Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Marriage Equality is good for Business

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 9:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I suport gay marriage and not for this reason. But, one benefit about nation wide legalization of gay marriage is that it is good for business.

In states without gay marriage, gay employees do not receive the same benefits for their spouse. This makes it tough for companies to relocate gay employees to states without gay marriage. This also makes it tough for companies in states without gay marriage to recruit gay employees.

I think even if you are against gay marriage it you should support it if you are for efficient business.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 10:47:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 9:51:31 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I suport gay marriage and not for this reason. But, one benefit about nation wide legalization of gay marriage is that it is good for business.

In states without gay marriage, gay employees do not receive the same benefits for their spouse.
Are businesses barred from offering them?
This makes it tough for companies to relocate gay employees to states without gay marriage.
True, but the issue is only gays that anticipate getting married, as well.

This also makes it tough for companies in states without gay marriage to recruit gay employees.
This would apply to every business in the state equally, wouldn't it?
If anything, the chances of transfer would increase the recruitment, IMO.

I think even if you are against gay marriage it you should support it if you are for efficient business.
This is a dangerous rationale for two reasons:
1. I am not sure what business issues the state imposes on gay employees that makes this an issue. I assume you'd have a hard time relocating a gay employee in Westboro Baptist Church land, even if Kansas allowed gay marriage.
2. The same argument could be made about any personal or business issue from any state, like tax rates or legal status of marijuana.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 11:34:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 10:47:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/8/2015 9:51:31 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Are businesses barred from offering them?

Yes, well most benefits like insurance and pensions that apply to spouses have a requirement of marriage. Sure, there may be some way to have a clause or something where it applies to unmarried gays. But, proving this would require a burden. I am really unsure about the extent of trouble it would be to legally "get around" gay marriage and the burden this would be to the company and employee.

True, but the issue is only gays that anticipate getting married, as well.
Or gays the are currently married. For example a company wants re-locate or recruit a high potential gay employee. But he does not go because he is married.

This would apply to every business in the state equally, wouldn't it?
If anything, the chances of transfer would increase the recruitment, IMO.

What do you mean by chances of transfer. Yes, this would hurt every company in the state. It would also hurt the company and country as a whole even if it does business out of state.

This is a dangerous rationale for two reasons:
1. I am not sure what business issues the state imposes on gay employees that makes this an issue. I assume you'd have a hard time relocating a gay employee in Westboro Baptist Church land, even if Kansas allowed gay marriage.
2. The same argument could be made about any personal or business issue from any state, like tax rates or legal status of marijuana.

Yeah, but this issue unfairly affects gays.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 2:09:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 11:34:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/8/2015 10:47:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/8/2015 9:51:31 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Are businesses barred from offering them?

Yes, well most benefits like insurance and pensions that apply to spouses have a requirement of marriage. Sure, there may be some way to have a clause or something where it applies to unmarried gays. But, proving this would require a burden. I am really unsure about the extent of trouble it would be to legally "get around" gay marriage and the burden this would be to the company and employee.

How is it any more of a burden than supplying a marriage certificate or trusting your employee?
Target offered insurance to "domestic partners" long before same sex marriage was legalized. Delta/NWA offer benefits in the form of "X tickets to whoever you wish", as opposed to "your spouse".
There is nothing preventing companies from doing this of their own free will. In fact, big business loves regulations, so they may well want this for their own competitive edge.

True, but the issue is only gays that anticipate getting married, as well.
Or gays the are currently married. For example a company wants re-locate or recruit a high potential gay employee. But he does not go because he is married.
And, married couples don't rethink this in "community property" states, as well?


This would apply to every business in the state equally, wouldn't it?
If anything, the chances of transfer would increase the recruitment, IMO.

What do you mean by chances of transfer. Yes, this would hurt every company in the state. It would also hurt the company and country as a whole even if it does business out of state.
Working for a company that has offices elsewhere can be an incentive for people who want to get away from their state may opt to leave.


This is a dangerous rationale for two reasons:
1. I am not sure what business issues the state imposes on gay employees that makes this an issue. I assume you'd have a hard time relocating a gay employee in Westboro Baptist Church land, even if Kansas allowed gay marriage.
2. The same argument could be made about any personal or business issue from any state, like tax rates or legal status of marijuana.

Yeah, but this issue unfairly affects gays.
Irrelevant.
The issue is, as far as the business is concerned (i.e. business regulations), it is a non-issue and they currently have the power to do what they want.
What? State X doesn't allow for gays to have a "married" insurance policy? Okay, then the company can set up an HSA for the spouse that can't get insurance otherwise.
Problem solved. This is only an issue if the company makes it one (i.e. offers insurance to families as well).
My work here is, finally, done.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 4:52:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well the gays would not have a problem with this if they married someone who was of the opposite sex like everybody else is required to .
The laws don't say that you can't get married if you are gay. Your sexual orientation is not relevant according to the law. You can marry a lesbian or a bi-sexual, or a straight a man who dresses like a woman, etc.
If you are not already married, what you have a right to , is a consenting adult of the opposite sex.
What your gay man is doing now is saying that the law won't allow him to marry his bend-over buddy, and the law does this because the legislators who wrote this hate gay people, therefore the law is unconstitutional.
Cut the crap Brucie, what you want to do is something that nobody was allowed to do a few years ago.
If a straight guy who had an underaged bride or a bride from a different species wanted freedom of choice, and thus wanted to rewrite a law so he could marry his lover, nobody would let him do this.