I've eaten Chik-Fil-A a grand total of once, and it was just a bite of someone else's sandwich. My reaction was "meh." But there were no Chik-Fil-As in Idaho, so I didn't really grow up with it, nor do I feel a loss from refusing to ever buy anything from them.
The Obama Administration’s challenge relies upon the guarantee of legal equality under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. That has been the major focus of most of the challenges to DOMA’s Section 3, in courts across the country. Massachusetts so far is the only state to have added the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause challenges. Those succeeded only in part in lower courts.
The state’s argument under the Tenth Amendment is that Congress’s attempt to give a national definition to marriage, binding on all states for purposes of the eligibility of married same-sex couples to benefits and the eligibility of states to receive federal funds, amounts to “an impermissible federal intrusion” into the state’s traditional power to regulate marriage. In a state like Massachusetts, which does recognize same-sex marriage, the state brief argued, DOMA divides marriage in two ways: one way for opposite-sex spouses, treating them as legitimately married, but in a different way for same-sex spouses, treating them as “federally single.” Such an intrusion into state regulation of domestic relations, the brief contended, “is unprecedented in the nation’s history.”
The state’s argument under the Spending Clause has two strands to it. First, it argued that DOMA imposes a condition on Massachusetts’ eligibility for the Medicaid program of medical care for the elderly and disabled and for the federal program of grants to state-operated cemeteries, with that condition requiring the state to engage in discrimination in order to receive federal money. Putting such a condition on states like Massachusetts, the state asserted, goes beyond Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. Second, it argued that the condition is beyond Congress’s powers under that Clause because the treatment of legally married same-sex couples as essentially not married bears no relationship to the reasons Congress provides funds under the Medicaid and the burial benefits programs.
The separate Massachusetts petition filed last Friday is a back-up gesture that seeks to assure that these added challenges are definitely up for review along with the discrimination claim that the Obama Administration has made.
I'm not convinced these arguments will hold up. The Tenth Amendment claim seems a bit of a hail Mary to me, a far stronger interpretation of that language than I'm previously aware of. I'm also not sure I like all the implications when applied to other areas.
The Spending Clause ones are interesting, especially given the ACA decision. I'm not sure will have that much of an impact, but the section of that decision limiting Medicaid expansion (also the section with the largest majority, although the split was odd and unlikely to be repeated) did restrict how the federal government may restrict it's distribution of funds to the states. The reasoning is not exactly identical, but you can probably twist it far enough to make it look lined up.
Chick-fil-a has forever killed themselves... At least until the present CEO passes away. Maybe his successor will be less bigoted and overtly religious.
Did anyone else see the whole bit where the CEO also said "We're still married to our first wives"? Not ONLY is he slamming the LGBT community, he's ALSO putting hate towards anyone who's ever had a divorce for ANY reason!
So I suppose if you married someone and times got tough and they turned abusive and were literally on the verge of killing you, God would be SO pissed if you divorced them and people would have the right to look down on you.
I severely doubt that. It's not like Chick-Fil-A donating to homophobic organizations or having homophobic leadership is in any way a new thing. This has been an issue for years. But yet, still Chick-Fil-As continue to pop up. I have the feeling people will quickly forget.
I find the first story deeply unsettling. As much as I dislike Chick-Fil-A's conservative Christianism, the idea that a company can be punished by the government for taking a position disliked by certain politicians simply does not fly well with me. If people want Chick-Fil-A to be unsuccessful, they should boycott the place, and get others to do so as well. What shouldn't happen is government officials punishing the company for being unpopular.
I more meant that in spirit they had killed themselves, and also that they have killed themselves in my eyes. People may forget about it, but this isn't something that will just pass without a major event happening at some point, be it mass boycotting or anything else.
One North American restaurant chain compared to the global oil economy. Restaurants have a lot of competition, oil doesn't. What are you going to do in response to an oil company's decision? Buy a brand new Nissan Leaf? that takes a lot of capital to make a stand. Where as switching the place you choose to eat may actually save you money. It's all about what the average Joe can do.
You're comparing one company's particular brand of chicken sandwich with a globally traded fuel that is used for the very foundation of the world economy. This is apples and oranges.
The point is, you can choose what place you eat at very easily. Choosing what fuel is used to get you to work everyday is very difficult, considering you have to drop 20 grand just to boycott anyone who happens to sell gasoline. I'd love to tell Saudi oil barons to fuck off, but since I don't have 20k to drop on a whim, that's quite difficult. Considering that less than 20% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, boycotting gasoline entirely seems rather ridiculous.