Gay Unmarried couples get health benefits - Straight woman sues.

[dmp]

...get this...because her living-in-sin boyfriend is denied health benefits. If her Boyfriend were a 'girl'friend, the benefits could NOT be denied.

Yeah - Remember when we conservatives preached 'slippery-slope' to homophiles about giving people special rights based on their behaviour?

We were f'ing RIGHT.

Straight Woman's Civil Rights Complaint Brings Complex Questions

OLYMPIA - One of the first tests for Washington state'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.

"We have to proceed very, very cautiously because we could be creating new policy for employers and other entities in the state," Brenman said Tuesday.

The complaint, filed last week, is one of four that have spawned full-fledged investigations under the sexual orientation section of Washington's antidiscrimination 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.

Scott-Moore did not return phone messages seeking comment about the complaint, which The Associated Press obtained through a state open records request.

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.

"We believe the claim filed with the Washington State Human Rights Commission is without merit and plan to vigorously defend our position," Ferris wrote.

The state law at issue was expanded earlier this year, when state lawmakers added sexual orientation to an existing law that prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, lending and insurance. It went into effect in July.

The measure was aimed squarely at protecting Washington's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. But its language is broader, banning any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Joseph Fuiten, chairman of the conservative Faith and Freedom Network, said opponents of the gay rights measure predicted scenarios such as the Honeywell-related complaint.

"(Gays and lesbians) basically said, 'Treat us fair, treat us the same as everybody else,"' Fuiten said. "I don't know how you're going to get around treating heterosexuals the same."

Brenman said the commission has been deliberate with the Honeywell complaint, including outreach to state pension and insurance regulators and planned meetings with private businesses to discuss the policy implications.

"In order to finish the investigation, we're going to have to figure out what the policy is," Brenman said. He added: "There's a big controversy about this, and we're going to have to work through it."

Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for the gay-rights firm Lambda Legal, said similar cases have been raised elsewhere without much success. But the group generally supports efforts that are aimed at ending discrimination, she said.

"It's marital status discrimination. You're telling people, in essence, they will be paid less" because they can't get the same benefits, Pizer said.

The three other complaints being investigated under the law, according to records provided by the commission:

-Harborview Medical Center security guard Tyler Joseph Miller, who said he was harassed on the job because he is openly gay. A Harborview spokeswoman declined to discuss personnel issues but said the hospital thoroughly investigates discrimination claims.

_Van Ethan Levy, who said he quit a job at Olympia's Best Buy store because of harassment over his female-to-male transgender status. A spokeswoman for the retailer declined specific comment but said the company does not tolerate discrimination.

-An unfair housing allegation from G. Jane Spencer-Watkins, who said she was harassed and evicted from a Gig Harbor RV park because she is transgender. A manager at the park declined comment, and a message left for a property manager was not immediately returned.

Special Rights for Homosexuals = idiotic legislature. I'm bothered by how Liberals seem hell-bent on the destruction of our society in the (false) name of 'equality'. It's not equality. It's forcing the majority to accept/condone the behavior of the minority.

 

[GotZoom]

I can't wait to hear how people are going to explain that it is perfectly fine to discriminate against non-married, "opposite-gender" couples.

"(Gays and lesbians) basically said, 'Treat us fair, treat us the same as everybody else,"' Fuiten said. "I don't know how you're going to get around treating heterosexuals the same."

Herein is the rub. They were being denied benefits just like the non-gay and lesbians were. They were being treated the same.

Guess the truth is starting to rear it's ugly head.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's one of the reasons why gays should either be allowed to marry or recieve all the benefits and responsiblities of a marriage. Then this whole situation could have been avoided.

 

[GotZoom]

That's one of the reasons why gays should either be allowed to marry or recieve all the benefits and responsiblities of a marriage. Then this whole situation could have been avoided.

The situation could have been avoided had they not be given health benefits.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here's what I bet happened. The employer and (obviously) the employee both believe that gays should have equal rights, including marriage. Problem is, the laws of their state don't allow for marriage, along with marriage benefits, between gays. Since the law provided no process by which the gay couple would have been eligable for the extended health coverage because the law didn't allow marriage, the employer agreed to extend the benefits as if they were a married couple because the employee was and is unable to get married. Had the state provided a legal process by which the gay couple could have assumed the rights and responsibilites of marriage, then I doubt the employer would have provided any benefits had the couple remained unmarried.

