Page 121 of 193 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131171 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1201
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    11-19-16 @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,370

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    People can already share things and not be legally married.
    And they loose out on financial advantages married couples have.
    Last edited by EnigmaO01; 06-27-15 at 09:58 AM.

  2. #1202
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

    There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.
    That's the exact opposite of why a government marriage license exists. Remarkable.

    With government sanctioned marriages and licenses, companies are free to ignore or delay providing services or accommodation to anyone who doesn't have the license. It's why gay couples want the government sanction. But if nobody had the government sanction, everyone would be able to enter into their own contracts and have those contracts honoured and if they're not honoured then the institution or business that doesn't honour them is subject to the civil courts for remediation and punitive damages.

    You support government sanctioned discrimination while I don't.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  3. #1203
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,890

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Why should a company have to recegnise any relationship? What contract does your spouse sign with your employer which then obligates the employer? What service does your non-employee spouce provide to the buisness which then entitles your spouse to compinsation?
    Personally, I support a UHC, which would make such things pretty much go away. But there are other things that employees consider when it comes to legal spouses, which are actually negative in general, for those legal spouses. However, there is one that applies for legal spouses as their benefit, that being FMLA.

    The current laws though do mandate that certain employees be offered medical/dental insurance through their place of employment, and that include spouse and children. Whether you agree with that or not, it still only applies to legal spouses. This is a benefit for society. But even if it was just an incentive, not mandated, the employer still should not be able to decide which spouses they would offer it to or not, rather than either offering it for all spouses or none (for that specific job position).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #1204
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    11-19-16 @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,370

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Wait - are you calling churches "retards"? Don't you think that's a little much?

    I have no use for religion, but millions of people do, and lots of people on this board do.
    Only the one's that are retards by sabotaging their tax exempt status. Is that better?

  5. #1205
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,890

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    That's the exact opposite of why a government marriage license exists. Remarkable.

    With government sanctioned marriages and licenses, companies are free to ignore or delay providing services or accommodation to anyone who doesn't have the license. It's why gay couples want the government sanction. But if nobody had the government sanction, everyone would be able to enter into their own contracts and have those contracts honoured and if they're not honoured then the institution or business that doesn't honour them is subject to the civil courts for remediation and punitive damages.

    You support government sanctioned discrimination while I don't.
    No. I support protections for people to not be discriminated against by their jobs based on who they are married to. Employees should be able to offer medical insurance or not to their employees based on job positions, but not based on who you are in a relationship with as to whether that includes spouses. If it is offered to spouses for people in one job position, then everyone in that job position should have it offered to their legal spouses. But the employee should have to show that they have agreed to be with that person legally, to avoid fraud and because being legally married (not just cohabiting) has been shown so far to being a benefit for employers.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #1206
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    11-19-16 @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,370

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Really? You figured that out all on your own? They give power to the federal government, that is no where in the Constitution, so they make it up, they are idiots. If they make the right decision, I salute them. Hmm... that's brilliant, give yourself a gold star!

    I'd rather have you send me cash.

    Thank you.

  7. #1207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Personally, I support a UHC, which would make such things pretty much go away. But there are other things that employees consider when it comes to legal spouses, which are actually negative in general, for those legal spouses. However, there is one that applies for legal spouses as their benefit, that being FMLA.

    The current laws though do mandate that certain employees be offered medical/dental insurance through their place of employment, and that include spouse and children. Whether you agree with that or not, it still only applies to legal spouses. This is a benefit for society. But even if it was just an incentive, not mandated, the employer still should not be able to decide which spouses they would offer it to or not, rather than either offering it for all spouses or none (for that specific job position).
    You didn't answer the question.

  8. #1208
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,890

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You didn't answer the question.
    You didn't ask any question.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #1209
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No. I support protections for people to not be discriminated against by their jobs based on who they are married to. Employees should be able to offer medical insurance or not to their employees based on job positions, but not based on who you are in a relationship with as to whether that includes spouses. If it is offered to spouses for people in one job position, then everyone in that job position should have it offered to their legal spouses. But the employee should have to show that they have agreed to be with that person legally, to avoid fraud and because being legally married (not just cohabiting) has been shown so far to being a benefit for employers.
    So then the argument that gay marriage would effect no one is a lie since it affects business in commerce and in benefit decisions. It should be noted that each transaction has no connection to each other and thus there is no reason to force employers to treat them equally.

  10. #1210
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    And they loose out on financial advantages married couples have.
    So? Again, why is it that everyone focuses on the benefits?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •