“some couples win, some have the penalty. ”

yes, that was my point. and it’s not something you appeared to understand until i pointed it out in a separate comment. some gay couples are better off being taxed as individuals, some are not. if you’re desparate to have gay couples treated the same as hetero couples for tax purposes, great, but I have a feeling many gay couples would appreciate maintaining the status quo.

“I only pointed out that denying gay couples the right to equal status under the rules is, well, unequal treatment. And your statement is totally disingenuous. ”

No, you didn’t “only” point this out in your last post. You see how the second sentence belies the first? You also accused me of not arguing in good faith because. God only knows why, but it’s probably because I’m reaching a conclusion contrary to yours.

And if your “only” point was that treatment of people differently is unequal treatment, then congratulations on such a fresh new idea.

I am not saying you claimed “all” benefit from federal tax regulations regarding marital status. I only pointed out that denying gay couples the right to equal status under the rules is, well, unequal treatment. And your statement is totally disingenuous. I don’t know how I could be any clearer. But let me try once again, some couples win, some have the penalty. And tax rules should not discriminate because of sexual orientation.

Here is my original comment, read carefully.

jake, your continued insistence on pressing that marriage penalty argument is off the mark. Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer. Obviously some, maybe most, benefit. So asserting that gay couples do not suffer because they are not allowed to take advantage of federal tax rules is just wrong. Some gays would benefit, some would pay the penalty. I know you will not change your opinion regarding same sex marriage, but jesus, please argue in good faith.

you wrote:
Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer.
* * *
Show me where I said ALL married couples suffer from the marriage penalty. As I stated in my comment, it is “not necessarily” the case that married couples attain “improved tax status.”

Respecting civil liberties means giving people breathing room to think, say, and do things that you dislike. These girls are the victims of bigots. It kind of sucks, but at some point, bigots have a right to their keep and act upon their bigoted beliefs. I hope you’d agree that they have the rights to be bigots in their own homes. I would agree that they do not have the right to be bigots when hiring and firing employees. Somewhere in between is a gray area, and this case falls into that third category.

I respect your position and the moral force behind it. But I disagree with your conclusion.

Also, check out the Kamehameha schools decision out of the 9th Circuit, which ruled that private schools may discriminate on the basis of race under certain circumstances.

But should a religious school be able to discriminate against non-religionists? In this case, it was a Lutheran school, and it charged higher tuition to non-Lutherans who attended. Can’t a Catholic school legitimately say, “This school is for Catholics,” and exclude non-Catholics?

What you’re saying is that if a Catholic school did that, it ought to be subject to a lawsuit and a court order requiring that the school admit a non-Catholic student. Is that correct, or is there some principled way you can distinguish between religion on the one hand and race on the other, and find perceived sexual orientation to be more similar to race than religion?