 

[OCA]

Here's what I bet happened. The employer and (obviously) the employee both believe that gays should have equal rights, including marriage. Problem is, the laws of their state don't allow for marriage, along with marriage benefits, between gays. Since the law provided no process by which the gay couple would have been eligable for the extended health coverage because the law didn't allow marriage, the employer agreed to extend the benefits as if they were a married couple because the employee was and is unable to get married. Had the state provided a legal process by which the gay couple could have assumed the rights and responsibilites of marriage, then I doubt the employer would have provided any benefits had the couple remained unmarried.

Tough shit then, no benefits for the "other".

 

[GotZoom]

Here's what I bet happened. The employer and (obviously) the employee both believe that gays should have equal rights, including marriage. Problem is, the laws of their state don't allow for marriage, along with marriage benefits, between gays. Since the law provided no process by which the gay couple would have been eligable for the extended health coverage because the law didn't allow marriage, the employer agreed to extend the benefits as if they were a married couple because the employee was and is unable to get married. Had the state provided a legal process by which the gay couple could have assumed the rights and responsibilites of marriage, then I doubt the employer would have provided any benefits had the couple remained unmarried.

So you are justifying discriminating against the straight couple?

 

[Mr.Conley]

So you are justifying discriminating against the straight couple?

Nice straw argument.

 

[GotZoom]

Nice straw argument.

Thank you.

Now perhaps you would like to share with us your reasons that the straight couple should win their lawsuit?

 

[jillian]

So you are justifying discriminating against the straight couple?

How is it discriminating? She can get married.... if he's really a life partner, that is.

I am curious as to what group "encouraged" her suit.

 

[dmp]

How is it discriminating? She can get married.... if he's really a life partner, that is.

Maybe she 'cant' get married? Maybe it's against her personal beliefs? Why make her conform?

 

[mattskramer]

If special consideration is to be given to married individuals (the spouse or partner of an employee), allow gay couples to be married or at least allow for civil union for gay couples so that they have same ease of access to the same benefits.

This is all so simple to me. Allow Civil Unions for gays. Stipulate that “civil union” certificates are to be treated the same as marriage licenses. People who are “civil unionized” should be treated the same as married couples with respect to employment benefits. If you are not in a civil union (practically the same as a gay marriage) or a marriage, your partner is not entitled to the health insurance coverage that he would get if you were married or unionized. It is as simple as that.

_____________________________________

Side Question:

(A.) Do you think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people of different religions? You choose your religion don’t you?
(B.) Do you think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people of different races? You can’t choose your race can you?
(C.) Do you think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people of different sexual orientations?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Thank you.

Now perhaps you would like to share with us your reasons that the straight couple should win their lawsuit?

Oh, they're probably going to when. If you give an unmarried couple- any unmarried couple- benefits not available to other unmarried couples, then your discriminating. Plus, Washington state can't allow all unmarried couples, both straight and gay, to recieve benefits because the practicalities of such an arrangement are staggeringly impossible to even think about. This is going to get overturned.

These unmarried straight couples are in pretty much the same situation as gay couples who aren't allowed to marry or enter into a civil union. The government is denying them equal protection and opportunity. The only optionin both cases is either to scrap the benefits entirely or open it equally.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why on earth does the government have to even be involved? If a company doesnt offer benefits to gay partners. Who the heck is the government to tell them they have to? And if they want to, who the heck is the government to tell them they cant?

This benefits crap is merely a red herring in the gay marriage debate.

And btw there is a very logical reason why gay partners wouldnt be covered on a health plan. The homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy. Hence, it would cost more to cover them. And most companies arent going to put up with the extra costs.

When are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves. You make choices. You choose to live that way. There is no reason others should be paying so you can pretend to avoid the negative consequences of your choices.

 

[Semper Fi]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dmp again."

Since when does equality mean more rights to one group than the other? Here's dictionary.com's definition of equality: the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. Here is is for equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.

Liberals preach equality constantly, but they dont follow through. As far as I'm concerned, LIBERAL is synonomous for HYPOCRITE.

 

[Hobbit]

Just sweep the government aside and let the company handle it. The truth comes out when people's wallets are on the line.

Here's a few of the dirty truths that come out when PC isn't the first thing on people's minds:

The Red Cross rejects blood from anyone who has engaged in homosexual intercourse since the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic.

On average, it costs more to insure a man's car.

Physical testing standards for the military are lower for women.

Some types of medicines are perscribed not only on the basis of the disease being treated, but also on the patient's race.

Despite that oh-so-good idea of Title IX, schools practically have to beg girls to participate in athletics. The line to get into a men's athletic program goes out the door. (At my school, the University of Arkansas, basketball, football, baseball, and track are about all the men's athletics we can afford because of Title IX. The girls, on the other hand, have gymnastics, soccer, swimming, volleyball, etc.)