Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fwdude

Well, they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

If they don’t cover unmarried “domestic partners” of the opposite sex, then they can’t be intellectually honest, and say they demand coverage of same for same sex partners. Now that same-sex can get married, they need to get married to get these benefits. What’s fair is fair.


3 posted on 12/29/2016 3:37:40 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dilbert San Diego

I would say that it is more than intellectual honesty - it would be discrimination to provide coverage for unmarried gays but not unmarried heterosexuals.


10 posted on 12/29/2016 5:04:15 PM PST by gnawbone (McCain and Graham - leave us adults alone - we know what we're doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson