Posted on 12/21/2010 12:22:53 PM PST by Stourme
I have a question about the homosexual agenda for FR. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But I am an employer.
So what I would like is the potential legal argument surrounding homosexual marriage based on these condition.
1. All sex is a choice.
2. Having the desire for another man does NOT mean someone has to engage in sexual acts with that person. Again it's a choice.
3. I do not accept homosexuality as normal. Engaging in homosexual acts shows a decided weakness in someone's character, morals, and judgment.
4. Allowing homosexuals the right to marry would force employers like myself to subsidize this behavior through having to provide benefits and other accommodations to their homosexual partner.
5. I am unwilling to do this.
What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?
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.
I would think, as an employer, you have the right to provide whatever benefits you choose.
Except in MA.
Here, because gay marriage is legal you have to provide equal coverage to that of traditional (real) married folks.
In addition, you may have to provide health benefits.
Take a look folks.....this is the crap thats coming to your neck of the woods.
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??
That is correct. Perhaps a few years in a remote facility, with the proper instruction, will lead you to see the error of your faulty thinking and bring you in line with the correct/approved thinking. Correct thinking will be rewarded while incorrect thinking will be severely punished. Resistance is futile.
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...
Or not hire homosexuals at all, as someone else said. (In some states this may be illegal discrimination, but in most states it isn’t.)
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.
Yeah, anybody who forces their sexual preferences into an interview... either not all there or looking for a lawsuit.
HomoUsa is looking for any precedent they can get before they get cast into political Siberia, where they belong, in ‘12.
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.