Knew this was coming.............. its gonna get intresting in court for sure
Same sex couple refused benefits
Same sex couple refused benefits
Married same-sex couple turned down for spousal benefits
- Thread starter Romans828
- Start date
If they give the benefits to different-sex couples why shouldn't they give it to same sex-couples.
Welcome to the "Land of the Oppressed, No rights to pursue Happiness and you have the right to be discriminated against".
They could, but evidently don't. As it stands right now, individual employers make the decision whether to extend benefits to "domestic partners" (the current fashionable euphemism which is designed to cover gay/lesbian couples as well as heterosexual co-habitators). I work for a company (Wachovia Securities) which does offer domestic partner benefits, evidently Dean Foods does not.
Personally, I think it's a pretty remote possibility that the court will issue a finding forcing an employer to offer domestic partner benefits generally, or same-sex partner benefits more specifically. And even if they do, you might find that some companies might scale back benefits rather than be forced to offer them per a court decree. Dean Foods is a publically traded company, so they have much less flexibility in this regard, but private companies are more numerous and i could see plenty of them dropping benefits altogether rather than pay them to same-sex couples. That doesn't make it right or fair, but sometimes real-life isn't either of those things.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Why can't those filthy bastards stay in the back of the bus?
I just hate it when an enlightened elite, free of bigotry, tries to force me to evolve. The only thing that will do that for me is a National Guard bayonet stuck in my ribs. That's the one thing on earth I understand. They can have their benefits if you just don't stick me with that.
I just hate it when an enlightened elite, free of bigotry, tries to force me to evolve. The only thing that will do that for me is a National Guard bayonet stuck in my ribs. That's the one thing on earth I understand. They can have their benefits if you just don't stick me with that.
homosexuals shouldn't get the same work-benefits as heterosexuals because it'll be used as an excuse by employers not to give anyone spousal benefits.
Black kids shouldn't go to white schools because the state will stop funding education.
I know, I'm a moron, but I get such good training.
Damn, I just hate it when the government goes and makes laws that shove my bigotry right bck down my throat. Why can't I be free. Give me bigotry or give me death is what I say.
state funding is not employer granted benifits; i was speaking from a purely economic standpoint.
you define bigotry as having a relegious conviction. Just be honest, you don't like religion, you don't like polite society, you don't even like the idea that morals come from any ware but the lump of Gray Jello betwixt your ears.
I'm less concerned with the economic problems of exploitation of employer benefits and the eventual loss of them being granted by the employer and more concerned with your intent to make America 'free' OF religion.
and no, i don't think emplyer benifits granted to homosexuals is a 'relegious' issue, it's a legal-issue.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
If it is the cost issue, I would say that the employer does not have a leg to stand on.
If it is the social issue, then the employer may be able to set the policies, however, any law suit will nail their hide to the wall when a seperate != equal decision comes down.
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
Companies should be able to give or not give benefits to anyone they choose. Many people use the benefit issue to back up their opposition to gay marriage. The government shouldn't force campanies to give any benefits whatsoever.
I think the benefits issue and gay marriage are separate issues. One deals with the public (gov't) and the other deals with the private sector (companies).
I think the benefits issue and gay marriage are separate issues. One deals with the public (gov't) and the other deals with the private sector (companies).
If we allow this abomination to continue a horde of locusts will swarm down upon Bush's nose and he will look like Jimmy Durante during flu season and won't get re-elected. Who wants that to happen?
All gays should be electrocuted immediately, or at least be given a Star of Bruce the Fashion Mogul.
-Robert
All gays should be electrocuted immediately, or at least be given a Star of Bruce the Fashion Mogul.
-Robert
LMK: state funding is not employer granted benifits;
M: Try not to state the obvious and look for the parallels. No analogy is an equation. In good economic times businesses that discriminate by not paying benefits to avoid paying them to gays will suffer competitively and disappear. The state can step in and tax businesses that avoid benefits for bigoted reasons and pay then via the state. There are all kinds of ways to shove bigotry back up bigots' noses.
LMK: i was speaking from a purely economic standpoint.
M: You really speak form a religious perspective and motivation, all the time. You rationalize is pseudo-secular terms.
LMK: you define bigotry as having a relegious conviction. Just be honest, you don't like religion, you don't like polite society, you don't even like the idea that morals come from any ware but the lump of Gray Jello betwixt your ears.
M: You pay little attention with your bigot blinders on. Gay rights are inalienable as I've said many many times. That means they didn't just pop out of my head. You have no idea what I like and don't like. You are dreaming. Bigotry is both dangerous and evil. I oppose it where I can. A religious bigot gets no protection from his religion with me. Bigoted religion is also obviously not religion, it's bigotry and false idolatry. God is not a bigot because he can't be less than we can imagine. Bigotry is the product of unconscious bias and contempt. God don't have any of that iffen ya know what I mean.
