So the Owner of Chick-fil-A's Opinion is "Controversial"...

[mal]

At least that's the take of the Pro-Gay Mainstream Media...

Then why did Consistently DemocRAT Voting California Vote AGAINST Gay Marriage Recently?...

It seems to me that if California Voters don't Support Gay Marriage then the VAST Majority of Americans don't either...

So the Controversial Stand is NOT being Against Gay Marriage...

The Controversial Stand is being Pro-Gay Marriage.

But you won't EVER hear the Mainstream Media go after a Company that takes the Obviously Controversial Stand of being Pro-Gay Marriage...

Nope...

Get it?



peace...

 

[waltky]

U.S. Supremes to decide on 'gay' marriage...

Highest court to decide on gay marriage
Wednesday, September 26, 2012 -- By next summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly have decided whether gays and lesbians can marry in California and whether same-sex couples legally married in their home states can be denied federal benefits.

The first word could come as soon as Monday, when the court is expected to announce decisions it made this week to deny many of the thousands of appeals it has received in recent months from the losing sides in lower-court rulings. One of those appeals came from the sponsors of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. Otherwise, it could be a month or two before the public knows whether the court will review Prop. 8 as well as a law withholding federal marital benefits to same-sex spouses. In their 2012-13 term, which runs from October through June, the justices are being asked to make their most important statement on the legal status of sexual orientation since at least 2003, when the court struck down state laws against gay sex. There's little likelihood they'll refuse.

Confident court

"One thing that defines this Supreme Court, both under Chief Justice John Roberts and William Rehnquist, is a sense of judicial power," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor. "The court thinks it's competent to resolve any issue." Prop. 8 is the 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Defense of Marriage Act is the 1996 law that barred federal marital benefits such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivors' payments and immigration sponsorship to same-sex spouses. Federal appeals courts have found both laws to be unconstitutional acts of discrimination, but they remain in effect while the cases continue.

In striking down Prop. 8 in February, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped short of declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Instead, the court said the ballot measure had stripped a historically persecuted minority of rights it had won from the California courts less than six months earlier - much like an antigay Colorado law the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned in 1996. Prop. 8's sponsors sought Supreme Court review, saying the purportedly narrow ruling was a "judicial death sentence for traditional marriage laws." Lawyers for same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, which joined in the lawsuit, urged the court to deny review. The Defense of Marriage Act's defenders - House Republicans who stepped in after President Obama withdrew his support - likewise contend the federal law barring benefits is supported by tradition and by Congress' power over the government's purse strings.

Not among initial cases

When the justices met behind closed doors Monday to decide which appeals to add to their docket from the thousands submitted over the summer, their case list included Prop. 8 and two Defense of Marriage Act appeals. Those cases were not among the six that the court accepted for review Tuesday. One reason could be that the court has decided to turn down the appeals and let the lower-court rulings stand, a decision that would be announced Monday. If review is denied in the Prop. 8 case, same-sex marriage will be legal in California - not immediately, but probably within a few weeks, unless lower courts heed a new set of objections by the measure's sponsors. But the court may also have decided to delay review of the marriage cases until a future conference. With a huge volume of appeals at this week's initial conference, it wouldn't be unusual for one or more justices to ask for more time to study cases that raise major issues, said Rory Little, a UC Hastings law professor and former Supreme Court clerk.

November decision?

 

[g5000]

Can we make the bigots happy and save 15 pages by saying that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, incest, bestiality, rap music, and being Oregonian?

Can we save five more pages and make the bigots happy by saying that marriage has always been one man and one woman of the same race and should not be redefined?

Can we save three pages by pretending AIDS has killed more homos than it has straight people, and has killed more homos than syphillis and gonorrhea killed straight people before there was a cure for those?

Thank you.

.

 

[techieny]

I just like chicks

 

[Polk]

At least that's the take of the Pro-Gay Mainstream Media...

Then why did Consistently DemocRAT Voting California Vote AGAINST Gay Marriage Recently?...

It seems to me that if California Voters don't Support Gay Marriage then the VAST Majority of Americans don't either...

So the Controversial Stand is NOT being Against Gay Marriage...

The Controversial Stand is being Pro-Gay Marriage.

But you won't EVER hear the Mainstream Media go after a Company that takes the Obviously Controversial Stand of being Pro-Gay Marriage...

Nope...

Get it?



peace...

The issue wasn't Chick-fil-a being anti-gay marriage as much as it's financial support of brutal "reeducation" camps for gay youth.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The issue wasn't Chick-fil-a being anti-gay marriage as much as it's financial support of brutal "reeducation" camps for gay youth.

Brutal reeducation anti-gay camps ?

Come on now.

 

[Polk]

The issue wasn't Chick-fil-a being anti-gay marriage as much as it's financial support of brutal "reeducation" camps for gay youth.

Brutal reeducation anti-gay camps ?

Come on now.

