**As an employer I would be happy to argue against gay marriage due to the added cost for “benefits” that I would be forced to pay in many state. **
In what way would your potential costs be increased over employing only heterosexuals, unless you require your employees to remain single? Every one of your heterosexual employees could go out and get married to someone with 10 children tomorrow or decide to take up skydiving on a motorcycle as a hobby. You cannot control the “riskiness” of your employees’ private lives.
Actually, to use the argument of risk, I would think that one would be in favor of same sex marriage as opposed to promoting a potentially promiscuous (and therefore) more risky lifestyle by denying the opportunity for marriage (at least as much as marriage actually cuts down on riskiness of lifestyle for homosexual or heterosexual couples–depends on their level of commitment and attitude towards fidelity).
** Further, as a private employer, I don’t like the whole concept of being told I have to insure whole classes of people that I don’t want to insure if I insure another class that is a legitimate group. It also takes away my incentive to even go into business for myself as the government dictates its opinions to me and I am not allowed to disagree with them, even if they bankrupt me!**
Depends entirely on how many people you employ as to what parts of the EEO Act applies to you.
eeoc.gov/employers/overview.html as well as whether and which benefits you are required to provide to your employees.
vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr_page=3&ch_id=402&article_id=7122211&cat_id=1301
One makes a decision on whether to go into business based on a number of factors, including ability and willingness to comply with
laws.
Companies already use a variety of strategies to avoid insuring people or manage the costs—refusing to offer insurance, independent contractors, temporary employees, giving a certain “allowance” that the employee can use toward his or her own insurance, offering differing rates to employees for employee, employee +1, employee +2 or more, etc.
Now, the reality of the market is that if you choose not to provide the benefits that others in your field are offering their employees you may have a harder time attracting and keeping good employees, but that is entirely your decision and has nothing to do with the government.
As a tax payer, I would be happy to argue against gay marriage due to the added tax burden I incur when government employees get outrageous benefits already and adding another benefit onto to list is going to cost me more.
Again, how would this increase your potential cost over the government only employing heterosexuals who may all marry or take up risky hobbies at any time they choose? This is not “adding another benefit.” The benefit already potentially exists for every employee.
