Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Observation level: My opponent and I seem to be more or less in accord to the idea that gay rights must be upheld by the society. I would certainly argue that every organization has a strict obligation to uphold such rights warranted by their existence in the society. Organizations that don't support the cause of establishing equality are most definately condemned by my case statement, and I strongly support a shift in the position of such organizations to uphold their responsibilities. The reason why I'm not arguing about the organizations that don't uphold their responsibilities is because the resolution does not explicitly focus on these organizations. In this resolution, we're working under the scenario at which gay rights have not been entirely guaranteed by the society, and there are corporations that support or oppose gay rights. This resolution stems from an article I read online where the National Organization of Marriage is calling for these organizations supporting gay rights (such as General Mills, the cereal company centered in Minnesota that recently condemned the bill in the state that would bar gay marriage) to be neutral on the position instead. It's not that the organizations that don't support gay rights are immune from these obligations. It's that they're not the focus of this particular debate.Sub-point 1a: It seems that now I am the one who is confused about the definition of "gay rights." My opponent clearly stated that he placed gay rights in a very general context and even implied it when he placed the etcetera at the end of the list when he explicitly defined the term. Such a debate would include topics like discrimination of gays in employment, gays in the military, legislation against LGBT-bullying, etc. However, when my opponent attacks this sub-point, he focuses on two particular aspects of gay rights when we're supposed to be debating the rights in general. This rebuttal has poor coverage of the rights we're discussing at hand. My opponent doesn't provide a reason as to why such taxation would be particularly unjustified, his warrant for why marriages should not be recognized and sanctioned by the government period. I would like if my opponent could elaborate on this point further. On the issue of gay adoption, I've already addressed the particular notions that my opponent follows in my own rebuttal of the observation. Subpoint 1b: Utilitarian reasonings for the existence of rights not only partially warrant the rights themselves but provide a reasoning as to why they should be protected as well: society crumbles; morality becomes ebbed. This isn't just a slippery slope because I provided evidence in my sub-point 1b explaining exactly what the end result of all of it is. Inalienable human rights stem from the idea that the human being is inherently sanctified simply for being a human being. It is why murder is condemned. It is why crimes against humanity are condemned. These utilitarian principles are surrounded to benefit the human being whereas upholding the agonisticism to rights would not do anything to achieve them. This is all, of course, under the assumption that my opponent agrees that human beings are inherently sanctified. This is the ultimate warrant for the support of utilitarian reasonings in order to establish rights, unless my opponent wants to argue that humans have no inherent value.