>>> On Nov 9, 5:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>> Jaybyrd wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 10:51 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it
>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the  social legitimacy of
>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer
>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married
>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples
>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these
>>>>>>>>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce.   But they do
>>>>>>>>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term.  So that surely
>>>>>>>>> makes you glad.
>>>>>>>> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples
>>>>>>>> if they want to. That's their business.
>>>>>>> And it's good business
>>>>>> Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
>>>>> businesses already can choose what benefits to provide.  
>>>> .. and they should be able to choose who to provide them to. If a
>>>> business is run by someone who finds 'gay partnerships' repugnant, then
>>>> of course  he/she should be able to exclude those partnerships from any
>>>> benefits packages he wants to provide to normal, respectable married
>>>> couples.
>>> Not "gay partnerships", domestic partners.  
>> Gay, straight, asexual, formally married or just shacking up, etc. -
>> it should be up to the business owner to decide who they want to
>> provide benefits to.

> and it is now, even in states that recognize gay marriage.