Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals

I really enjoy reading articles on Michelle Malkin and most of the time I agree with the piece. I was thrilled to see the author was Doug Powers, because I am not familiar with him at all. In his July 1st post, titled, “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals,” he is dead wrong.

Let’s get a little background. Powers quotes a post, on MSNBC:

Google plans to pay gay employees more

Google is set to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, according to a report in the New York Times.

The cost is largely to compensate these workers for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay. The increase will be retroactive to the beginning of the year, the newspaper said.

Google is not the first large company to make up for the extra tax, the Times reported, adding that Google’s move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, as they compete for the same talent.

If Google wants to pay deviants more, I say let them. Let consumers decide if they want to spend their money or use the services of a company that supports the “gay rights” agenda. Those that are offended can choose to take their business elsewhere.

However, this being said, if Google can legally discriminate against straight employees, then other businesses should have the right to choose their own policies as well. I’ve never understood the rationale behind the whole discrimination beef and all the laws and regulations that go along with it.

Let’s say I own a business and I have two employees. One is a married man with five children and a stay-at-home wife. The other is a single young man with no dependents, living at home with his parents. Both men are hard workers,  punctual and reliable. You feel blessed to have two dependable workers but you know that your married employee with five children is really struggling to support his family. You want to help by giving him a raise but the law says, if you give him a raise it’s “discrimination” unless  you also give your single young man a raise.

Stuff and nonsense. A business owner should have  the right to spend his own hard earned money any way he wishes. Years ago, a man could earn enough working on his own to support his family. Today, it takes a clever person to manage on one income. This is a direct result of the biased laws we have, which prevent employers from doing the right thing (if they want). Who wants to lose a hard worker, simply because he can’t make enough money?

We have more laws on the books that regulate everything under the sun. When is the government going to realize that businesses function best when market contraints dictate policy, rather than government intervention and manipulation.

Just a little something to chew on today.