Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash

15 states made civil unions unlawful
4 states made any marriage like contract unlawful

Maybe now you understand why we don’t believe people that say the “religious institution of marriage” is all they care about.
It’s about control and hate.

 

Court has dictatorial power, their ruling can contradict U.S. Constitution, e.g. such special rights and privileges as Affirmative Actions are legal even though they are not constitutional.
The same is true for gay marriage it is special right and political pandering. That is actually why Donald Trump has been elected, people have elected Trump with a hope to get more conservative judges on board and fix unconstitutional decisions.
You can deny fact about government regulations all the way you want it is just another confirmation of your ignorance.

 

Specifically what part of the constitution do you feel same sex marriage violates? Article and clause please.

Ready, set, deflect!

While you are at it, let us know how the government regulates heterosexuals.

 

Aren't there child support benefits that apply to parents who have fostered or adopted?

 

@kreo?

 

What part of the Constitution goes over marriage?

 

It doesn’t, which is why an argument could be made for not having the government involved in marriage — but once they decided to get involved then they cannot arbitrarily limit a civil contract based on things like sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, religion, political ideology and so on...

Do you have any other strawmen you would like me to address?

Since you chimed in, feel free to answer the question you quoted.

 

There's a difference between actual discrimination vs stomping your feet till all goes your way. A business should be able to donate to the charities they want.
CF didn't do any actual discriminating.

 

The LGBT community is incredibly powerful from forcing businesses to donate only to charities they like to stomping on free speech when their own dirty laundry hits the public.

 

totally agree, not sure why the religious right does that nonsense

they can donate to whomever they want, doesn't mean people have to eat there if they do

 

Who’s free speech was violated?

 

I thought I have answered it.
They will get benefits for adapting a child.
It is identical to situation when two sisters or two brothers adapt a child.
Two sisters however are banned from marriage benefits for no reason.
Why gays get benefits for nothing is the question no one can answer.

 

There is a big difference between having people choose not to eat there and saying you cannot open a restaurant here.

https://www.mashed.com/149777/why-chick-fil-a-really-keeps-getting-banned-from-places/

I agree you should be able to avoid eating there, but they should not be banned from opening restaurants.

I have never been to a Chic Fil-A, but one is
Opening in the area soon. Now that they bent over for the left, I will stick with KFC.

 

What "dirty laundry" are you referring to?

 

Why would they need marriage benefits when all they want to do is support the kid?

 

I posted it before but the evidence presented was deemed "disrespectful" without explaining how.

 

God forbid anybody holds an opinion different than progressive liberals.

Pun intended.

 

It is only true if couples are equal, homosexual and heterosexual couples are fundamentally different.

Why do you support discrimination?
They are 100% capable to receive all benefits that homosexual couples get (for no reason).

 

totally agree with you, never said they should be denied from opening a store, I just said I will not eat there

 

Are you saying that there are people who want to have marital recognition but are not in a relationship?

 

How is a homosexual couple ‘fundamentally different’ than an infertile heterosexual couple?

Why should a homosexual couple with two children be denied the ability to sign a legal document while two drunk teenagers in Vegas can get married and have that union annulled in the span of two days? Or vs a heterosexual couple that is just giving the ‘wife’ the husbands healthcare and live in two separate states? Or vs someone on their 5th marriage?

 

They should be denied because marriage benefits are denied to closely related asexual couples even though both types of couples are identical and not regulated by the government.
Heterosexual couples are under the government control, because heterosexual intercourse have consequences that might lead to public burden, as a result relationship between man and woman requires government regulation.

 

I am not sure what is marital recognition but I know that marriage is a collection of benefits provided by the government.
Marriage used to serve as a tool to regulate relationship between man and woman, because such relationship leaded to childbirth.
Homosexual relationship lead to nothing so it does not require any involvement of the government, the same was asexual relationship.
The question is why homosexual relationship is awarded with benefits while asexual is not.

 

What are you basing this on? And childbirth in wedlock for the majority of the population stopped being a thing a very long time ago.

Well it can very much lead to the development of a nuclear family.

Well for one thing, it was something that people wanted and campaigned for.

 

Heterosexual couples are not regulated by the government, civil contracts are. If they do not get married then there is zero regulation. Homosexual couples are not closely related couples so I don’t know why you keep trying to equate the two. Furthermore, you can marry your first cousin in just about every state that is protesting same sex marriage (19 of them to be exact) so you need a new talking point.



You are all over the place, I posted some direct questions. Feel free to respond when you obtain the integrity to answer:
How is a homosexual couple ‘fundamentally different’ than an infertile heterosexual couple?

Why should a homosexual couple with two children be denied the ability to sign a legal document while two drunk teenagers in Vegas can get married and have that union annulled in the span of two days? Or vs a heterosexual couple that is just giving the ‘wife’ the husbands healthcare and live in two separate states? Or vs someone on their 5th marriage?