Comments on: Why Google’s plan to provide healthcare coverage for partners of homosexual employees is a bad idea http://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea Faith strengthened through evidence. Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:39:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Impious Bastardhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-739 Impious Bastard Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:19:14 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-739 Well, after all, I am IMPIOUS Bastard...lol. =P Well, after all, I am IMPIOUS Bastard…lol.

=P

]]> By: Slammin' Sammyhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-736 Slammin' Sammy Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:15:47 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-736 IB, how can you reject the words of Jesus? IB, how can you reject the words of Jesus?

]]> By: Impious Bastardhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-733 Impious Bastard Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:17:49 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-733 Then that's one parable I won't be giving credence to. Then that's one parable I won't be giving credence to.

]]> By: Slammin' Sammyhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-732 Slammin' Sammy Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:42:48 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-732 I don't think your post makes any material differences between the parable and the Google example. I agree with you that the Google practice is disciminatory and one I personally would complain about if I worked at Google. But the parable is clear in it's message, don't complain to the boss if he cuts an unfair deal with another after you agree to a deal with him. I don't think your post makes any material differences between the parable and the Google example.

I agree with you that the Google practice is disciminatory and one I personally would complain about if I worked at Google.

But the parable is clear in it's message, don't complain to the boss if he cuts an unfair deal with another after you agree to a deal with him.

]]> By: kai5263499http://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-731 kai5263499 Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:20:29 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-731 The difference in this case is that it is retroactive and only available to a select group of people the company deems to be special. It is not a merely matter of agreed upon compensation but a systemic bias against a lifestyle (marriage). Like I mentioned above, if a heterosexual married man working at Google were to suddenly decide to divorce his wife and abandon his children and, instead, move in with a gay lover. He would suddenly be eligible for additional compensation merely for his change in lifestyle, regardless of his work. Therefore to make the analogy in Matthew 20:1-16 fit you would have to add in an additional section where the owner asks the sexual orientation of the workers and pays the homosexuals more merely because he thinks the state is discriminating against them. The difference in this case is that it is retroactive and only available to a select group of people the company deems to be special. It is not a merely matter of agreed upon compensation but a systemic bias against a lifestyle (marriage). Like I mentioned above, if a heterosexual married man working at Google were to suddenly decide to divorce his wife and abandon his children and, instead, move in with a gay lover. He would suddenly be eligible for additional compensation merely for his change in lifestyle, regardless of his work.

Therefore to make the analogy in Matthew 20:1-16 fit you would have to add in an additional section where the owner asks the sexual orientation of the workers and pays the homosexuals more merely because he thinks the state is discriminating against them.

]]> By: Slammin' Sammyhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-730 Slammin' Sammy Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:46:31 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-730 If you work for Google and were happy with your agreed upon compensation, you shouldn't worry if I different group after you receives a better deal, regardless of whether it's deserved or not. If you work for Google and were happy with your agreed upon compensation, you shouldn't worry if I different group after you receives a better deal, regardless of whether it's deserved or not.

]]> By: Wes Widnerhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-728 Wes Widner Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:51:40 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-728 Hows that Sammy? Hows that Sammy?

]]> By: Slammin' Sammyhttp://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/07/16/why-googles-plan-to-provide-healthcare-coverage-for-partners-of-homosexual-employees-is-a-bad-idea/comment-page-1#comment-727 Slammin' Sammy Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:08:40 +0000 http://reasontostand.org/?p=1469#comment-727 Matthew 20:1-16 comes to mind upon reading your post. Matthew 20:1-16 comes to mind upon reading your post.

]]>