Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

Probably not the greatest example to use, seeing as her partner was a very accomplished person in her own right and likely would receive more in her own benefits than she would in spousal benefits. And unless she's inheriting more than $5 million, nothing is going to be taxed anyway.

 

Why would the dollar amounts matter?

 

Can you give some examples?

 

They don't, in the abstract.

They do --- or might --- in this particular case, if you are making a statement that THIS PARTNER will not receive x, y and z in benefits.

 

The idea many evangelicals abhor sex between hetersexuals out of wedlock as much as homosexual sex is, frankly, not true.

 

From the AP story:

"The Rev. Roger Oldham, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, said many Christians want to support businesses owned by fellow believers, and the loyalty intensifies "when Christians see a fellow Christian being persecuted." "

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g9WNR-1oizRCdXEo-RKrb23Yvn7g?docId=17b3f02384634ef5a99b76e8a301e74c

This guy is complaining that Chik-Fil-A's owners are being "persecuted".

Ironic, ain't it?

 

I understand that for most LGBTs this isn't about a church wedding, it's about financial/legal benefits.
We have laws about marriage. If enough people vote they can be changed to reflect what our society wants.

 

The "laws" arguement is a crock to justify discrimination and bad policy. This is why equal protection is an important amendment to the Constitution to protect against what the majority at one time sees fit.

 

You must not have read about the people in Tennessee who've gone to court to prevent a mosque being built, or the legislator in Louisiana who sponsored the law on government-supported religious schools, but then backtracked when an Islamic school put in for the funds.

I'd say there's plenty of outrage over Islam already.

 

It's not an argument. It is a fact. We have laws regarding marriage. At one time, they reflected the mores
of our communities. If these have changed, the laws can be changed. It really is this simple.

 

Interracial marriage bans weren't overturned as a result in the change of the mores of society. It took a 1967 Supreme Court decision to force the South to change its ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States (I realize it's Wikipedia, but verify from there)

 

I swear, if you fuckin' lefties get the Supreme Court to take away my right to a delicious chicken sandwich ...