Google expands benefits for employees in same-sex relationships to cover "gay tax" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23114789]Affirmative action is bullshit and should not be legal.[/QUOTE] sincerely, a white male

good intentions but it'll backfire on them

[QUOTE=Glaber;23115171]Zeke, this is going to sound a bit odd, but I'm siding with you on this issue.[/QUOTE] I hereby change my stance on the issue [editline]08:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;23115187]They aren't discriminating against a group, they would be if they [i]didn't[/i] cover same sex couples.[/QUOTE] It's the law that's discriminating. People should be campaigning to change the law instead.

[QUOTE=Aman V;23114768]Does that mean if I get a job at google if I fake being gay I get paid more? hmmmm[/QUOTE] I was thinking of this because I could get out of a draft as well...but the bastards repealed don't ask don't tell. How am I supposed to get out of my obligations now!?

[QUOTE=Aman V;23114768]Does that mean if I get a job at google if I fake being gay I get paid more? hmmmm[/QUOTE] No, you have to get a domestic partnership.

Talk about going gay for the pay

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23115061]Google may be compensating for an unjust law, but they are discriminating against a group of people to do so.[/QUOTE] You think straight couples should have their nonexistent tax paid for? Let me guess, you also think that if a health plan covers cancer, the employees who don't have cancer should be paid the same amount of money as it costs to have cancer treated? Do you think men should be given maternity leave? I don't think you understand the idea of a health plan here.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23115342]I hereby change my stance on the issue [editline]08:35PM[/editline] It's the law that's discriminating. People should be campaigning to change the law instead.[/QUOTE] The extra pay is covering a law discriminating against gays because Google thinks the tax shouldn't exist. In essence, Google is putting straights and gays on equal footing, financially speaking. How is that discrimination?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23115342]I hereby change my stance on the issue [editline]08:35PM[/editline] It's the law that's discriminating. People should be campaigning to change the law instead.[/QUOTE] Campaigning for the change does nothing in the short term to help the people who are already paying the tax. This helps them until the law is changed.

[QUOTE=Aman V;23114768]Does that mean if I get a job at google if I fake being gay I get paid more? hmmmm[/QUOTE] If you can fake a entire marriage, then yes.

[QUOTE=Baldr;23115761]If you can fake a entire marriage, then yes.[/QUOTE] No you will be given expanded benefits to cover the tax you would normally have to pay.

[QUOTE=TH89;23115507]You think straight couples should have their nonexistent tax paid for?[/quote] What? I DO have a problem with the law. It isn't fair that gay couples should have to pay an extra tax just because they're not married in the traditional sense. But Google IS extending a benefit to one group of people based on their sexuality, and I have a problem with this. [QUOTE=TH89;23115507]Let me guess, you also think that if a health plan covers cancer, the employees who don't have cancer should be paid the same amount of money as it costs to have cancer treated? Do you think men should be given maternity leave?[/quote] Men [b]can[/b] take parental leave as well. And about the cancer thing, see next point [QUOTE=TH89;23115507]I don't think you understand the idea of a health plan here.[/QUOTE] I will admit that I misunderstood exactly what was going on when I made my first post in the thread (and I feel the people rating me agree have the same misunderstanding, especially given what I now know), but my underlying issues with this are still the same. The issues being that Google is giving a benefit to one group of employees based on sexuality that other groups of people do not have a chance of using. (Which is what makes this different than your cancer analogy) And again, I do not support this tax in any way. I just don't support Google's method of counteracting it either.

[quote]that other groups of people do not have a chance of using.[/quote] Yea, they do.

Good on you, Google [editline]11:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;23115342]I hereby change my stance on the issue [editline]08:35PM[/editline] It's the law that's discriminating. People should be campaigning to change the law instead.[/QUOTE] I see this as Google making a huge statement towards changing the law, personally

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116033]I will admit that I misunderstood exactly what was going on when I made my first post in the thread (and I feel the people rating me agree have the same misunderstanding, especially given what I now know), but my underlying issues with this are still the same. The issues being that Google is giving a benefit to one group of employees based on sexuality that other groups of people do not have a chance of using. (Which is what makes this different than your cancer analogy)[/QUOTE] If straight couples also had to pay the tax, Google would cover it. But they don't, so Google won't. If single straight employees had to pay the tax, Google would cover it. But they don't, so Google won't. If single gay employees had to pay the tax, Google would cover it. But they don't, so Google won't. But gay couples DO have to pay the tax, so Google is going to cover it, in addition to the many other case-specific medical expenses they cover. This Is How Benefits Work

[QUOTE=yawmwen;23116061]Yea, they do.[/QUOTE] In a different capacity.

