Maybe there is a pattern here that explains Romney’s failure to support Chick-fil-A:
“A spokesperson for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has advised that the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with the Boy Scout’s current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from serving as members and leaders.
According to The Associated Press, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the news outlet in an email that Romney still stands by his beliefs that homosexual men should be able to serve in the organization. She specifically noted that Romney had outlined his views in 1994 during a political debate, and that his stance has not changed.”
“Mitt Romney also recently reiterated his support for homosexual adoption. This past May, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that while he is against the concept of homosexual “marriage,” he does believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
“[I]f two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child, in my state, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do,” Romney outlined. “But, to call that ‘marriage’ is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2915543/posts
In other words, it isn't about bequeathing rights to homosexuals -- it's about depriving rights of adoption agencies to reject candidates they RIGHTLY think would be highly risky as parents.
And in Massachusettes, where Romney pushed and passed a gay "rights" law that required adoption agencies to do just that in 2006, all of the Catholic adoption charities closed their doors, after being in the business for 109 years, rather than cooperate with a depraved social agenda at the price of the souls of innocent children.
That alone is reason enough to refuse to vote for Romney under any circumstances, even ABO -- Romney was and continues to be an unrepentant agent of depravity and evil.
American conservatives and Christians are on the verge of rationalizing voting for that as the imaginary "voting against Obama." But reality is that you cannot vote "against" anyone or anything on any ballot, ever. You can only vote FOR something to replace what you seek to vote "against." Even when you vote "against" a proposition, what your'e actually doing is voting FOR nixing it. Voting "against" is purely imaginary.
When a people vote for an extreme statist amoral liberal politician regardless of their reason for doing so, a bad outcome is guaranteed.
A bad outcome is guaranteed with Romney. I'm voting for a plurality -- odds are better for a positive outcome for conservatives if the next liberal president (and we're guaranteed to have a liberal Democrat in office whether it's Obama or Romney who wins) is elected on a plurality. The last liberal president elected on a plurality was bulldozed to the right by the Republican Revolution, and then impeached. The success of a plurality isn't guaranteed -- but the bad outcome of a landslide by extreme statist Romney IS guaranteed. Voting for Romney is as nuts as voting for Obama. I'm voting for a plurality -- it's the only and best chance for conservatism.