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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
We need a list so we can boycott them.
J.C. Penney happy two dads fathers day ad: http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/961979/jcpenney-fathers-day-ad-normalizes-gay-parenting
transgender, beastiality and pedophilia up next
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.
God doesn’t determine His morality by counting noses.
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.