RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business


Francis2004
#1
OK I want to know how Gay Marriage will further hurt small business. Whether a spouse is heterosexual or homosexual we still have a couple and no increase in people count ?

Give me hard proven stats not just hear say..

Quote:

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

AP News : RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

So if your a man and marry a woman.. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."


 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
#2
If gay people cant start small business's whatever better chances my small business will do well lol
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#3
Francis, Steele is talking through his hat, as usual. What he says doesn’t make sense. Gay marriage will burden small businesses? When why wouldn’t a heterosexual marriage do that?

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage. To claim that gay marriage will hurt businesses but heterosexual marriage wouldn’t, is sheer bigotry, rank prejudice.

The only argument against gay marriage is a religious argument. And Right wing is losing the argument as far as gay marriage is concerned. USA used to be opposed to gay marriage by 65% to 35%. But recent polls put the opposition at 55%, a big movement towards gay marriage. A few more points and it will be dead even.

Younger generation in USA support gay marriage by a big margin. Steele’s nutty argument won’t convince anybody, except those who already oppose gay marriage.
 
VanIsle
#4
How are we supposed to know that the two people running the business are gay anyway? When you walk into a store where there is a man and a woman running it, do you automatically assume they are a married couple? Do you care? I don't go to a business because of it's owner's. I go for what I want/need to purchase. I don't see what their marital status has to do with that or with me. Would I avoid the business if I knew ahead of time that it was being run by a couple of gay guys? No. I go to where I can get what I want. As long as the owners treat me well, that's all I need to know.
 
TenPenny
#5
I was trying to understand what the Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was doing, discussing gay marriage anyway.
 
tracy
#6
I don't think they are saying gay marriage hurts businesses financially but straight marriages don't. They are saying gay marriages will be another financial burden to businesses by forcing them to provide more benefits to more people. That's true. Whether you support gay marriage or not, you shouldn't deny the obvious truth.
 
VanIsle
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

I don't think they are saying gay marriage hurts businesses financially but straight marriages don't. They are saying gay marriages will be another financial burden to businesses by forcing them to provide more benefits to more people. That's true. Whether you support gay marriage or not, you shouldn't deny the obvious truth.

Am I understanding you to say that a gay or straight "couple" (legally married or not) would result in extra benefits? I really don't get that. My husband and I opened a business a few years back. We did not declare it as a partnership but the bank we borrowed money from, pencilled in the words "partnership". We went under. Revenue Canada was on our backs instantly. We went to two accounting firms both of which told us to be prepared to lose our home and everything we owned. We were in shock. By the time this occurred, my husband was working at another job because the writing had been on the wall for sometime. We knew we were going down. He met someone on that job that was an accountant in another province. That marvelous person took it upon himself to spend hours at our local library studying the business laws for BC. In the end it was the non declaration of "partnership" that saved us. So being a couple was not for us - it was against us.
We kept our home and all else. We paid our debts and we did not declare bankruptcy. We were not a burden to anyone. So again, I don't see where business and benefits enter into anything because of a marriage. Maybe I am mis-understanding you.
 
tracy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

Am I understanding you to say that a gay or straight "couple" (legally married or not) would result in extra benefits? I really don't get that. My husband and I opened a business a few years back. We did not declare it as a partnership but the bank we borrowed money from, pencilled in the words "partnership". We went under. Revenue Canada was on our backs instantly. We went to two accounting firms both of which told us to be prepared to lose our home and everything we owned. We were in shock. By the time this occurred, my husband was working at another job because the writing had been on the wall for sometime. We knew we were going down. He met someone on that job that was an accountant in another province. That marvelous person took it upon himself to spend hours at our local library studying the business laws for BC. In the end it was the non declaration of "partnership" that saved us. So being a couple was not for us - it was against us.
We kept our home and all else. We paid our debts and we did not declare bankruptcy. We were not a burden to anyone. So again, I don't see where business and benefits enter into anything because of a marriage. Maybe I am mis-understanding you.

