Wildmon Blames Exxon Decision on Supreme Court


Exxon recently decided that it would offer full benefits to the spouses of employees in legal same-sex marriages in places where they are recognized around the world and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association weirdly blames the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling, which, he even admits, had nothing to do with it.

Tim Wildmon, president of the Mississippi-based American Family Association, told The Christian Post that his group was “disappointed” by the news coming from the large oil company.

“AFA has not typically concerned itself with a company’s internal benefit policies. That being said, we are certainly disappointed in ExxonMobil, and their shareholders should be as well,” said Wildmon.

“At the last shareholders’ meeting, 81% of them voted against awarding benefits based on same-sex behavior, and no law requires them to do this.”

Wildmon also told CP that the Exxon Mobil decision was “another unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s judicial activism in overturning DOMA.”

“The court not only frustrated the will of the elected representatives of the people in overturning DOMA, they are now frustrating the will of shareholders in private companies,” said Wildmon.

Actually, some state laws likely do require them to do it because it would be discrimination to offer such benefits to legally married straight couples but not to gay couples. But nothing at the federal level requires it, including the DOMA ruling, which had absolutely nothing to do with what companies had to do. Back to Civics 101 for you, Mr. Wildmon. Exxon made this decision on their own, the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it.

Comments

  1. cptdoom says

    @modusoperandi – or even try to sell to LGBT customers or use LGBT celebrities in their advertising – see Home Depot, JC Penny, Ikea, etc.

  2. John Pieret says

    in legal same-sex marriages in places where they are recognized …

    So, for example, a gay couple legally married in New York won’t get benefits if they are based in Texas? Why’s that?

  3. dogmeat says

    John @3,

    I was wondering along similar lines. My variation was:

    If I’m working for Exxon and in a same-sex marriage, but for business purposes Exxon transfers me to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, do I lose my benefits for my spouse? If not, how is that fair to the employees who are in same sex relationships but weren’t transferred by the company? If I do lose my benefits, how is that legal?

  4. says

    John Pieret “So, for example, a gay couple legally married in New York won’t get benefits if they are based in Texas? Why’s that?”
    Because just two things come from Texas: steers and queers. And they only had enough marriage benefits for one of them.

  5. exdrone says

    At the last shareholders’ meeting, 81% of them voted against awarding benefits based on same-sex behavior

    That’s odd. I would have thought that shareholders would jump at the chance of awarding profits to employees.

  6. says

    “At the last shareholders’ meeting, 81% of them voted against awarding benefits based on same-sex behavior, and no law requires them to do this.”

    Is it 81% of the shareholders or those holding 81% of the shares? Then, again, wtf difference does it make to Timmy what a corporate person does? Bet he’s a big lover of Barilla Pasta, or would be if their asshole CEO hadn’t immediately walked back the anti-gay diatribe that he blurted out about a week or so ago. He can still eat at Chok-Fulla-Assholes.

Leave a Reply