You're basically just proving my point. The first half is "irrelevant", as you said, or "unrelated", as I said. You're filling in gaps from the first half to the second half.
The post goes (paraphrased): It seems like an oversight to not have this feature of having individuals in multiple households. It got me thinking. Companies can choose not to hire you if your parents weren't married.
You've filled in the "it got me thinking" with "....they encountered this issue with a minor thing, started reading up on it online, and when digging into that kind of stuff ended up reading on what the legal situation is...."
That's exactly what I said is the mental gymnastics in response to OP's question, and you're filing it in like they actually explained it.
But how many are going to want this feature? I'm betting the number of people who use the one household feature is already relatively small. And, that barely works properly as it is.
I'm not the one you asked, but: They're not discriminating, they have a feature that allows a group, maybe a household, to be managed together and share features. Going from "they don't support this niche feature" to "they're discriminating against me" is the mental gymnastics.
I was in Buenos Aires and saw a hockey shop and I was like, whaaaat? Then I realized it was selling field hockey equipment. Most places I travel, if you talk about hockey it means field hockey, and you have to say "ice hockey" if that's what you're talking about.
Thank you, I knew what it meant to say, but my auto-translate (in my brain) pictured a disc of fried cheese initially, and I was wondering why it felt wrong. I know just enough French to get myself into trouble.
"used pizza"
I think I saw that on Last Week Tonight.