Posted on 08/23/2006 8:35:50 AM PDT by sionnsar
Straight woman seeks equality under gay-rights law:
Unwed Redmond worker wants her male partner to receive health benefits
One of the first tests for Washington's new gay civil rights law has an intriguing twist: The complaint was filed by a heterosexual woman.
The state's discrimination watchdogs are investigating the case, which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.
But officials are treading carefully, Human Rights Commission Director Marc Brenman said, because upholding the claim could set a sweeping new precedent for Washington businesses.
...
The complaint, filed last week, is one of four that have spawned full-fledged investigations under the sexual orientation section of Washington's anti-discrimination law.
It was signed by Sandi Scott-Moore, a Redmond-based employee of manufacturer Honeywell International. Scott-Moore claims health insurance coverage for her male partner was denied because the unmarried couple is not of the same gender.
...
Honeywell spokesman Robert Ferris said the company does provide health benefits for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees and has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination. But the company disagrees with Scott-Moore, he said in a statement.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at kingcountyjournal.com ...
Welcome, and thanks for opening the liberal Pandora's Box!
This is priceless.
This is why gay marriage is the end of marriage. Once you say that all discrimination is bad, you can no longer have values as a society since all values essentially discriminate among many different choices.
Hope so!! I just spent hundreds getting my two's teeth cleaned!!
claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.
Straights have an option to marry. Gays don't
claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.
Straights have an option to marry. Gays don't
I was just talking about this with a neighbor the other day. I wondered if two friends living together could get the domestic partner deal if they weren't homosexuals! Too funny.
This is great!
The next step is equal rights for unmarried heterosexual domestic partners of the same sex. (Is it enough to be of the same sex or do you have to sleep together?)
Ya gotta love it!!!
LOL!
If they deny the claim then they confirm it is special rights for certain sexual behavior.
Gays can't marry. Straights can.
straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.
Straights have a marriage option. Gays don't. Discrimination could be claimed by both.
Mark
Veterinary benefits for live-in cats or dogs can't be far behind.
Would someone explain to this 66 year old republican grandmother what harm is done by allowing domestic partners some basic rights of inheritance, hospital visits etc.
We're not talking SS survivor benefits or anything like that. Please explain why it would be discrimination to a straight gal when that straight gal could simply marry if she wished, something gays are not allowed to do. End of story unless ofcourse the whole issue is to bash gays and deny them everything at all costs.
Anyone who truly feels threatened by gays have some issues of their own which are far more threatening to society than some gays who get some basic rights. No gay couple ever threatened my 40 year marriage and they never will.
I also resent those who claim I'm not a good republican for supporting some basic rights for gays. That claim reminds me of Lieberman being defeated by the far left for his tough stance on terrorism and the wars against islamofascism.
Is there no room in the party for varying views?
This gonna be good. Reverse:Reverse discriminations?
Where is the discrimination when the gal can simply marry.
She has a choice, gays don't
I have no problem with the above. Marriage, however, is between a man and a woman.
Homosexuals can marry.
Homosexuals can marry members of the opposit sex.
There is no "love test" for marriage under the law.
There is no "recreational sex test" for marriage under the law.
It still stands, homosexuals have special rights if the woman is denied because their benefits are based on a recreational sex behavior.
It is a win either way.
If normal people have the benefits then the program becomes cost prohibative and is dropped for all such "behavior" behavior based programs.
In fact it should be extended to include cohabitating polygamous groups. Their behavior has just as much right as the homsosexuals and normal people.
They want "diversity" fine, time to pay for it.
It is called a will.
They have that now.
It is called a cohabitation agreement, $24.95 at your local Office depot or free on the internet.
Homosexuals have the same legal rights as anyone else. They contiue to demand SPECIAL rights based on the fact that members of the same sex like to pop orgasms inside members of the same sex for fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.