Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dozens of big U.S. companies to back gay marriage
Fortune ^ | February 26, 2013 | Roger Parloff

Posted on 03/05/2013 4:54:36 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian

On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all." At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox. (Update: Verizon and Cablevision have now joined.)

(Excerpt) Read more at features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: celebrateperversity; corporateliberalism; corporations; culturewar; downourthroats; homosexualagenda; proposition8; samesexmarriage; spotthetroll; ssm; thetrollsfoolnoone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last
There have been a lot of threads on the Prop. 8 briefing, but I don't think this one has been posted yet.
1 posted on 03/05/2013 4:54:37 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS ping.


2 posted on 03/05/2013 4:56:58 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Why don’t these businesses focus on providing goods and services at competitive prices - ya know, business?


3 posted on 03/05/2013 4:57:10 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

This is absolutely disheartening. It’s impossible NOT to do business with any of these companies.

Lord, have mercy on our nation. Forgive our sins & convert hearts. Amen.


4 posted on 03/05/2013 4:57:56 PM PST by surroundedbyblue (Why am I both pro-life & pro-gun? Because both positions defend the innocent and protect the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Frightening. Corporate America lined up against the people’s vote. And yes, traditional marriage IS superior to gay marriage. This is a preposterous misuse of our Constitution.


5 posted on 03/05/2013 4:58:31 PM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

To add my two cents, whether I believe in it or not, I will cease doing any business with any company that lends support to the Zero on any social issue at all.

I’m ready to bite off my nose to spite my face.


6 posted on 03/05/2013 4:58:50 PM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
They can submit all the briefs they want - it won't change several billion years of biological history.
 
 
 
Sex, Evolution and Behavior
By Martin Daly and Margo Wilson
 
 
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
 
 "Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=San+Francisco+gay+penguins
 
FAIL.

7 posted on 03/05/2013 5:00:32 PM PST by TArcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Corporations, like citizens can exercise their First Amendment Rights.


8 posted on 03/05/2013 5:00:56 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The brief itself (PDF) is here. The list of signing companies is right after the cover (it takes up 3 pages).
9 posted on 03/05/2013 5:02:16 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

These companies deserve the coming stock market crash.


10 posted on 03/05/2013 5:03:35 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Why would companies with commercial interests fool around with something like the gay marriage issue? I don’t think they would. Do you?


11 posted on 03/05/2013 5:05:00 PM PST by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

Sexual preference isn't listed in the constitution. Neither is discrimination against political affiliation (which we saw when Bush won).

There are members of the lavender mafia within the higher offices of our nation's corporations. One of the Microsoft bigwigs had a hundred thousand sex dungeon in his home. No kids, what else was he supposed to do with the playroom?

12 posted on 03/05/2013 5:06:15 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

They can call it marriage if they like I will not accept it as marriage, it is just sex in its filthiest form.

If other wish to accept it that is their choice, let them do their sick acts of forbidden sex I will not call it marriage.


13 posted on 03/05/2013 5:06:34 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Surprize, surprize, surprize. Even though I don’t see my former employer listed I do know that they cover “your same sex domestic partner” in regards to health benefits and survivor benefits. But, if you got a common law wife you’ve been with for 25 years............ Too bad. ABBBsolutely absurd.


14 posted on 03/05/2013 5:08:29 PM PST by rktman (BACKGROUND CHECKS? YOU FIRST MR. PRESIDENT!(not that we'd get the truth!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

Gays have a lot of leverage in the marketplace.
Remember most of our younger citizens have received a progressive education.

Most any company that wants to sell to under 30 somethings will be in trouble if it’s not on “the list”.


15 posted on 03/05/2013 5:08:48 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012
Corporations, like citizens can exercise their First Amendment Rights.

Corporations routinely force such liberal beliefs upon their employees in the form of annual "diversity training" where they are required to echo the corporate talking points that "homosexuality is not a sin".

Is that still "free speech"?

16 posted on 03/05/2013 5:10:12 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

I never said they couldn’t.


17 posted on 03/05/2013 5:10:41 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

Any sixth grader can tell you:

A country which oversees, allows and promotes abortion cannot expect anything but this. BO is just a parasite taking advantage of a sick culture. Agter him there’ll be another. There is an answer to the problem.

Can’t have abortion AND good leaders/God’s grace. t’s etiher or.


18 posted on 03/05/2013 5:15:17 PM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
". . . big U.S. companies to back gay marriage"

How did that work out for JC Penny's new CEO who immediately made Ellen DeGenerate their national spokesman a year ago?