LMK: I'm less concerned with the economic problems of exploitation of employer benefits and the eventual loss of them being granted by the employer and more concerned with your intent to make America 'free' OF religion.
M: You meant free of bigotry and bigoted religion. Only a complete and utter butt-wad would think that God is a bigot because it says so in a book. Even a two year old knows that God is perfect. Bigotry is not perfection, sorry. I know you don't know that, but it's rather obvious if you can think. You get all wound up about sodomy, but your mind was worse than sodomized as you were growing up. You turned God into the Devil.
LMK: and no, i don't think emplyer benifits granted to homosexuals is a 'relegious' issue, it's a legal-issue.[/quote]
M: Well as we can see, you don't even know what religion is so how would you know?
You secular humanists make me ill trying to pretend that God is contained in a human book. Jesus, I'm just glad they didn't put in there that the Way is to do it with donkeys cause some fellow bigot worshiper would doubtless have his eye on you.
M: Try not to state the obvious and look for the parallels. No analogy is an equation. In good economic times businesses that discriminate by not paying benefits to avoid paying them to gays will suffer competitively and disappear. The state can step in and tax businesses that avoid benefits for bigoted reasons and pay then via the state. There are all kinds of ways to shove bigotry back up bigots' noses.
LMK: i was speaking from a purely economic standpoint.
M: You really speak form a religious perspective and motivation, all the time. You rationalize is pseudo-secular terms.
LMK: you define bigotry as having a relegious conviction. Just be honest, you don't like religion, you don't like polite society, you don't even like the idea that morals come from any ware but the lump of Gray Jello betwixt your ears.
M: You pay little attention with your bigot blinders on. Gay rights are inalienable as I've said many many times. That means they didn't just pop out of my head. You have no idea what I like and don't like. You are dreaming. Bigotry is both dangerous and evil. I oppose it where I can. A religious bigot gets no protection from his religion with me. Bigoted religion is also obviously not religion, it's bigotry and false idolatry. God is not a bigot because he can't be less than we can imagine. Bigotry is the product of unconscious bias and contempt. God don't have any of that iffen ya know what I mean.
LMK: I'm less concerned with the economic problems of exploitation of employer benefits and the eventual loss of them being granted by the employer and more concerned with your intent to make America 'free' OF religion.
M: You meant free of bigotry and bigoted religion. Only a complete and utter butt-wad would think that God is a bigot because it says so in a book. Even a two year old knows that God is perfect. Bigotry is not perfection, sorry. I know you don't know that, but it's rather obvious if you can think. You get all wound up about sodomy, but your mind was worse than sodomized as you were growing up. You turned God into the Devil.
LMK: and no, i don't think emplyer benifits granted to homosexuals is a 'relegious' issue, it's a legal-issue.[/quote]
M: Well as we can see, you don't even know what religion is so how would you know?
You secular humanists make me ill trying to pretend that God is contained in a human book. Jesus, I'm just glad they didn't put in there that the Way is to do it with donkeys cause some fellow bigot worshiper would doubtless have his eye on you.
no, because not recognizing one legally binding marriage and recognizing another for general benefits is going to be found illegal;
but, exploitation of this by employees is going to lead to an end of benefits for the employee .
as for you moon:
sounds good, but it'll just lead to employers not offering any benefits less they be said to be 'discriminatory' by whatever judge legislates the requirement.
It doesn't matter what perspective anyone come to a conclusions from; be they the words in a 2k year old book, a Ouija board, what some bloke on the TV says, or by throwing some dice. As long as an intellectually defensible argument can be made it should be respected, so let's rise out of this gutter with all the slinging emotional bias at each other and just lay out our views as something intelligent
This is your perspective, as you said in another thread many don't believe that freedom of religion is an inalienable right. What is and isn't a right is best looked at devoicing yourself from ware you'll end up standing if the propose 'right' isn't recognized, can we agree on this?
idol worshipers are relegious as well, and have every right to be as such, or do you disagree?
And bigoted actions against homosexuals aren't what Christ should do nor what Christians should do. But as I've said, it's not bigoted to be against homosexual marriage, and it's certainly not bigoted to point out that allowing homosexual marriage is going to force economical harmfully employer benefits to be granted to them, thus reducing incentive of employers to give any benefits at all.
but your favorite counter argument is 'bigot' as if that caused your side to have an intellectually defensible argument itself; it does not and it gains no respect for your view from thinking persons.
So your answer is that you don't want a freedom of people to have any religion they wish. So what's allowable for religion? what the state says is right? what the progressive movement says is right? who determines what we are allow to thing and believe? don't you know that such radical leftist views being rebelled against is what leads to equally radical rightist views?
i want neither of those, you should try coming back from your end so that you don't run the risk of ending up with the side you don't want.
sorry to hear, some prayer to the Lord often recharges the spirit.
contrary to what you may think i don't think that being a Christian requires any particular political view: just look at all the black-Baptists that are consistent democrats, they may well have a point to stand with, as such i always try to give both sides of a political view honest thought.