You are misunderstanding both me and the RNC chairman. The marriage issue has nothing to do with employers' marital status. It has to do with the marital status of employees. Here in the US, benefits like health insurance are provided through your job. As a single woman, my employer pays for benefits for me and me alone. If I were married, they would have to pay for benefits for me and for my husband. The more spouses and dependent children employees have the more expensive it is for the employer to provide benefits. Currently the majority of companies don't provide benefits for same sex partners (though some do). If SSM becomes the law of the land, they'd have to provide more benefits since presumably some gay employees would choose to marry and their spouses would use the benefits as well. Health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, drug coverage, bereavement leave, family sick leave, etc. are all benefits that either extend to spouses or are currently unusable for gay couples. That's where the cost of operating a business would increase.
 
coldstream
#9
I don't think this is a very constructive approach for opponents of homosexual marriage. 'Gay' marriage is wrong because it is immoral. No law or court ruling will ever change that. The reduction of marriage, the foundational unit of our social organization, into an absurdity, will have such wideranging and deliterious effects on our society, that stating it will hurt small business is trivial to the point of inconsequence. It would be better to state that it will be a key accelerant in unravelling our civilization, and with it our economic welfare and peace.
 
gerryh
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I don't think this is a very constructive approach for opponents of homosexual marriage. 'Gay' marriage is wrong because it is immoral. No law or court ruling will ever change that. The reduction of marriage, the foundational unit of our social organization, into an absurdity, will have such wideranging and deliterious effects on our society, that stating it will hurt small business is trivial to the point of inconsequence. It would be better to state that it will be a key accelerant in unravelling our civilization, and with it our economic welfare and peace.


You keep making these broad sweeping statements against SSM.... how about you supply more detail.... back up your slander.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

I don't think they are saying gay marriage hurts businesses financially but straight marriages don't. They are saying gay marriages will be another financial burden to businesses by forcing them to provide more benefits to more people. That's true. Whether you support gay marriage or not, you shouldn't deny the obvious truth.

It's more like marriages are a financial burden to businesses. Financially there's no difference between a gar marriage and a hetero marriage. As far as adding to the number of marriages in total, yup. But then so would an increase in population add to the number of marriages. What the people in this article are saying is just smoke. It isn't grounds for not hiring gay people.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I don't think this is a very constructive approach for opponents of homosexual marriage. 'Gay' marriage is wrong because it is immoral.

Is that fact or just your opinion? If it's fact, prove it. Of it's your opinion, big deal. Lotta people have opinions.
Quote:

No law or court ruling will ever change that.

In a secular society, law is what counts. Opinion and superstition doesn't cut the mustard.
Quote:

The reduction of marriage, the foundational unit of our social organization, into an absurdity, will have such wideranging and deliterious effects on our society, that stating it will hurt small business is trivial to the point of inconsequence. It would be better to state that it will be a key accelerant in unravelling our civilization, and with it our economic welfare and peace.

Baloney.
 
TenPenny
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

'Gay' marriage is wrong because it is immoral. No law or court ruling will ever change that.

It's hard to change a statement that makes no sense and has no defensible meaning.
 
tracy
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

It's more like marriages are a financial burden to businesses. Financially there's no difference between a gar marriage and a hetero marriage..

That's what I said

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

As far as adding to the number of marriages in total, yup. But then so would an increase in population add to the number of marriages. ..

On a population level sure, but, it wouldn't increase the number of married employees as a percentage of the workforce. THAT's what will cost employers more and that's what gay marriage will do.

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

What the people in this article are saying is just smoke. It isn't grounds for not hiring gay people.

There are no grounds for not hiring gay people. That would be illegal. What he's saying is true though. It will likely add cost to employers' benefits plans. The real question is should that matter at all? Is financial cost a reason to deny someone equal rights? I'd say no, but I don't deny the fact that it will increase employers' expenses.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

That's what I said



On a population level sure, but, it wouldn't increase the number of married employees as a percentage of the workforce. THAT's what will cost employers more and that's what gay marriage will do.



There are no grounds for not hiring gay people. That would be illegal. What he's saying is true though. It will likely add cost to employers' benefits plans. The real question is should that matter at all? Is financial cost a reason to deny someone equal rights? I'd say no, but I don't deny the fact that it will increase employers' expenses.

I doubt that the comments were simply stated for financial reasons, though. Sounds to me the comments had an underlying motive to give people reason to not hire gays.
 
earth_as_one
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It's hard to change a statement that makes no sense and has no defensible meaning.

I think it means he is a homophobic bigot.

What two consenting adults do with each other sexually is none of my business, unless I'm one of them or in a relationship with one of them. Morality is a individual viewpoint. You'd think from the protests of the homophobes, they were being forced to engage in homosexual activity.

Legally, the debate is over. History of homosexual rights in Canada:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/same-sex-marriage-canada
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

I think it means he is a homophobic bigot.

