Reply #13: Because that's NOT what Federal law says. [View All]

[justin899]

They're just using that as an excuse to deny coverage.

This is similar to the disparity between what some companies pay men and women.

A pay package includes not only salary but also benefits. In fact many people choose to work at specific companies because of their benefits package instead of the salary scale. I would submit that denying same-sex couples the same beneifts they offer to opposite-sex couples is even more egregious because they don't even try to hide their prejudiced policy. The person who is not allowed to add his or her spouse onto the companies health coverage because of the gender of their spouse is doing the same work but is getting paid substantially less. That is just WRONG!

"Why should an employer have to pay out benefits (it's costly) to employees when federal law says that those employers do not have to do so?"

Because two people doing the same job should receive the same pay.

Furthermore, federal law does not mandate that private companies provide spousal health benefits to opposite sex employees. The company does that of their own volition.

It would be analogous to explicitly telling a woman that they will only pay them 60% of the amount they pay men based solely on their gender.

"but when the federal law says it is illegal to do so?"

It isn't illegal under the federal law they're citing (the law they're citing pertains only to the federal government, not private employers). They're just using that as a lame excuse.

It is legal for them to do this, but just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and paying gay employees less than their heterosexual counterparts sends a message that their gay employees aren't valued as much as their heterosexual employees. And I find that disgusting and won't allow my money to go to companies that engage in such despicable practices.