[narses]

Your company may be subsidizing the health insurance of "gays". Is there a cost to business for this? Do they pass that cost on to the "straight" employees?

[sinkspur]

Your company may be subsidizing the health insurance of "gays". Is there a cost to business for this? Do they pass that cost on to the "straight" employees?

So? I could care less. If they contribute to the welfare and profitability of the company, they deserve the same benefits I do.

My company does NOT provide for health benefits of domestic partners, gay or straight.

[WackyKat]

Your company may be subsidizing the health insurance of "gays". Is there a cost to business for this? Do they pass that cost on to the "straight" employees?

Companies also subsidize the health costs of people who are overweight, smoke, never exercise, eat nothing but junk food, and have all sorts of diseases as a result of their lifestyles.

But you don't get all twisted out of shape over that , do you?

No. it's just the gay employees you want to be bigoted against.

[August West]

Gays already have full legal equality. What they seek (and are quickly getting) is full legal and social sanction for their behaviour. Under this line of reasoning, child-molesters or murderers should also get such legal sanction. We all know that morality has no place in law.

[duckworth]

Lemme tell ya something about gaze in the workplace. Employers LOVE 'em. No kids to distract 'em. A compulsion about money so they can buy stylish junk, and this leads to job loyalty. A certain fastidiousness that makes them oh, so conscientious about detail. They put in their 25 or 30 years and then die when they're 49 of hepatitus or AIDS or something. Buh Bye! Next worker drone?

[Romulus]

Actually, my company subsidises the health insurance of married people -- or rather, it forces singles in its health plan to subsidise marrieds, shifting the preponderance of recent premium increases to the former.

[Cronos]

AlQ, come and get us, we really ARE becoming the BigSatan.