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

Skip to comments.

Straight woman seeks equality under gay-rights law
King County Journal (Seattle area) ^ | 8/23/2003 | Curt Woodward

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: billofrights; civilunions; constitutionlist; govwatch; homosexualagenda; libertarians; samesexunions; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last
So, "Honeywell ... has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination," but will discriminate in providing umarried-partner benefits based on your partner's gender vis-a-vis your own.

Political Correctness ties itself in a knot again.

1 posted on 08/23/2006 8:35:51 AM PDT by sionnsar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libertina; trustandhope; lonevoice; Paperdoll; Maynerd; Bobsvainbabblings; moneypenny; ...
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

2 posted on 08/23/2006 8:36:15 AM PDT by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d, N0t Y0urs | NYT:Jihadi Journal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

All partnerships are equal, but some are more equal than others.


Gotta love their consternation.


3 posted on 08/23/2006 8:37:06 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
Liberals and the Gay Lobby have discovered the shoe's on the other foot. Oops!

( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

4 posted on 08/23/2006 8:37:21 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

catch 22.

If they deny the claim then they confirm it is special rights for certain sexual behavior.

If they grant the claim then they risk gutting the whole law.


5 posted on 08/23/2006 8:38:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Ah, the Law of Un-Intended Consequences arises AGAIN!.........I hope she wins.............


6 posted on 08/23/2006 8:38:54 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.

To do others would would be discrimination of sexual preference.

7 posted on 08/23/2006 8:39:02 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha


8 posted on 08/23/2006 8:39:08 AM PDT by eyespysomething (When you're Chuck Norris, anything + anything is equal to 1. One roundhouse kick to the face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

This little conundrum ought to give them nightmares.........


9 posted on 08/23/2006 8:40:04 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Isn't it great!

I almost fee like contributing to this gals legal defense fund.


10 posted on 08/23/2006 8:40:06 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

As one liberal once said with a straight face: "We simply won't tolerate intolerance."


11 posted on 08/23/2006 8:40:57 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

"upholding the claim could set a sweeping new precedent"
Nuts to the "precedent". Do what is right (asking too much of a leftist?).
These people on the left make me sick. They want greater rights, not equal rights.


12 posted on 08/23/2006 8:41:34 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Leftist policies don't work. They hurt those they pretend to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

She's gonna knock this out of the park.


13 posted on 08/23/2006 8:41:36 AM PDT by Terabitten (The only time you can have too much ammunition is when you're swimming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Veterinary benefits for live-in cats or dogs can't be far behind.


14 posted on 08/23/2006 8:42:43 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
because upholding the claim could set a sweeping new precedent for Washington businesses.

..I'm sure this very same statement was said awhile back, before Brokeback Mountain became the "norm", but because the "agenda" called for it, even though most Americans opposed it .....oh well, guess legitimate child porn is on the horizon

Doogle

15 posted on 08/23/2006 8:43:28 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF...68-73,,..."never store a threat you should have eliminated")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

WELCOME TO WASHINGTONISTAN!

We are, besides Louisiana, the most idiotic state in the country.

Our motto: "Doing everything we can to drive out business so that we can buy more lattes and kayak all day."


16 posted on 08/23/2006 8:44:14 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

laughs at the left. What are they going to do now?


17 posted on 08/23/2006 8:48:02 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob
Scott-Moore claims health insurance coverage for her male partner was denied because the unmarried couple is not of the same gender.

This gonna be good. Reverse:Reverse discriminations?

18 posted on 08/23/2006 8:48:06 AM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: longtermmemmory

Whoooo Hoooooo.

That's a good one they are twisted into.

I miss Washington, but its no longer the state I grew up in.


20 posted on 08/23/2006 8:48:56 AM PDT by zek157
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

This is a logical conclusion to the Gay Rights Agenda. Cohabitation will become equated with Marriage. And Child Support will be assigned to Men who cohabitate with Single Moms. This is already the case in Canada.

