An editorial in the paper today takes issue with said the Sam Adams policy I discussed yesterday (see below), in the end claiming it only “…mostly stimulates resentment.” And yet, the editorial never does support, with any evidence, its claim that policies like these are not effective. And while I do agree with the disturbing consequence that this new policy may let employers who offer no benefits whatsoever off the hook, surely that should not be an argument against equality.
To congratulate the half of the Fortune 500 companies that have been business savvy enough to know that they should offer domestic partner benefits is lovely, of course, and I never begrudge a pat on the back. But let’s recognize that it is not only the right thing to do, but also for their own good. Those half of the richest corporations that do not offer equal rights, should be more chastised than those celebrated for their common sense. And yet, this policy is not about chastisement. It’s about simple ethical commitment.
Not being able to afford to offer benefits is not an adequate excuse. If that worker had been heterosexually married, you would indeed offer benefits. Does that mean you hire only unwed or homosexual workers so that you can better serve your few married employees? If so, that is clearly discrimination…to married people.
Would you do business with a company that treated its workers unfairly? Well, we probably all do to a certain extent, but when Denny’s bars African-American patrons, or a store unfairly fires a friend, or any myriad of injustices are performed by big business, I’d like to think our moral values would end our shopping there. I would ask to same of our fair city.
