Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Some) companies CHOOSE to cover domestic partners of their employees. Nobody is forced by the government to do so; it's a free-market benefit where a company believes it can sweeten the pot to potential employees and perhaps give them an edge over other companies. NO company would be forced to offer domestic partner benefits in any case, and rejecting the amendment would simply leave things exactly as they are now. However, passage of the Amendment would force companies to STOP offering benefits that they wanted to offer. If that's not "Big Brother" government interfering in the private affairs of business, I don't know what is.
When private companies or the government employers offer free-market benefits to their employees; we, the people, will always end up footing the bill. I don't want to pay the insurance for "friends" of employees of banks or the state or anyone else that chooses to pay the expenses of people that are not legally married. Every now and then, we, the people need laws that keep us from being abused by those that decide we should pay for others lifestyles. So if you want to "shack up" in North Carolina, pay for your "shacking rights" yourself.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-03-2012 at 09:23 AM..
When private companies or the government employers offer free-market benefits to their employees; we, the people, will always end up footing the bill. I don't want to pay the insurance for "friends" of employees of banks or the state or anyone else that chooses to pay the expenses of people that are not legally married. Every now and then, we, the people need laws that keep us from being abused by those that decide we should pay for others lifestyles. So if you want to "shack up" in North Carolina, pay for your "shacking rights" yourself.
Nor do I want to "foot the bill" for folks receiving free-market benefits from their employers who have narrow and bigoted views.
Can we that that on the ballot in Novemeber as well?
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-03-2012 at 09:23 AM..
Nor do I want to "foot the bill" for folks receiving free-market benefits from their employers who have narrow and bigoted views.
Can we that that on the ballot in Novemeber as well?
If you want to do this, just try to get it through the North Carolina legislature, put it on the ballot and see how it flies. LOL This bill is legal. The one you want would not be.
I understand that this is a state-wide issue, but voting will be done locally, so it's fine to discuss here. However, the expectation is that it will be discussed sanely, rationally and respectfully. Posts that steer the thread off-topic will likely be deleted, personal attacks will definitely be deleted, and if a political/religious "fire" DOES break out, I'll have no choice but to shut the thread down.
If you want to do this, just try to get it through the North Carolina legislature, put it on the ballot and see how it flies. LOL This bill is legal. The one you want would not be.
I think this bill is basically about what I stated in the post and I see it as a good bill and I don't understand anyone thinking this would keep any business that would be beneficial to our state out of North Carolina. I would think most businesses would be joyful of not having to decide whether anyone is eligible to be insured, etc., and know there is a legal ground to protect them from people that do not live by the law. Sometimes we just need things in writing so we can all know we are on the same page.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-03-2012 at 09:27 AM..
I think this bill is basically about what I stated in the post and I see it as a good bill and I don't understand anyone thinking this would keep any business that would be beneficial to our state out of North Carolina. I would think most businesses would be joyful of not having to decide whether anyone is eligible to be insured, etc., and know there is a legal ground to protect them from people that do not live by the law. Sometimes we just need things in writing so we can all know we are on the same page.
If I was opening a business that needed a talented pool of employees I would not open said business in a state that would be viewed by potential job applicants as less desirable because the state had passed such a discriminatory amendment. I would want to open my business in a state with an environment that was inviting to all people and didn't treat a portion of the population, some of whom may be my best employee prospects (ie. high ed, creative class work force) as second class citizens. I would open my business in a a more open minded state if Amendment One were to pass.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-03-2012 at 09:27 AM..
If I was opening a business that needed a talented pool of employees I would not open said business in a state that would be viewed by potential job applicants as less desirable because the state had passed such a discriminatory amendment. I would want to open my business in a state with an environment that was inviting to all people and didn't treat a portion of the population, some of whom may be my best employee prospects (ie. high ed, creative class work force) as second class citizens. I would open my business in a a more open minded state if Amendment One were to pass.
^^This.
More and more businesses are covering domestic partnerships.
NCN, you said this:
"I would think most businesses would be joyful of not having to decide whether anyone is eligible to be insured, etc., and know there is a legal ground to protect them from people that do not live by the law."
First of all, they always decide whether or not someone is eligible to be insured. And as noted above, they may not like said law - there are other states that would be happy to have their business and have those jobs.
(sometimes it is so hard to follow the guidelines...I try, I try...tongue is about to fall off from all of the biting)
More and more businesses are covering domestic partnerships.
NCN, you said this:
"I would think most businesses would be joyful of not having to decide whether anyone is eligible to be insured, etc., and know there is a legal ground to protect them from people that do not live by the law."
First of all, they always decide whether or not someone is eligible to be insured. And as noted above, they may not like said law - there are other states that would be happy to have their business and have those jobs.
(sometimes it is so hard to follow the guidelines...I try, I try...tongue is about to fall off from all of the biting)
Me too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
