Homosexual domestic partners already get fringe benefits in some states, even those without same-sex marriage. I think it’s the law in some states. Other employers just do it because they think it’s a good idea.
Check with labor lawyers in your state. Legally, you may be required to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners that you do to all of your employees.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but, this area of law is changing, and you could be hit with a major lawsuit, depending on the exact laws in your state.
Your title is poorly worded - you could get the zot if no one reads your text.
The legal right to not accept liberalism is not politically correct and thus you must be punished for not towing the Communist Party line.
Bob Cratchett never had any perks working for Scrooge.
In the past one hundred years employers have given benefits to encourage a bribe to hire the best worker possible.
It’s amazing how these items such as health insurance, retirement, education and more seem to taken as law rather than gifts.
Here I am talking like this with Christmas not far away.
Merry Christmas everybody.
What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?
____________________________________________
As far as I’m concerned, you have no legal obligation to explain why you did not hire a turd-burglering rump-ranger.
If at some point, you find you do have one in your employ, then use all the legal remedies at your disposal to resolve your problem.
Why are you asking this question??
Varies by state. In right-to-work states, I think you can terminate employees without cause. A friend of mine who was a employer in a right-to-work state said it’s best to say “Your services are no longer required” when showing an employee the door. It he demands and explanation, refuse. However, it’s risky if your state protects homos from discrimination. If a disgruntled former employee sues and can demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, you’re screwed. You should consult a local attorney to be sure.
#3, “....Engaging in homosexual acts shows a decided weakness in someone’s character, morals, and judgment.”
Verbatim what I said in a courtroom during jury selection here in Riverside, California a few months ago, and was told to leave the court. sed OK...buh bye.
FWIW
IOW as I’ve posted before the Left is ensconsed in the Judicial, Journalism, Academia, virtually everything, and the rules are theirs it seems anymore.
I think that all we can do is keep voting them out until we get true Americans into our political scene so we can reduce the Leftist monstrosity of a government, and get the little Hitlers the “H” out of our lives. IOW get the Leftist’s noses out of our shorts.
Don’t hire them.
I’d say don’t hire homosexuals if at all possible. Fire the ones you have. There is no (not yet, anyway) federal mandate to honor homosexuality above your beliefs.
States may take a different stance - I’d say leave any state that is Marxist enough to mandate obesience to sodomy and take your business to a sane state, and shake the dust from your feet as you leave. Refuse to do ANY business in such Marxist states and don’t buy any products or services from these states.
We must get as serious about this stiffling oppression as the homosexuals are about imposing the oppression.
If you live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, it will depend on whether your insurance plan is governed by your state’s insurance regs, those of the federal government, or those of some other state. If you are a small employer, it is likely governed by your state’s insurance regulations.
If your state recognizes same-sex marriage, and your insurance plan is regulated by that state’s insurance regulations, then in all likelihood “a spouse is a spouse” as far as the law is concerned, and I’m not sure you’d have any non-Constitutional recourse. I know this is true in Massachusetts, not sure about other states.
There are Constitutional arguments based on freedom to contract, freedom to associate, etc... but I’d consider them long-shots.
Of course, you’re always free to not offer spousal benefits at all...
The homosexual agenda in a nutshell:
(To the tune of the Dr. Pepper song)
I’m a homo
He’s a homo
Everyone should be a homo
Wouldn’t you like to be a homo too?
If the candidate is any good, and they happen to be gay, you’ll never know anyway.
If they make a point of mentioning their alternative lifestyle, they are looking to benefit from a lawsuit later.
It’s an employer’s market. There will always be someone else more qualified....
As a private employer, morality isn't the only reason not to insure them. They are a very unhealthy group to insure.
I think it depends very much on the state.
But clearly the best answer is not to hire them. Unfortunately, that’s not simple, since it would be a major mistake to inquire about it, or to let it even be suspected.
I would say that there are at least THREE degrees of homosexuality.
1. The inclination. This is a disorder, but if the person resists acting on it, then he avoids blame.
2. Homosexual acts. According to traditional belief and Christian moral teaching, this is wrong. But if practiced privately and quietly, it hurts mainly the perpetrators.
3. Homosexual activism. This is much worse in an employee. Someone who is vocal about homosexual rights, who pushes to change the law and is eager to sue anyone for hate crimes. This leads to unjust laws, teaching of homosexuality in the public schools, degradation of marriage, and all sorts of cultural evils.
You need to speak to a lawyer, and word the question carefully. Unless, of course, you are willing to go down in flames for your beliefs.
“Protected” groups have enlisted every possible level of government in their cause. They have what amounts to “secret shoppers” looking to out the various -phobes they oppose. It’s a minefield and you need a like-thinking pro to navigate the waters.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
I can assure you quite confidently it’s not a “choice” and I dislike being painted with the “turd-burglaring rump ranger” label. I didn’t just DECIDE one day “lol I wanna do this.” Hard to believe but yes there are conservative TBRRs out there who love God and guns as much as you guys do. Anyway, I have no answer to the question at hand but wanted to throw my 0,02 in because I’ve grown a little tired of the bashing that goes on around here.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
If I can figure your question correctly, The US has the right to determine who is recognized as legally married. We have said that Mormons can only have one wife at a time. We have made laws against marrying animals. We can and should state that it is illegal for a man to marry a man or woman marry a woman. The government has the right to determine who is able to marry. I isn’t necessarily a moral judgment for the government. For me, it is absolutely moral judgment, but the government is representative of who the people are,.......supposedly.
U.S. Legal Code
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.