Reply With Quote
i never said they physically took away anyones rights.
i'm from n. ireland. i know the difference.
That's not what oppression means (the violence part at least). Contributing money to an organization that actively campaigns to keep people away from something is hardly different imo.
i never said they physically took away anyones rights.
i'm from n. ireland. i know the difference.
Oppression is using power to restrict a certain group's life, liberty, and/or property simply because they're the minority.... power doesn't just come from government and laws - large corporations like Chik-fil-A voting with their wallets by donating to anti-gay hate groups also has a big effect.....
Remember when the Christian God said that gays should be put to death?Remember when oppression used to mean physical violence or civil rights violations
pray the gay away
Good times...
A hypothetical.
Same sex marriage is legal.
A business owner that believes marriage should just be between a man and a woman also provides insurance for his employees and families.
A gay employee wants his employer to pay the insurance premium for his gay spouse.
Is the employer being oppressed? He is being forced to provide HIS money for something he doesn't believe in.
Replace gays in this instance with blacks.
Is the employer being oppressed?
cuc
No. IMHO not really the same thing at all.
I'm not a lawyer, but if the employer clearly stipulates in the employment contract that he won't be providing insurance to same-sex couples, I don't think there's anything stopping him. If he didn't stipulate that, then he's not being oppressed, he's just not keeping his end of the bargain.
Remember when vy65 suddenly turned his full attention towards me
I respect your opinion, but I would suggest that is the crux of the debate.
Are sexuals a protected class or not?
It seems to me that if he explicitly puts it in his handbook then he is do enting a discrimination lawsuit.
The deeper question I'm trying to get to is whose beliefs are really being discriminated against? The gay couple or the business owner?
He's a , but folks are applauding his being fired for expressing his political beliefs.
That's funny.
are employers currently required to offer insurance for employee spouse and children?
Based on my very limited understanding of labor law... if you provide a benefit to a certain class of employees (say, full-time employees), then you must offer all members of that class of employees the same benefits. I suppose an employer could have a corporate policy that they only provide insurance for opposite-sex spouses, and technically they aren't discriminating against a gay person, since that gay person would still have access to coverage if they obtained an opposite-sex spouse.
It's only discrimination if they are a protected class. In which case, the analogy of replacing "gay" with "black" applies. Is a business owner being discriminated against if he believes black people don't deserve insurance?
sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.
A potential situation.
Inter-racial marriage is legal.
I business owner that believes black people and white people shouldn't marry provides insurance for his employees and families.
A white husband wants his employer to pay the insurance premium for his black wife.
Is the employer being oppressed?
Perhaps an analogy you might find more palatable. What about an employer that doesn't believe in interracial marriage. Is he being discriminated against if he has to offer family coverage to interracial spouses?
Edit: DUNCAN beat me to it above.
That's the real irony.
The employer is not required to provide insurance at all. If he cancels it for everyone then it's no harm / no foul.
If he gives it to his opposite sex couples but doesn't provide it to same sex couples he is discriminating against the same sex couples freedom of choice...but by forcing him to pay for their insurance they are discriminating against the business owners freedom of choice.
Crazy stuff.
Why is that? AFAIK, you can put whatever terms you want in a private contract. People relinquish their rights all the time over contracts. The same-sex people are free not to sign that contract and look for employment elsewhere.
The deeper question would be where did you get the impression that being gay is a "belief".
It is in some states. In a few others it is a quasi-suspect class.
I meant as a matter of federal law.
IMHO although the business owner is wrong in my opinion I don't think it should be illegal since he was legally not required to provide insurance to anyone in the first place.
That's what I thought. As long as the employment contract applies equally to all employees, I don't think you could argue it's discriminatory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions