RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

[Francis2004]

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..

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]

If gay people cant start small business's whatever better chances my small business will do well lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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]

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]

I was trying to understand what the Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was doing, discussing gay marriage anyway.

 

[tracy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

'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]

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 ;-)

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.