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
no, because not recognizing one legally binding marriage and recognizing another for general benefits is going to be found illegal;
but, exploitation of this by employees is going to lead to an end of benefits for the employee .
as for you moon:
sounds good, but it'll just lead to employers not offering any benefits less they be said to be 'discriminatory' by whatever judge legislates the requirement.
It doesn't matter what perspective anyone come to a conclusions from; be they the words in a 2k year old book, a Ouija board, what some bloke on the TV says, or by throwing some dice. As long as an intellectually defensible argument can be made it should be respected, so let's rise out of this gutter with all the slinging emotional bias at each other and just lay out our views as something intelligent
This is your perspective, as you said in another thread many don't believe that freedom of religion is an inalienable right. What is and isn't a right is best looked at devoicing yourself from ware you'll end up standing if the propose 'right' isn't recognized, can we agree on this?
idol worshipers are relegious as well, and have every right to be as such, or do you disagree?
And bigoted actions against homosexuals aren't what Christ should do nor what Christians should do. But as I've said, it's not bigoted to be against homosexual marriage, and it's certainly not bigoted to point out that allowing homosexual marriage is going to force economical harmfully employer benefits to be granted to them, thus reducing incentive of employers to give any benefits at all.
but your favorite counter argument is 'bigot' as if that caused your side to have an intellectually defensible argument itself; it does not and it gains no respect for your view from thinking persons.
So your answer is that you don't want a freedom of people to have any religion they wish. So what's allowable for religion? what the state says is right? what the progressive movement says is right? who determines what we are allow to thing and believe? don't you know that such radical leftist views being rebelled against is what leads to equally radical rightist views?
i want neither of those, you should try coming back from your end so that you don't run the risk of ending up with the side you don't want.
sorry to hear, some prayer to the Lord often recharges the spirit.
contrary to what you may think i don't think that being a Christian requires any particular political view: just look at all the black-Baptists that are consistent democrats, they may well have a point to stand with, as such i always try to give both sides of a political view honest thought.
In order for there to be a shred of logic to your preposterous claim, preposterous naturally only because it is distorted by the demands of bigotry, employers would have had to have witheld and reduced benefits when they were first extended to married people. Employers pay benefits to attract good employees in a competative world. Try to understand that employers pay as little as they can to get as much as they can, but they still pay the going rate. Just as the western world outstrips the east in good part because we employ women, we will be better off still paying benefits to gays. You get what you pay for. That's why people pay.
Also, and more importantly, the benefits that were being deined this gay couple were real ones offered by the employer. Whether other employers or this one later will stop paying benefits has nothing to do with whether the couple should be paid these that do exist. If employers stop paying benefits because of gays, that will not be the fault of gays, but the fault of bigoted selfish employers. People can work elsewhere.
You need to try to stop your religious bigotry from colouring everything you think. Shame on you for being a bigot.
if you know how a business is run then you know they didn't increase benefits in any way that would reduce profits; so chances are that spousal benefits do reduce benefits for the single, same-sex partner benifits will reduce benifits for everyone else; abuse may well put an end to family benefits.
When you increase the costs you risk losing the benefits altogether.
no, it'll be a function of increased costs because of abuse of the system that will dramatical increase prices of offering said benefits. It's just the economics of the issue, legally they'll be given their benefits;
As i've pointed out before your atacking me personaly doesn't make you any less wrong; nor is it that anyone's way they come to a conclusion indicates that they have no intelectual support for the argument.
Shame on you for using the word bigot so often that Marten Luther King himself wants to rase from the grave and slap you for denigrating the conotative meaning of the word. Who, incidentally, is also a bigot by your standards.
"abuse may well put an end to family benefits"
"because of abuse of the system"
This is what I mean by an unsupported reliance on bigoted preconceptions. You use the word abuse but the abuse is all in your head. This has nothing to do with abuse. You imagine, in your blind state of bigotry that there is this would be abuse. It's justice, friend. When no logical reason can be shown for why one is discriminated against and another is not, you have discrimination. When you defend that discrimination based on irrational feelings of an external taught faith, that's bigotry. You imagine you express an opinion, but what you express is an emotional problem you caught from other bigots. You think you see a bigot when you look at me, but I don't profess a faith. I say that a thing is what it is based on whether it conforms to definition. You fit a bigot's profile. That is not opinion, that's objective fact. You believe homosexuality to be a sin. You are a bigot because of that ant it pollutes everything you say on the subject. It's like you pooped in your pants and everywhere you breathe you smell homosexuality. It's just the smell coming from your ass. The evil is all in your mind so your mind is evil. It takes time to see your own ridiculous delusion, but I'm happy to help. I know how you suffer. I know what you fear. I been there and done all that. My bigot died. I
They were married in San Fran and going back to Chicago and trying to get benefits? does Chicago recognize homo marriage? if not then what is the big deal?...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter