Reply With Quote
lol. did you just compare marriage b/w two sexuals to a brother marrying his other brother who has aids?
Brothers can't marry.
lol. did you just compare marriage b/w two sexuals to a brother marrying his other brother who has aids?
full-blooded aryan + full-blooded ' this guy.
Quit trying to paint me as a racist or phobe.
It just ain't there.
I'm talking about government intrusion into telling an employer that is doing something "nice" that is not legally mandated that they have to do it for everyone if they do it for one.
Do you guys ever get voluntary performance bonuses? What if they mandated that everyone should get the same bonus?
Why shouldn't brothers be able to marry you ing brotherphobes? The reasons for prohibiting inter-family marriages is to prevent birth defects from genetic interbreeding. That obviously doesn't apply to two related males you ing discriminators!
Laterz you ing discriminating brotherphobes...got better things to do this afternoon than try to get you guys to apply the same logic to other discriminatory acts that don't meet your personal "OK" threshold.
Not.
Did they perform the same?It just ain't there.
I'm talking about government intrusion into telling an employer that is doing something "nice" that is not legally mandated that they have to do it for everyone if they do it for one.
Do you guys ever get voluntary performance bonuses? What if they mandated that everyone should get the same bonus?
The definition of marriage has always been rather arbitrary. I'm fine with including gay couples and excluding immediate family members and bigamy.
dude, you're comparing two brothers who marry to two sexuals who marry. just think about that for a second. it's a ridiculous comparison.
you're "personal ok" threshhold just happens to exclude a huge portion of the population (and potentially waaay more if you include all the others who'd be xcluded on the basis of religion, race, and other stupid like you say). that's the problem. i don't know any bro-on-bro relationships.
I honestly don't think CosmicCowboy is that off base or anything. An employer has requirements to fullfill, after that it's not up to the government to tell the employer to recognize gay marriages. If the employer wants to be stubborn with primitive views and as a result not hire gay employees who would work hard and help the company, that's the employers' loss. Also, in a country where gay marriage is universally legal, an employer having a benefits plan that doesn't recognize gay marriages would be a PR nightmare for him.
If the government is going to be in the business of marriage, it will be subject to the laws made by people.
If you are willing to give up all the government recognition and benefits afforded to your marriage, CC, say so.
it's not just gay marriage though. he said moral/personal grounds. the problem with that is it opens the door to loads of other non- phobic related discrimination. you'd have huge chunks of the population potentially facing some sort of discrimination by employers. (religion, color, nationality, etc).
You just made an argument for Universal Healthcare
You act like employment is slavery. It's a mutually agreed upon and hopefully mutually beneficial relationship between employer and employee.
If an employer voluntarily gives a performance bonus to a hard working and loyal hispanic guy should a white guy that didn't get a bonus because he does the absolute minimum be able to sue for discrimination?
Damn you are a stupid . I'm making the argument that every employer has their own personal threshold on who they give "above and beyond mandated law" benefits to, not that I want to discriminate against everyone.
Hardly.
I shouldn't have to send MY tax money to Washington so they can give the sucker at the Valero that hits me up for money so he can buy another 20 a half million dollar liver transplant when he finally crashes and burns.
Choices are choices.
ing live or die with them.
i'm not talking about "above and beyond" mandated law. i'm talking about insurance, which is what you originally brought up.
Then make health insurance a bonus. This way, hetero or , you will only be providing health insurance for those who add value to your business.
Hmm... haven't had $1.00 Valero tacos prepared by true s in months... best tacos ever, IMO, FWIW...
Hardly.
I shouldn't have to send MY tax money to Washington so they can give the sucker at the Valero that hits me up for money so he can buy another 20 a half million dollar liver transplant when he finally crashes and burns.
Choices are choices.
ing live or die with them.
So employer provided insurance for spouses and children is mandated law?
since when?
Your abject ignorance and stupidity is showing.
I can feel the fabric of America being torn as we speak
Can't do that. It's illegal. All or none, at whatever level the employer chooses to supply.
The theory is that they don't want those evil employers buying better insurance for themselves than they provide for their lowest scale employee.
in practice, the employer can legally take those tens or hundreds of thousands he pays for health care, end it completely, pay taxes on the gross, and buy a Cadillac plan for himself and his family and still come out way ahead dollar wise.
You can say that again.
Please explain the "fabric of America" comment and "second".
OMG, I can hear Frank Sinatra rolling in his grave right now...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions