Skip to comments.Straight woman seeks equality under gay-rights law
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 ...
All partnerships are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Gotta love their consternation.
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
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.
Ah, the Law of Un-Intended Consequences arises AGAIN!.........I hope she wins.............
To do others would would be discrimination of sexual preference.
ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha
This little conundrum ought to give them nightmares.........
Isn't it great!
I almost fee like contributing to this gals legal defense fund.
As one liberal once said with a straight face: "We simply won't tolerate intolerance."
"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.
She's gonna knock this out of the park.
Veterinary benefits for live-in cats or dogs can't be far behind.
..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
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."
laughs at the left. What are they going to do now?
This gonna be good. Reverse:Reverse discriminations?
That's a good one they are twisted into.
I miss Washington, but its no longer the state I grew up in.
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.
Why don't they just get married? Then there would be no problem with benefits.
My dog says he wants to file a claim as soon as I teach him how to type.
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.
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
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.
That is the rule here too. I know several guys who pay for other mens kids.
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.
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.
Definitely, a plain view of Socialism at its best.
Why doesn't the woman marry her shack up?
She does have that option.
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.
Most large companies already give benefits to heterosexual "partners".
actually these cases are old news.
Generally, the straight people win.
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.
One wonders what the legal definition of a "homosexual" is, and more importantly perhaps, how is it proven in court?
Goose, meet Gander
"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.
Just another step to universal health care. It's part of the Lib/soc plan.
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.
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.
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.