Reply With Quote
California and the DC of Nebraska have ruled it could be. So it's not out of the question yet.
Don't try to twist my words where they didn't go. The topic was the belief for/against gay marriage.
California and the DC of Nebraska have ruled it could be. So it's not out of the question yet.
Seems to me that if you provide insurance for a heterosexual spouse but deny it to a sexual spouse, you are setting yourself up for a discrimination lawsuit.
I think we'll get Supreme Court resolution on the matter in the next 24 months or so.
but if he does, he has to provide to all. Otherwise it's discrimination. Pretty easy really
That's one heck of a dodge CC
But you're not addressing what's this is about. This isn't about "belief". This is about government granting certain rights to "married" couples, and a minority not being able to receive those rights based solely on their sexual orientation.
You're also missing that private and government companies have different rules when it comes to contract law, which is why your example is poor at best or inapplicable in general.
I'm not missing anything. I'm simply trying to point out that the issue is not as black and white as convention politically correct thought would have you believe. Someones beliefs and rights always get violated.
Moral of story -- don't be a . I like how he took it out on the minimum wage drive-thru employee. And how he really stuck it to "the man" by ordering a free water. What a re .
haven't seen any gay business owners running their mouth off about "having to pay insurance for heterosexuals".
has anyone else seen that?
They don't pay maternity for breeders.
Libs get their turn.
No surprise here.
Well of course, after all there was a time where some people believed blacks and whites shouldn't mix. Or believed women shouldn't vote.
But beliefs isn't the crux of the matter, despite the fact I understand that "change is hard".
There's specific discrimination going on right now based solely on sexual orientation. The crux of the matter is: should this type of discrimination end?
Then there's the avenues that the Cons ution provides for that, like what vy pointed out, determining whether sexual orientation should be a protected class.
I thought the issue had to do with a business owner voicing his religious beliefs? People might not agree with those beliefs, but is it really oppressive for the business owner to say what he believes?
The whole insurance issue is irrelevant in any event because CFA doesn't discriminate in who it insures (at least to my knowledge). The issue only has to do with a privately held company voicing its opinion on political issue. I don't understand why there's this much debate over it.
I'm sorry, I was speaking about the same-sex marriage issue in general. I already stated this whole CFA thing is pretty stupid on it's face, and the business owner should be allowed to do whatever he wants to do.
what if you were gay?
Sexual preferences and differences should DEFINITELY be a protected class!
Why is this a much bigger issue than the boy scouts of america directly excluding gay people from its organization? The "oppression" in the BSA is way more marked - direct exclusion from the organization. CFA at least employs the gays.
it could oppress his profits, that's why Corporate-Americans want their C-U secret donations, aka "1st Amendment speech", to remain secret speech, so Human-Americans can't backlash/boycott them.
This gay-hater's experience only encourages Corporate-Americans to make sure their political "speech" remains secret.
Who's that?
Sexual preferences and differences should DEFINITELY be a protected class!
He listed his donations on his tax return, dumbass.
If I were gay, I wouldn't care about what Mr. Cathy says, and would enjoy his tasty nuggets
Warren Jeffs
"Liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal"
Why is it that you are so easy to exploit? Doesn't that make you feel silly?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