What two consenting adults do with each other sexually is none of my business, unless I'm one of them or in a relationship with one of them. Morality is a individual viewpoint. You'd think from the protests of the homophobes, they were being forced to engage in homosexual activity.

Legally, the debate is over. History of homosexual rights in Canada:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/same-sex-marriage-canada

In case it escaped you, EAO, the article is about comments from someone in Georgia, USA.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I don't think this is a very constructive approach for opponents of homosexual marriage. 'Gay' marriage is wrong because it is immoral. No law or court ruling will ever change that. The reduction of marriage, the foundational unit of our social organization, into an absurdity, will have such wideranging and deliterious effects on our society, that stating it will hurt small business is trivial to the point of inconsequence. It would be better to state that it will be a key accelerant in unravelling our civilization, and with it our economic welfare and peace.

There is only one thing to say to religious bigots: "We can measure the damage done by rapists and murderers, but we have no way to assess the damage done by the self righteous." - Allan Watts

At the end of the Roman Empire, homosexuality was common and accepted. The empire eventually morphed into the Roman Catholic Church. Could this account for the penchant for some priests boinking little boys and why their senior staff run around in crimson dresses? In case you are a fundie, just remember that it was Constantine who gave us the Catholic church and the bible.
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#19
Well I'm against all marriage then if it is going to cost me money!!! If people want to get married they should pay for it themselves. It's a waste of time, money and a pointless ancient ritual anyway.
 
tracy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

I doubt that the comments were simply stated for financial reasons, though. Sounds to me the comments had an underlying motive to give people reason to not hire gays.


It has nothing to do with whom an employer chooses to hire (discrimination against gays in hiring is already against the law). The underlying motive is to provide an excuse for people to remain against gay marriage becoming legal even if they have no strong moral objections. SSM is the issue, not hiring practices.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#21
I think it means he is a homophobic bigot.

Bingo, Earh_as_one, you got it.

Legally, the debate is over.

It is over in Canada, but it is just beginning in USA. Until now SSM opponents had the upper hand but that is beginning to change. If 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage it is quite possible that in liberal states like New York, Massachusetts or Vermont, majority of people support SSM.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#22
There is only one thing to say to religious bigots: "We can measure the damage done by rapists and murderers, but we have no way to assess the damage done by the self righteous." - Allan Watts

That is a good one, Cliffy. A murderer or a rapist will murder (or rape) one person, perhaps several. Self righteous will murder hundreds of thousand or millions (like crusades or medieval witch burnings), they will rape thousands (as they did in Bosnia, the Christian Serbs used rape as a weapon against Muslim Bosnians).
 
Francis2004
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

I doubt that the comments were simply stated for financial reasons, though. Sounds to me the comments had an underlying motive to give people reason to not hire gays.

I have to agree.. Financially the point does not stand water as a spouse being male or female in a heterosexual relationship will cost just as much if not more if the spouse does not work and have their own benefits.. In a gay relationship it is more then likely that both will have job and benefits, so the excuse is more one of pitting small business to not hire gays in fear of added expenses and nothing more..
 
tracy
#24
Currently gays are cheaper to hire. Hiring gays would not add an expense, hiring married people adds expense.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

There is only one thing to say to religious bigots: "We can measure the damage done by rapists and murderers, but we have no way to assess the damage done by the self righteous." - Allan Watts


You give new meaning to the term "religious". Regardless, there is another applicable quote by Watts:

"In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all."

Kinda sounds like you Cliffy.


Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

At the end of the Roman Empire, homosexuality was common and accepted.

To quote L Gilbert: "Baloney"

Certainly it occurred, but it was not mainstream in any form. No different than any European, Middle Eastern or Eastern culture.



Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The empire eventually morphed into the Roman Catholic Church.

To quote L Gilbert: "Baloney"

You have such a hard-on for the Vatican that you can't see straight Cliffy. The church was 'founded' during this time, no different than the religious underpinnings that developed during Henry VIII's time... But then again, perhaps you believe that any philosophy that grew during Hank's time promotes butchering all your wives.



Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Could this account for the penchant for some priests boinking little boys and why their senior staff run around in crimson dresses? In case you are a fundie, just remember that it was Constantine who gave us the Catholic church and the bible.