What would you call shipping them out to the wilderness and torturing them until they're "ex-gay".

 

[OODA_Loop]

The issue wasn't Chick-fil-a being anti-gay marriage as much as it's financial support of brutal "reeducation" camps for gay youth.

Brutal reeducation anti-gay camps ?

Come on now.

What would you call shipping them out to the wilderness and torturing them until they're "ex-gay".

Police report ?

 

[Steelplate]

I don't give a shit what the chick-fil-a guy's opinion is. I don't even care that he made it public. But anyone who exercises their free speech in that kind of controversial manner should realize that there could be consequences to that expression.

I know if I were a businessman, I wouldn't want to alienate any potential customer.

 

[Bigfoot]

The issue wasn't Chick-fil-a being anti-gay marriage as much as it's financial support of brutal "reeducation" camps for gay youth.

Brutal reeducation anti-gay camps ?

Come on now.

What would you call shipping them out to the wilderness and torturing them until they're "ex-gay".

Sport.

 

[Plasmaball]

hey mal made a gay themed thread.....shocking

 

[OODA_Loop]

I know if I were a businessman, I wouldn't want to alienate any potential customer.

If someone asked me if I support two dudes getting married my answer is NO.

Respectfully.

 

[squeeze berry]

I don't give a shit what the chick-fil-a guy's opinion is. I don't even care that he made it public. But anyone who exercises their free speech in that kind of controversial manner should realize that there could be consequences to that expression.

I know if I were a businessman, I wouldn't want to alienate any potential customer.

they got more new customers than they lost, yinzer

 

[Amazed]

I don't give a shit what the chick-fil-a guy's opinion is. I don't even care that he made it public. But anyone who exercises their free speech in that kind of controversial manner should realize that there could be consequences to that expression.

I know if I were a businessman, I wouldn't want to alienate any potential customer.

...and what were the consequences?

Record sales, you are an idiot.

 

[Steelplate]

I know if I were a businessman, I wouldn't want to alienate any potential customer.

If someone asked me if I support two dudes getting married my answer is NO.

Respectfully.

Why? what skin is it off your nose?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I know if I were a businessman, I wouldn't want to alienate any potential customer.

If someone asked me if I support two dudes getting married my answer is NO.

Respectfully.

Why? what skin is it off your nose?

I think marriage is between a man and woman.

 

[Steelplate]

If someone asked me if I support two dudes getting married my answer is NO.

Respectfully.

Why? what skin is it off your nose?

I think marriage is between a man and woman.

So do I....but this is America...gays are taxpaying, law abiding citizens too. I don't believe anyone is calling for the forcing of churches to perform the ceremony. Those that choose to, will. Those that don't, won't.

That's the thing about our country. For me? The issue is my faith....But I also have to realize that my faith is my own and that because we live in a free society, I can't force my beliefs on other people.

 

[OODA_Loop]

That's the thing about our country. For me? The issue is my faith....But I also have to realize that my faith is my own and that because we live in a free society, I can't force my beliefs on other people.

Mine has nothing to do with faith.

Nor does the Federal law that defines marriage as man / woman.

 

[waltky]

Granny gonna be watchin' dis one to see if the Supreme Court gonna succumb to the gay agenda...

Supreme Court poised to enter battle over same-sex marriage
11/30/12 - The Supreme Court is expected to announce within days that it will consider whether same-sex marriage deserves equal treatment under federal law.

The justices will meet behind closed doors Friday to weigh a slew of appeals in same-sex marriage cases. Observers predict the justices will take up at least one of them — most likely a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “Obviously, they have to take one of the DOMA cases,” said Michael Carvin, a partner at the law firm Jones Day and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. Congress passed DOMA in 1996 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The law prohibits states from providing certain benefits to same-sex couples, even when those states recognize gay marriage.

The Supreme Court is more likely to take cases in which courts have struck down a federal law, and two federal appeals courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional. A decision overturning DOMA would be a significant victory for gay rights advocate that would open the door to a slew of new legal protections and benefits for same-sex couples. The leading DOMA cases that are before the court pit President Obama directly against House Republicans.

The Justice Department decided in 2011 to stop defending DOMA after deciding the law was unconstitutional. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed to continue fighting for the law in court and has spent more than $1 million defending it through a congressional advisory group. Oral arguments over a DOMA challenge would likely bring a rematch between the two lawyers who sparred over Obama’s healthcare law at the high court last summer — Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s traditional swing vote, is expected to cast the deciding vote on same-sex marriage. Many observers believe he’s likely to side with DOMA’s opponents if and when the law reaches the high court. Although Kennedy was appointed by a Republican president and votes frequently with the court’s conservative bloc, he has also sided with the more liberal justices on cases involving individual liberty — including a 2003 case overturning anti-sodomy laws in Texas. “He’s been the predominant moving force in the court’s steady march toward constitutionalizing gay rights,” Carvin said of Kennedy.

MORE