Apparently this was too embarrasing to remember? I remember it just fine. The people exercised their right to boycott, Phil Robertson exercised his right to st

Apparently this was too embarrasing to remember? I remember it just fine. The people exercised their right to boycott, Phil Robertson exercised his right to stand by his beliefs, A&E exercised their right to capitulate to the outrage, and then they exercised their right to reverse their own decision. I don't see the problem. The same thing played out in this case except that as of yet, Mozilla hasn't reversed their decision. This is unashamedly wrong. Federal law in the US currently delegates this decision to the States. And? My point is that the law is morally indefensible. What practical purpose does prohibiting gay marriage serve except to arbitrarily stigmatize a class of people? Nobody materially benefits by prohibiting gay marriage, it doesn't free up more marriage slots for the rest of society, it just unnecessarily complicates the private lives of gay couples who want to be married. Because the rights of single old and young people woudl be irreversibly harmed by their existence. How? Heterosexual single people can get married whenever it suits them, but for some reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same freedom, because... why?