Gays should be entitled to protections under Civil Unions. The Whole Gay Marriage thing is a Red Herring. It is an attempt to get the Government to Sanction and endorse a Lifestyle. Personally we would be better off to get Government out of Marriage and the Family Alltogether. Government interference is destroying Marriage, due to No Fault Divorce and insane Subsidization of Single Moms.

So long as we reward Women who "Cash Out" for emotional Reasons. And not for Fault reasons, Physical Abuse, Non-Support, Drug or Substance Abuse, or Adultery we will continue to see Men avoid Marriage and refuse it.


21 posted on 08/23/2006 8:49:46 AM PDT by Khankrumthebulgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Why don't they just get married? Then there would be no problem with benefits.


22 posted on 08/23/2006 8:49:52 AM PDT by kellynch (Expecto Patronum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
Brilliant
23 posted on 08/23/2006 8:50:17 AM PDT by Edgerunner (The greatest impediment to world peace is the UN and the Peaceniks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

My dog says he wants to file a claim as soon as I teach him how to type.


24 posted on 08/23/2006 8:50:23 AM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
I was waiting for someone to file a suit like this. My own employer makes opposite-sex domestic partners jump through additional hoops that are not required for same-sex domestic partners. Opposite-sex domestic partners can't even enroll for benefits online, but same-sex DPs can do everything as if they were married.

I still remember the HR meeting I attended about the new benefits package:

ME: "Do you have to be gay to get the domestic partner benefit?"

little HR wonkette: "Oh, no, there's an opposite-sex DP benefit."

ME: "but what if I want a same-sex DP benefit, and I'm not gay?"

HR wonkette: "Um...you need to sign an affidavit that you're in a loving and committed relationship."

ME: "Does that mean if my marriage isn't loving and committed, my wife could lose benefits?"

HR wonkette: "I don't think I want to answer any more of your questions..."
25 posted on 08/23/2006 8:50:39 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
If they deny the claim then they confirm it is special rights for certain sexual behavior.
If they grant the claim then they risk gutting the whole law.

Exactly. This is why I think conservatives were 'wrong' in one sense on the gay marriage issue. We should have demanded full and equal rights AND full and equal responsibilities. That means gay divorce, gay alimony, gay child support, the whole enchilada.

It was only a matter of time until a straight couple sued for discrimination under these laws, and as a result, the laws are going to get gutted.

26 posted on 08/23/2006 8:51:21 AM PDT by Terabitten (The only time you can have too much ammunition is when you're swimming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Exactly! If I and my girlfriend live together as partners, why shouldn't we be able to claim domestic partner benefits? The law after all, is gender neutral and should apply across the board to unmarried couples, whether straight or gay.

( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

27 posted on 08/23/2006 8:53:16 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
Dear Honeywell,

This



is a petard

But, you already knew that, didn't you?
28 posted on 08/23/2006 8:53:55 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynch

Sure! But the system is set up making it unwise to get married ie: marriage tax penalty ect. They asked of it and now this is what they have. The ideal of marriage seems less important because of the asinine rules of modern society.


29 posted on 08/23/2006 8:55:18 AM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Khankrumthebulgar
"And Child Support will be assigned to Men who cohabitate with Single Moms."

That is the rule here too. I know several guys who pay for other mens kids.

30 posted on 08/23/2006 8:55:48 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

I'm waiting for the polygamous marriage insurance. Can you imagine, a guy with six wives and 25 kids gets family plan insurance from his company the same as a guy with 1 wife and 2.5 kids (or whatever the norm is these days). I see companies refusing to provide any insurance to anyone in the near future, this will further the advance of the government health insurance ala Hillary Clinton and burden the taxpayers even further.


31 posted on 08/23/2006 8:56:21 AM PDT by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten
Exactly. This is why I think conservatives were 'wrong' in one sense on the gay marriage issue. We should have demanded full and equal rights AND full and equal responsibilities. That means gay divorce, gay alimony, gay child support, the whole enchilada.

