the marriage, but all after-acquired property is jointly held.  After the wedding, it's clear that none of the parties owns a house large enough for the new family so a new house is purchased.  All's great until D decides she doesn't want to be married to A, anymore.  They divorce.  Is D still married to B and C?  Are B and C still married to both A and D?  What happens to the title to the house?  Or any other after-acquired property?  May D still reside in the marital residence?  May A?  If D dates is she committing adultery against B and C?  Suppose the reason that D divorced A is that he is a secret alcoholic, prone to rages and abuse.  Suppose further that A has a child from a previous relationship, but his alcoholism proves him an unfit parent.  May D sue for custody? Can either of the other two step-parents object, or themselves sue for custody, although they are still married to A?  If D leaves the residence, may she sue to compel sale of the property to retrieve her share, although she is still married to B and C?  Should A die, in what manner is his estate to be divided should he have failed to record a will?  If his will leaves his estate to D, may B, C or his issue object?  If they severably object, which party should prevail?

I'm just scratching the surface, here.

"Marriage" is simply a label for a bunch of contracts between two parties.  It simply isn't equipped to handle the entanglements of group marriages.  As we've famously been told, there are over a thousand Federal programs where marital status effects the outcome.  Just a group of four increases the number of parties by an order of magnitude, and increases the number of simple pair-bonds from 1 to 12, not to mention the tri- and quad- bonds.

The basic rules for the marriage contract are pretty well established, yet Family Law is a thriving practice.  And you think that the State is coloring outside the lines when it sees what a mess assigning all the rights and obligations of marriage to partnering groups and says "No, thanks"?

You want group partnerships?  Bully for you.  Have at it.

Just don't expect the State to write your rule book and play referee.
 
2013-06-28 11:22:54 AM

BMFPitt: OK, so then you are completely giving up and admitting you have no rational basis for discriminating?


It's entirely rational.

You may not like it, but that doesn't make it irrational.

The law has a long-standing antipathy to multi-party contracts, and an absolute bar on contracts that bind unwilling third parties.

Are you really that short on imagination that you don't see how easily such a barred situation could arise in a multi-party marriage contract?

25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 107 of 107 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report