They can submit all the briefs they want - it won't change several billion years of biological history.
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
"Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
FAIL.
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 ...
SCOTUS ping.
Why don’t these businesses focus on providing goods and services at competitive prices - ya know, business?
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.
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.
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.
Corporations, like citizens can exercise their First Amendment Rights.
These companies deserve the coming stock market crash.
Why would companies with commercial interests fool around with something like the gay marriage issue? I don’t think they would. Do you?
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?
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.
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.
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”.
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"?
I never said they couldn’t.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
J.C. Penney happy two dads fathers day ad: http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/961979/jcpenney-fathers-day-ad-normalizes-gay-parenting
Says who? The liberal press?
yitbos
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”.
transgender, beastiality and pedophilia up next
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.
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
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).
“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.
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.
Maybe they plan to cut costs by dropping domestic partner coverage. If anyone can get married, they could make marriage a requirement for coverage.
God doesn’t determine His morality by counting noses.
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...
As Lenin said, capitalists will sell communists the rope to hang themselves
The love of money is the root of all evil.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.