One Year Chart

yitbos

19 posted on 03/05/2013 5:15:40 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
It has been posted but I forgot to read the full list, so thanks.

equality and fair treatment to all

The left's bogus retort to the Ten Commandments and Biblical injunctions against immorality. They replace an absolute moral code and natural law with a relativistic system where anything is justified based on "fairness". This is 100% man's law, not God's. This permits redefinition of the family and justification of collective good (through income and asset redistribution) and special rights of the minority group member based on behavior, however perverse, and even child vs. parent.

I sort of remember a prophecy from years ago that warned exactly this was coming. It would fool a lot of people. The prophecy also mentioned the devoutness toward nature (neo-pagan green stuff that many of the companies espouse). Sorry, I can't remember the exact source.

20 posted on 03/05/2013 5:16:20 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Well, since homosexuals represent barely 2% of the population and don’t have kids maybe these companies will go the way of JCP. Apparently 2% of the population don’t buy enough to keep a company profitable.


21 posted on 03/05/2013 5:16:23 PM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012
Corporations, like citizens can exercise their First Amendment Rights.


Just like consumers can exercise their right to not do business with those who want to destroy the family. Gay marriage is just the beginning. Everyone better be ready, the slippery slide ride will move faster than we can imagine.

We were slowly transferring our 401k savings to Morgan Stanley, as our required date with old company expired. They can forget that.

22 posted on 03/05/2013 5:17:07 PM PST by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Well, I do my very best in boycotting every business that I find supports this deviancy. Might not be 100% successful all the time, but I certainly try. Any company supporting and funding homo marriage, I look upon as nothing less than a personal enemy. I hope each and every one of them go broke; I’ll cheer their demise.


23 posted on 03/05/2013 5:20:11 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

> Why don’t these businesses focus on providing goods and services at competitive prices - ya know, business?

I wonder how they feel about the issue when gross receipts aren’t a factor? Political whores...no principles or backbone when money, influence, and power are to be gained...


24 posted on 03/05/2013 5:20:30 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

As you can see from my other posts I am very much against homo pandering but in JCP’s case the decline was based on discontinuance of sale-pricing and also poor merchandizing on the floor. Only a small percentage of people, unfortunately, care about the gay parenting and spokeslesbian issues to the extent it would affect their consumer behavior.


25 posted on 03/05/2013 5:22:43 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent
"Why would companies with commercial interests fool around with something like the gay marriage issue? I don’t think they would. Do you?"

Large corporations that have offices in several states and countries would like to be able to have the same health and benefit programs for all of their employees regardless of where they live. They would also like to be able to offer similar packages to employees who are required to transfer from one place to another.

It is easier and cheaper for them if all the states, or all the world for that matter, had the same rules and definitions regarding marriage.

That is why large corporations are in favor of globalization in general and legal issues in particular.

Of course some conservatives have been pulled onto the fascist bandwagon by rallying for insurance companies to be able to more easily sell their products across the country. This is supposedly some sort of expression in favor of free market capitalism. Large corporations don't care about free market capitalism, but they do like the fact that insurance companies can create huge nationwide monopolies, while other large corporations can simplify their benefit administration by putting all of their employees across the country under the same crappy and expensive plans provided by a single company.

26 posted on 03/05/2013 5:23:42 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Simply because I disagree with their view on the issue does not mean that I do not think they should have the right to voice their opinion.

However, consumers and prospective employes are free to make decisions for or against these companies.


27 posted on 03/05/2013 5:26:10 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

We need a list so we can boycott them.


28 posted on 03/05/2013 5:26:09 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
We need a list so we can boycott them.

I posted a link to the brief in post #9 of this thread. The list of companies is the first three pages after the cover page.

29 posted on 03/05/2013 5:30:18 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
How did gay support help Penney's? Of course it is blamed on Martha Stewart. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MACYS_PENNEY_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-04-15-12-46

J.C. Penney happy two dads fathers day ad: http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/961979/jcpenney-fathers-day-ad-normalizes-gay-parenting

30 posted on 03/05/2013 5:30:18 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86
"Only a small percentage of people, unfortunately, care about the gay parenting and spokeslesbian issues "

Says who? The liberal press?

yitbos

31 posted on 03/05/2013 5:31:45 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

I wish it were different but go up to anyone in the mall and ask if they care. Unless you’re specifically polling older, conservative-looking people they’re either going to look at you like you’re nuts or they’ll say something about “being fair”.


