Chik-Fil-A Gay Fallout

[nightsurge]

theprof00 said:

nightsurge said:

Wow... first of all this whole thing is retarded. They aren't "Hating" on anyone or anything. All the guy did was give his personal opinion based on his religion, which is his right. He NEVER said anything about not allowing gays to eat at Chik-fil-A or even work there or any other means of discrimination.

Secondly, married people pay less taxes based on the TOTAL INCOME. It is common sense. If married people have a combined income of $50k they will pay LESS TAXES on that income than someone who is single making $50k because obviously the income is being split amongst twice as many people! Do they pay half the taxes that you do as a single person? NO!? OMG THAT'S NOT RIGHT, THEY ARE BEING TAXED TOO MUCH IT IS NOT FAIR! See how ridiculous that argument was?

There is something entirely different than being against a certain type of lifestyle and being outwardly preventative towards a lifestyle. Most Christians based on their religion (backed up by the Bible denouncing gay relationships) believe that being gay is wrong, but so is any other sin and no sin carries any more weight than another. All sin is sin. Now I am not saying that being gay is equal to murdering someone or anythig else hanus. Don't dare put those false words in my mouth. I am just saying any amount of sin will deny entry to heaven without belief in a savior. Any/all sin can be forgiven, I personally believe.

Now, without getting too religious, no one truly knows what causes someone to be gay whether it is genetic, chemical imbalances, personal choice, or just plain emotions and quite frankly I don't care. As a true Christian myself, I am against gay behavior as a personal belief, BUT I will never ever persecute or discriminate against a gay individual. I will treat them the same as anyone else and I will never try to push my beliefs down their throats. After all, it is not our job to judge.

So while Chik-fil-A's president said some things that are sure to upset people, I do not think ANYTHING in the company's practices has discriminated or given hate towards gay people. It was simple his religion based opinion and nothing more. It has just as much merit as anyone supporting gay marriage as well.

Peace out.

Couples in which one spouse earns all of the couple’s income never incur a marriage penalty and almost always receive a marriage bonus, because joint filing shifts the higher earner’s income into a lower tax bracket.

• Example of a marriage bonus: A wife earns $200,000 and her husband earns nothing. They have two children and itemize deductions equal to $40,000. Filing jointly, their taxable income is $146,801, on which their 2008 income tax liability is $27,848. But the AMT raises that liability to $30,825. If they could file separately, the husband as single and the wife as head of household with two children, the wife would owe taxes of $38,957 (including the AMT) and the husband would owe nothing. Their joint tax bill is $8,132 less than their combined individual tax bills, giving them a marriage bonus equal to 4.1 percent of their pretax income.
  (see example details)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/marriage-penalties.cfm

 

Whoever explained it to you explained wrong.

Secondly, now that I've shown you that married indeed get benefits over individuals, I never said that the chick-fil-a guy was completely in the wrong for voicing his morals. I HAVE called his morals hypocritical for the points I illustrated, ie, denying privelages to others because they were sinful.

I hear all the time that "you don't allow gay marriage because it promotes gay marriage. It allows for people to enter into sin more freely than to rise above the 'temptations' like they should be doing...we should not be telling these people that it's OK". Now, because it's so common to think that I'm 'boiling all Christians down to this stereotype or thought process', I will say that I am not. The anti-gay marriage crowd is so hard to fight because they all have different reasons. It's like the tea party. How do you argue with them? Each group within has like their own ideas and desires. For the anti same sex marriage crowds it's no different. Some say it's enabling, so no. Others say, "no because marriage is sacred"... etc etc. So when you solve the problem of marriage being sacred and say, "OK, so let's give them civil unions with marital benefits", it doesn't work, because the people that held that obstacle then shrink back while another group says "it's enabling". So yeah, it's frustrating, and yes, I think it's backwards and hypocritical. I mean, this is something that would HELP the economy, as well as making the rest of the world look at us again and say, "damn as much as I hate those americans, they're more progressive than we are once again".

There are a myriad of other benefits to marriage besides tax, including credit power, hospital visitation, tax free gifts to spouses, etc etc.

What are you talking about? That's exactly how it SHOULD work. One person filing by themselves would obviously pay MORE taxes than filing jointly and having the same total income. It makes perfect sense and is not some conspiracy "marriage bonus".

Are you saying that if you got married and your wife had no job, but you are now providing for 2 rather than just yourself, that you think it would be fair and reasonable for you to still pay the same amount of taxes even though your net income is effectively reduces quite a bit since your costs of living has increased? Nope? Exactly.