no special right for teh gays. ...
Mar. 20th, 2005 11:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rktCourt Strikes Down Equal Benefits law
Manhattan A state appeals court yesterday struck down the city's equal benefits law, which barred thecity from doing businses with companies that provide benefits for employees' spouses but not for their gay* domesetic partners. The Supreme Court's Appelalte Division ruled 5-0 that the statute, Local Law 27 of 2004, was illegal because it "runs afoul" of state laws by imposing more conditions on competetive bidders for munincipal contracts. AP.
Metro 3/16/05
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_01843.htm
* i don't remember the "gay" part being inherent for the domestic partner part.
EDIT to let mayor bloomberg know what anass awesome leader he is, call 311* (in NYC) 212-new-york (639-9675 - outside new york).
mail: hon m.r. bloomberg
city hall
nyc, ny 10007
i'd give you the email/website but nyc.gov is currently requesting i "log in", even to "contact them". 311 has no idea how i can address this, except writing a letter and sending it usps.
*be prepared to have to call back if the person is a bit too...special... to understand your request.
Manhattan A state appeals court yesterday struck down the city's equal benefits law, which barred thecity from doing businses with companies that provide benefits for employees' spouses but not for their gay* domesetic partners. The Supreme Court's Appelalte Division ruled 5-0 that the statute, Local Law 27 of 2004, was illegal because it "runs afoul" of state laws by imposing more conditions on competetive bidders for munincipal contracts. AP.
Metro 3/16/05
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_01843.htm
* i don't remember the "gay" part being inherent for the domestic partner part.
EDIT to let mayor bloomberg know what an
mail: hon m.r. bloomberg
city hall
nyc, ny 10007
i'd give you the email/website but nyc.gov is currently requesting i "log in", even to "contact them". 311 has no idea how i can address this, except writing a letter and sending it usps.
*be prepared to have to call back if the person is a bit too...special... to understand your request.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-20 04:31 pm (UTC)post edited
Date: 2005-03-20 04:51 pm (UTC)those evil gays just need to go somewhere else, anyway.
i mean, it's OK to be gay, just don't practice that evile lifestyle...
Re: post edited
Date: 2005-03-20 06:01 pm (UTC)Re: post edited
Date: 2005-03-20 06:04 pm (UTC)Re: post edited
Date: 2005-03-21 09:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-20 05:08 pm (UTC)what? yes... confuzzled.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-20 06:12 pm (UTC)i don't think so. they're just emphasizing the GAY domestic partners don't deserve the employee benefits married couples inherently have.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-20 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 02:52 am (UTC)the article is framing it to make it a gay rights issue.
really, from what i recall, it's really for any domestically partnered couple (i haven't re-researched this, so my memory may be wrong and it was for teh gays who aren't allowed to marry, anyway) to have the same benefits that a heterosexually married couple is already given by the company seeking the contract.
p.s. i'm working friday.