[QUOTE=TH89;23116259]If straight couples also had to pay the tax, Google would cover it. But they don't, so Google won't. If single straight employees had to pay the tax, Google would cover it. But they don't, so Google won't. If single gay employees had to pay the tax, Google would cover it. But they don't, so Google won't. But gay couples DO have to pay the tax, so Google is going to cover it, in addition to the many other case-specific medical expenses they cover. This Is How Benefits Work[/QUOTE] Like I said, the end result is fine but I don't like the means with which they get there. Though someone else did say that this signals Google's disapproval of the law and that's great. They're a huge employer and they definitely hold some sway.

[QUOTE=Glaber;23115171]Zeke, this is going to sound a bit odd, but I'm siding with you on this issue.[/QUOTE] why would we care about that

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116290]Like I said, the end result is fine but I don't like the means with which they get there.[/QUOTE] Except you said it's discrimination based on sexuality and it's not

[QUOTE=thisispain;23116311]why would we care about that[/QUOTE] I think he's using reverse psychology and trying to get me to change my mind.

[QUOTE=TH89;23116388]Except you said it's discrimination based on sexuality and it's not[/QUOTE] yeah you goofball

[QUOTE=thisispain;23116311]why would we care about that[/QUOTE] It makes it clearer who's wrong? [editline]03:42AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;23116390]I think he's using reverse psychology and trying to get me to change my mind.[/QUOTE] No, privileged conservatives have been pushing the "affirmative action is racism" bullshit hard enough that a lot of people actually believe it now I don't blame you for being suckered in by it

[QUOTE=TH89;23116388]Except you said it's discrimination based on sexuality and it's not[/QUOTE] Discrimination is different treatment for a specific group of people, and gay couples have different sexuality than straight couples. It's a harsh term since nobody is actually being victimized (which is usually required for the casual use of the word) but it's hardly wrong. [editline]09:44PM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;23116403]No, privileged conservatives have been pushing the "affirmative action is racism" bullshit hard enough that a lot of people actually believe it now I don't blame you for being suckered in by it[/QUOTE] How are minority quotas not racist? And don't blame me for starting an affirmative action debate in a thread about google, I only intended it as an analogy

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116430]Discrimination is different treatment for a specific group of people, and gay couples have different sexuality than straight couples. It's a harsh term since nobody is actually being victimized (which is usually required for the casual use of the word) but it's hardly wrong. [editline]09:44PM[/editline] How are black people quotas not racist? And don't blame me for starting an affirmative action debate in a thread about google[/QUOTE] You have no idea what discrimination is.

[QUOTE=BobbyDigital;23116458]You have no idea what discrimination is.[/QUOTE] Thank you for explaining your position

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116486]Thank you for explaining your position[/QUOTE] Taking part in discussions around here has taught me one thing. There is no point in trying to argue with a person who does not see the full scope of their own ideas. You believe affirmative action should not be legal, but you will never admit that such a stance is racist. I genuinely feel sorry for the fact that you have been brainwashed by conservative propaganda.

[QUOTE=thisispain;23116311]why would we care about that[/QUOTE] More importantly, why would a conservative being against something that supports homosexuals be odd to anyone?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116430]Discrimination is different treatment for a specific group of people, and gay couples have different sexuality than straight couples. It's a harsh term since nobody is actually being victimized (which is usually required for the casual use of the word) but it's hardly wrong.[/QUOTE] "Gay couple" isn't a sexuality

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116486]Thank you for explaining your position[/QUOTE] It is better to treat everyone at different levels, then to treat them as equals.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;23116430]How are minority quotas not racist? And don't blame me for starting an affirmative action debate in a thread about google, I only intended it as an analogy[/QUOTE] [url]http://books.google.com/books?id=xay3h0tWzzAC&lpg=PP1&ots=n1M3TUZtr1&dq=bonilla%20silva&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url]