32 posted on 03/05/2013 5:34:58 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

transgender, beastiality and pedophilia up next


33 posted on 03/05/2013 5:36:26 PM PST by ronnie raygun (Lexington and Concord Americans experience thier first gun grab attempt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

http://voices.yahoo.com/companies-support-gay-rights-10968324.html


34 posted on 03/05/2013 5:37:22 PM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

I saw Office Depot but not Staples. I can buy Wranglers and not Levis. If I have any of the other, then I am stuck with them for now. Have not been much of a shopper past four years.


35 posted on 03/05/2013 5:40:17 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
We need a list so we can boycott them.

Based on those names listed, you'd have to live a 19th century existence to avoid them.

http://38.106.4.56/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1229

36 posted on 03/05/2013 5:45:01 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

When you take “diversity training” and have to echo the talking points to maintain your own job (not even dealing with customers), you have undergone political re-education. That isn’t tolerance for diversity of thought.

Companies don’t need to hire any Republicans or permit them to stay in their hotels (both types of discrimination occurred in the wake of the Bush victories). And it isn’t unconstitutional.

Gaystapo agents who refuse to step out of the closet and defend their own lifestyle think this IS in the constitutional protections of race, creed, or color. If distinguishing between sexes is not permitted then almost every public washroom is discriminatory (separate but equal).


37 posted on 03/05/2013 5:52:30 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

“transgender, beastiality and pedophilia up next”

Next up is gay screening in the schools. If they decide your kid is gay, then they will dictate how you are going to raise him. If you do not comply, it will be Elian time. Mark my words.


38 posted on 03/05/2013 5:53:02 PM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

When the Bible says it’s going to be like Sodom and Gomorrah in the end times, it means it, when it says believers will be beheaded for their testimony, it means it, and when it says people will be unable to buy or sell if they refuse the mark of the best, it means it.

I mentioned this recently to a non-believer, and he immediately crossed his arms and simply said he didn’t believe in “end times” stuff. That’s part of the end times prophecy, too. Evil will be called good and good will be called evil, and a whole lot of unbelievers will simply refuse to believe it has anything whatsoever to do with the coming end of this age. Evil will happen right in front of their faces, and they’ll see none of it!

Now I don’t know if it’s going to happen soon, but I definitely know it’s going to happen. Frankly, it amazes me that people can be so blind to what’s happening spiritually in America and the rest of the world, but it is what it is. When I see so many people and corporations lining up to legitimize sodomy, I know we have to be getting closer to His return. Frankly, we need Him to save us from ourselves.


39 posted on 03/05/2013 5:54:12 PM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Maybe they plan to cut costs by dropping domestic partner coverage. If anyone can get married, they could make marriage a requirement for coverage.


40 posted on 03/05/2013 5:54:51 PM PST by AndrewB (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

God doesn’t determine His morality by counting noses.


41 posted on 03/05/2013 5:55:14 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue
Lord, have mercy on our nation. Forgive our sins & convert hearts. Amen.

SBB, you are a good person of faith, it is not G-d they fear, they may not know him, but they fear attorneys, they are so of this world...

42 posted on 03/05/2013 5:55:42 PM PST by taildragger (( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

As Lenin said, capitalists will sell communists the rope to hang themselves


43 posted on 03/05/2013 5:56:18 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
the draft brief argues that "increased wedding celebrations can mean additional revenue for many businesses -- such as businesses involved directly in wedding celebrations, businesses that produce goods often given as gifts to newlyweds, and businesses that benefit from increased tourism from guests who travel to the wedding."

The love of money is the root of all evil.

44 posted on 03/05/2013 5:56:47 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AndrewB

That could be the underlying motive right there. A straight-up business decision which affects the bottom line.

No marriage certificate? No spousal bennies. End of story.


45 posted on 03/05/2013 5:58:08 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; All
These companies are making fools out of themselves because they evidently don't know the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers any more that many patriots do.

I posted the following analysis about Obama's inappropriate application of the equal protection clauses in federal and state constitutions a few days ago in a related thread. Freepers who missed it will hopefully find it interesting.

If both patriots and Obama would just take a few minutes to examine relevant amendments to the Constitution which were added after the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, then there would be no question that lawless Obama has once again not done his homework regarding how federal and state constitutons should be interpreted, so-called gay marriage rights the issue in this case. (As I've ranted elsewhere, sometimes I think that many patriots interpret the Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" clause as a license to spend all their time merely complaining about tyrants like Obama; the Founding States arguably wasted their time writing everything following the pursuit clause.)

To begin with, the Equal Protection Clause of California's constitution is expressly based on the Equal Protection Clause of the federal 14th Amendment as the link below will show.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.