Care to comment on other cultures/religions or spiritual followings like select North American Indian tribes that sodomized young children, butchered the men and elderly and enslaved the women/children of their enemies, scared the faces of the women they raped/sodomized in order to permanently announce to the world that they were defiled or the myriad of other mutilations or disfiguring tortures that were common at the time.

What do ya say Cliffy? How are you going to blame the Vatican for these heinous and savage acts?
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Francis2004 View Post

OK I want to know how Gay Marriage will further hurt small business. Whether a spouse is heterosexual or homosexual we still have a couple and no increase in people count ?

Give me hard proven stats not just hear say..



gay marriage won't hurt small business at all. The direct benefits afforded to employees by an employer exist to attract and retain employees. If the costs become prohibitive, then the programs cease for all.

Similarly, the opportunity also exists for employers to treat their employee base the same way that Walmart does in limiting the number of full-time employees via the allowable working hours and limiting benefits to only full-time employees.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#27
Well Capt.
You have no idea what I believe or don't believe and I was responding to coldstream's comments. I wasn't talking about religion but the self righteous. Is that what stuck in your craw?

Oh, and you forgot to mention cannibalism among West Coast tribes.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#28
Cliffy,

You've made it exceedingly clear what your beliefs are regarding anything related to the Vatican. That in itself is fine, however, perpetuating lies specifically intended to incite hatred in this case earns you the same identity as any run-of-the-mill bigot that gets off on slandering blacks or Jews.

As far as this remarkable comment: I wasn't talking about religion but the self righteous. Think about re-reading your post and then get back to me on the aforementioned comment.

You sure speak freely about acceptance and education of select identifiable cultures, but all that benefit is wiped-out the very moment that you post contemptuous lies targeted at those cultures/groups you deem unworthy.
 
coldstream
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

There is only one thing to say to religious bigots: "We can measure the damage done by rapists and murderers, but we have no way to assess the damage done by the self righteous." - Allan Watts

The most self righteous people in our society now those who have alligned themselves with the precepts of moral relativism and radical individualism, the fundamental character of modern, liberal thought which has gained complete ascendance in our society over the last 40 years.

They have turned themselves into a secular belief system that is as bigoted and prejudiced as any Church ever was and as zealous in persecuting those who do not submit to their code. It has overturned a moral system that has existed since the start of the Western Civilization, and in fact represents a paradigm that is revolutionary and anti thetical to Christian and Western thought and values. Where this will take us is unknown, but it will be far from the utopia of free thought and action that its sophistry proclaims. It will lead to a tyranny.

Quote:

At the end of the Roman Empire, homosexuality was common and accepted. The empire eventually morphed into the Roman Catholic Church. Could this account for the penchant for some priests boinking little boys and why their senior staff run around in crimson dresses? In case you are a fundie, just remember that it was Constantine who gave us the Catholic church and the bible.

Well that's right. Homosexuality, atleast in a legitimate and celebrated form, is a known symptom of civilizations and institutions that have been corrupted, are in imminent decline, and have lost all sense of right or wrong, up and down, good and evil.

The prime directive becomes one of sensual gratification and morbid self absorption. The Catholic Church to which i ascribe to has in fact been infected this same dissolution, invaded many feel, in a concerted attack on its integrity and in its priesthood.

That does not mean that its fundamental teaching authority and revelation in lessened, or are less True. It's attitudes to homosexuality and marriage are well known and have never been compromised. It just means material elements of it have been contaminated by its necessary openness to the society to which is pastors. Chaos and Darkness will always attempt to subvert, by any means, that which aspires to Truth and Light.

As for your comments that the Roman Empire morphed into the RCC, i'd say check your history. The Roman Empire was prime persecutor of Christianity. Western Civilization, of which the universal Church, in its undivided form, was formative, in fact grew from the ashes of a pagan civilization which completely collapsed by the 5th Cent. A.D... overrun by rapacious tribes. The world remained in the Dark Ages for hundreds of years before anything resembling civilization re-ermerged.
Last edited by coldstream; May 21st, 2009 at 01:28 PM..
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

It has nothing to do with whom an employer chooses to hire (discrimination against gays in hiring is already against the law). The underlying motive is to provide an excuse for people to remain against gay marriage becoming legal even if they have no strong moral objections. SSM is the issue, not hiring practices.

There are lots of ways to get around the discrimination laws in hiring people. You think that employers still don't hire family, friends, & favored people over the able stranger? Anyway, the motive was probably to cause bias against gays. And as they were comments about employees of businesses, the bias was pointed at gay employees.