Comments on: RNC Chief: Gay marriage hurts small business

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:15:59 +0000

As a small business owner for over 30 years I can tell you the most expensive person to cover for insurance is a woman of child bearing age. Do we not hire these women to save on insurance. Do we not hire older employees? Do we not hire employees with existing health problems? Please, please, please Mr. Steele make this a platform for the Republican party.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:38:16 +0000

So…by corollary to this arguement, if it is cheaper to hire gay employees, small businesses should be clamoring to hire an all gay staff to heighten their profitability. However you look at it, that ain’t happenin’, so if money were the only consideration the arguement might have some credence (no matter how discriminatory), but since that is obviously NOT the case, Michael Steele has once again stuck his foot in his mouth and twisted things around to support his own discriminatroy bias. Normally, I can see both sides of the arguement even if I don’t agree with one side or the other, but frankly, this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:20:04 +0000

RNC have some cheese with your whine!

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:32:39 +0000

Re: Michael Steele,

Massachusetts was hurting economically before marriage equality. Marriage equality has been a boon to businesses in MA both big and small bringing them additional cash and MA itself additional tax revenue since equality brings all kinds of spending in the process of getting ready for weddings, having the weddings and then the parties and honeymoons after the weddings.

And Michael Steele is just being a homophobic jerk plus he is merely playing up to the fears and biases of his antigay conservative base for his future political gain.

And the more he yaks, the more his photo of him beaming is kept before the public eye. He used to have a mean look in his photos, now he smiles for the camera showing off his pearly teeth along with a devilish gleam in his eyes. Ah, the look of political ambition on that man’s face.

By: Budbud

Budbud — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:43:53 +0000

This is so…ludicrous! We should discourage stable relationships in order to save money?

Now there’s some “family values” for you!

Something tells me that Steele wouldn’t defend the “money” as paramount if ALL of those gays were to marry someone of the opposite sex!

What if every gay guy started marrying every gay girl, JUST FOR THE BENEFITS? I’d love to see what Steel and his ilk would say about that?

What’s so disturbing here is that he THINKS this is a less offensive argument against gay marriage, when in fact…it’s actually MORE offensive.

At least when thumpers oppose gay marriage for “religious beliefs”, it’s irrational beliefs they at least THINK are noble.

Steeles lovely argument is just gutter and smacks of encouraging greedy capitalist to “cash in” by hiring gays…because you know, you can have them work for you and not have to worry about paying all those costly spousal benefits!

If that’s your argument Mr. Steele, then I suppose businesses who are concerened about “the bottom line” shouldn’t even consider straight employees? Right? Let’s pass a law banning gay marriage AND giving first dibs to gays in ALL employment! That would REALLY save some coin!…

Mr. Steeles new, “pragmatic” argument against gay marriage is an argument for discrimination, purely for the sake of others being able to EXPLOIT that discrimination for monetary gain!

And here I thought the GOP was trying to shed or at least white wash it’s long held image as the party that cares about the monied interest more than “the people”?

Classy Mr. Steele! Very classy!

By: Kris

Kris — Sat, 23 May 2009 07:30:58 +0000

I have a feeling that when the republican party crumbles into pieces, the republicans will blame Michael Steele for the demise of their party. “because he’s black” shhhhh!!!

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:02:42 +0000

This is funny — but then again, if it is a republican belief, their Chairman has said it to be true…thus…we GLBT People need to ban together, and support only GLBT Businesses…large and small! We turn to our GLBT Businesses to donate to our causes…but do we support the businesses? This is important for small business, not marriage!

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:05:08 +0000

I’m sure he would have used the same argument regarding paying people to work.

By: Jarod

Jarod — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:40:21 +0000

why doesn’t he just make rules to block rights and benefits from people with differnt coloured skin too… oh wait a minute that’s already been done.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:00:32 +0000

As a small business owner, I have to echo what Julia said. While I’d cover my employees’ families if I could afford to (gay or straight), it just isn’t feasible for my business. And some small businesses do even less, requiring the employee to pay part of their own premium. It is more likely large businesses which might find themselves in this position — the ones who’ve negotiated themselves the lowest group rates. It’s a completely fallacious argument.