In this case, it seems to me, that the consequences are unjust and the results of over reaction and over zealousness. So, on this, yes, I agree with Kobie.
(got Kobie right this time )
I'd add that I hope that this doesn't become a recurring theme, the unjust results and over reaction and over zealousness, as moderation is usually better for everyone involved.
I know this for a fact and it drives me nuts - especially knowing that nothing is for free..... Of course you can corporations that defy the government and the unions and they're treated like garbage, however they're more successful than the government and union puppet corporations, yet are consistently attacked by both entities, because they're not willing to play ball with the EPA and progressives in general. Then of course the government sicks the IRS on these corporations who tell the government to go **** off.
This is the United States man - government should mind their own business..... Taxation is not good enough for these corporations - government and unions want way more influence than that...
Hell, I'd love to open a business - a retail business - however it's just not worth it given the fact of government influence.
But there's probably a thread for that around here someplace. Now, only to find it.
Let's try another example.
Person 1: I'm a devout Muslim
Person 2: I'm a devout Christian
We'd all agree, I think, that 1 and 2 should peacefully coexist in any workplace, and not be offended that their CEO takes a different view than them personally.
Person 1: I'm a devout Christian
Person 2: I'm a devout Muslim, and I donated to an effort to pass a Constitutional amendment to make "Sharia" the permanent law of California.
Can anyone see the difference, and get why in that situation Christian employees, suppliers, customers, etc. might vehemently object to the Muslim CEO? It's no longer merely different opinions, which should be tolerated, but in this case Person 2 wants to enforce his views on EVERYONE, even those who disagree. Why is this so hard to get.
But if you are somehow claiming that the 'right' to marry is simply the 'right' to marry SOMEONE, and not the person you love, and want to spend a lifetime with, well, that's....special. Thanks for the insight!
Really, you didn't mean that, did you?