I don't know about the alimony, but we're already seeing the divorces and custody fights.
32 posted on 08/23/2006 8:56:48 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
So, "Honeywell ... has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination," but will discriminate in providing umarried-partner benefits based on your partner's gender vis-a-vis your own. Political Correctness ties itself in a knot again.

I actually think this was the intent of the homo "marriage" movement in the first place. The legal definition of marriage will be continually broadened until it becomes meaningless (not that homo "marriage" hasn't already rendered the legal definition meaningless).

Then legal marriage can be done away with altogether, and the traditional notion of the family as well. With the destruction of the family comes the transformation (i.e., destruction) of society. The State will then usurp the role of the family in society, resulting in a socialistic paradise.

I can't wait.

33 posted on 08/23/2006 8:57:27 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

Definitely, a plain view of Socialism at its best.


34 posted on 08/23/2006 8:58:55 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Why doesn't the woman marry her shack up?
She does have that option.


35 posted on 08/23/2006 8:59:03 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
I thoroughly enjoyed your logic. Good to know ya.
36 posted on 08/23/2006 8:59:14 AM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kellynch
Why don't they just get married? Then there would be no problem with benefits.

Some people think marriage sucks. I do.

37 posted on 08/23/2006 9:00:18 AM PDT by CAWats (And I will make no distinction between terrorists and the democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

38 posted on 08/23/2006 9:00:33 AM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

She is saying if she is treated under the same rules as the homosexuals then she does not HAVE TO marry her sex partner.

Homosexuals are entitled to benefits based on their recreational sex conduct, therefore she should be able to have the same benefit based on her sexual conduct.

IOW show me the money.


39 posted on 08/23/2006 9:40:39 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pookyhead

40 posted on 08/23/2006 9:42:53 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Sex discrimination.

Most large companies already give benefits to heterosexual "partners".


41 posted on 08/23/2006 9:44:23 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

actually these cases are old news.

Generally, the straight people win.


42 posted on 08/23/2006 9:50:13 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
43 posted on 08/23/2006 9:59:24 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

I have been waiting for this to happen for years.

For those asking why she doesn't just marry the guy...she may just be trying to prove a point.


44 posted on 08/23/2006 10:06:03 AM PDT by Tex Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

One wonders what the legal definition of a "homosexual" is, and more importantly perhaps, how is it proven in court?


45 posted on 08/23/2006 10:09:43 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Goose, meet Gander

46 posted on 08/23/2006 10:09:43 AM PDT by MrEdd (More cheep than a flock of baby chickens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

"laughs at the left. What are they going to do now?"

Go along with it and take on the cause for having unweds who cohabitate receive bennies.

They will push this with all their might because it will be good for them politically.

Question is, what will Conservatives say? Because it now puts us into a position where the left will be pressing for equal rights of all.

Careful what you ask for. You might just get it.



47 posted on 08/23/2006 10:10:12 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("If you liked what Liberal Leadership did for Israel, you'll LOVE what it can do for America!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

Just another step to universal health care. It's part of the Lib/soc plan.


48 posted on 08/23/2006 10:16:15 AM PDT by stubernx98 (cranky, but reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

My company has domestic partner benefits for unmarried gays or straights, provided they can demonstrate that they have lived together for more than one year and share expenses.


49 posted on 08/23/2006 10:25:48 AM PDT by Clemenza (Now its dark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Watch how many so-called judges who once ruled that gay-related domestic partner benefit restrictions were wrong because they were "discriminatory" will now rule that it is O.K to discriminate against the woman in this suit. Rule of "men" instead of rule of law.

In Liberalism, hypocrisy is the only rule.

In Liberalism, if a solution fits the result you want, it's right, and there are no other values or principles worth consideration. Of course that leads to the eradication of any real social contract of the people, with all results adjudicated by a elite judicial oligarchy, but, in fact, that is what the Marxists have trained the idiot Liberals to provide.

For the Marxists, the well-trained and indoctrinated judiciary is the vanguard of the proletariet, to achieve what the people would never agree to in their legislatures.


50 posted on 08/23/2006 10:37:13 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

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.

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