And since 14A's equal protection clause is now in the picture, what Constitution flunky Obama is wrongly doing with the equal protection clauses of both federal and state constitutions for political gain is this. He has put on his "magic glasses of self-deception" in order to read into these clauses the indefensible generalization that the states cannot make laws which discriminate against people. But examples of perfectly legal discriminatory laws are plentiful as evidenced by age requirements for purchasing things like alcoholic beverages and cigarettes, driving privileges, and gender distinctions as evidenced by men's and women's restrooms, etc..

The problem with Obama's PC fantasy concerning equal protections and gay marriage is that it ignores the following sequence of events. After the Civil War had ended, regardless that the brand new 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was undoubtly still very fresh in the minds of federal and state lawmakers, evidenced by California's inclusion of much of the language of 14A into its own constitution, note that some states continued to enforce voting laws which prohibited people from voting on the basis of race, sex, owed taxes and age as evidenced by the post 14A ratification of the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments respectively, 26A actually making prohibition of voting by age uniform among the states.

At this point, Obama's equal protection idea concerning gay marriage is trashed imo. This is evidenced by states, including California until 1911, which continued to prohibit otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex until 19A was ratified in 1920, regardless of 14A's Equal Protection Clause. So Obama's mischievous cherry-picking of California's equal protection clause to defend gay marriage doesn't hold water imo.

But let's also consider the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, decided after 14A was ratified.

Minor v. Happersett, 1874

In this case justices decided that, regardless if a woman is a natural born citizen (ahem), being an nbc did not imply a constitutional right to vote if a state had a voting law which prohibited women from voting.

But more importantly, note that justices referenced the 14th Amendment in the Minor opinion. This is glaring evidence that the 14A's Equal Protection Clause did not trump state power to make laws which discriminated on the basis of sex.

Again, since California's equal protection clause is expressly based on 14A's Equal Protection Clause, the Constitution's history shows that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about concerning, among other things, equal protection clauses and so-called gay marriage rights.

Finally, as a side note to the consequences widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its history, please consider the following. The consequence of rich people and rich companies not knowing about the Founding States' division of fedreal and state powers is the following. Rich companies don't understand that much of the federal taxes that they try to avoid paying by hiding money in foreign bank accounts, Congress actually has no constitutional authority to tax such funds in the first place.

More specifically, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes for anything that it cannot justify under the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, mostly defense funding.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

46 posted on 03/05/2013 5:58:40 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Large corporations that have offices in several states and countries would like to be able to have the same health and benefit programs for all of their employees regardless of where they live. They would also like to be able to offer similar packages to employees who are required to transfer from one place to another.

Every state's laws are different. Same with mandated timeoff. I worked in HR software for awhile. Every year, the code had to be tweaked to permit this or that option depending on the state of the participants working for the client company.

Some states require time off exceptions (even if they are unpaid) for visits to vet, etc.

Every state's laws are different on a whole lot of things. Some states (like CA and WI) had 20 pages of such regulated exceptions. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

47 posted on 03/05/2013 5:59:13 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Texas does not recognize same sex marriages yet you have some districts that require “partners” of city employees to be covered. Such payouts even existed when same sex sodomy itself was illegal in this state.

There is cancer in this nation that ignores the law and does whatever it wants. WITH public funds.

How many of these “same sex partner benefits”, homosexual-only target ad campaigns, celebration and sponsorships of Gay Pride Month, and signing of such petitions is ever put to a vote of the shareholders?

We are told that all corporations are “conservative” because liberals don’t have a lot of money. Clearly money is being siphoned off into political avenues by SOME liberals within these corporations.


48 posted on 03/05/2013 6:03:49 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

It’s ironic. Big businesses often complain about family decay, the toll of divorces and unwed motherhood.

Actually, they DO NOT. Too many big corporate execs have their own multiple divorces and no morals. But the business leaders do complain, indirectly, when they say that kids applying for jobs are under-educated and have no work ethic. The executives are just clueless as to the actual cause.


49 posted on 03/05/2013 6:04:41 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun
Honestly I thought it would go: gay "marriage", then polygamy.

I was wrong. Apparently it's gay "marriage" then pedophilia.

The rest can wait.

Once gay "marriage" is the law of the land, how can ANYONE argue against polygamy? They can't make a cogent aguement against it, since the standard is "loving" each other.

That's it.

So let those men who molest their daughters out of jail. They "love" each other.

50 posted on 03/05/2013 6:05:56 PM PST by boop ("You don't look so bad, here's another")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson