Same-Sex Couple Blocked By H & R -- Gays and Lesbians, Tolland ...

This is a serious issue, not in the sense that it's posed in this absurd article, but for me, in the fact that the CT legislature fell all over itself to legitamize civil unions and the sheer numeric value of civic unions is bizzarely low.

I've recently seen stats published in this paper and while the detail escapes me, the total # of civil unions in the two years this law is on the books is under 2,000 couples. For this the legislature turned the world upside down, made a decision that turns traditions on their ear and set an issue into play that may have kept Bush in office. Talk about playing to the right... with an issue from the left.

To this article, if H&R block can't do it, find someone who can. What an assinnine article. Civil unions never should have been allowed in CT.

Is there anything in the tax code which provides for the civil union filing status?

Eric wrote:

This is a serious issue, not in the sense that it's posed in this absurd article, but for me, in the fact that the CT legislature fell all over itself to legitamize civil unions and the sheer numeric value of civic unions is bizzarely low.
I've recently seen stats published in this paper and while the detail escapes me, the total # of civil unions in the two years this law is on the books is under 2,000 couples. For this the legislature turned the world upside down, made a decision that turns traditions on their ear and set an issue into play that may have kept Bush in office. Talk about playing to the right... with an issue from the left.
To this article, if H&R block can't do it, find someone who can. What an assinnine article. Civil unions never should have been allowed in CT.

I wouldn't go as far to say that civil unions should never have been allowed, but I don't think companies like H&R Block should be required to rewrite their software for .06% of Connecticut's population. They're not being malicious, they just don't want to lose money on the deal.

Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't go as far to say that civil unions should never have been allowed, but I don't think companies like H&R Block should be required to rewrite their software for .06% of Connecticut's population. They're not being malicious, they just don't want to lose money on the deal.

Exactly! It's not that H&R Block has anything against the same sex couples, it just isn't feasible for them to rewrite their software. It's not that they are just turning these people away because they don't like them!

Does the IRS treat civil unions the same as it treats married couples?

If so, the plaintiffs may have a case.

If not, this case is nothing more than the ACLU trying to shove down our throats their view morality in America.

H & R Block is useless...
Their employees know nothing about the tax code...
All they know is how to plug and chug into their $20 software that you can buy at any store....

Seriously people...I am gay, but c'mon...use Turbo Tax if you don't like it. H&R Block has the right to set up their site any way they wish.

All LGBTI folks MUST BOYCOTT H&R BLOCK until they take the ten minutes required to fix the glitch in their software.

Two years of paying a $155.00 premium for same-sex tax service is a discriminatory business practice which does not warrant support from the LGBTI community.

While we are boycotting H&R Block, we can use the latest edition of TURBOTAX which has been updated to fulfill our requirements.

LGBTI BOYCOTT CALL wrote:

All LGBTI folks MUST BOYCOTT H&R BLOCK until they take the ten minutes required to fix the glitch in their software.
Two years of paying a $155.00 premium for same-sex tax service is a discriminatory business practice which does not warrant support from the LGBTI community.
While we are boycotting H&R Block, we can use the latest edition of TURBOTAX which has been updated to fulfill our requirements.

Yep, and I'm sure they're quaking in their boots since they're putting .001 percent of their potential market. You go get 'em.

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, and I'm sure they're quaking in their boots since they're putting .001 percent of their potential market. You go get 'em.

They are alienating 50% of their customers.

Gay and gay leaning Bisexuals make up 50% of the human population of the earth:

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hh...

Of course, If you had a Doctorate in Human Sexuality from Indiana University you would know that already.

shoreliner wrote:

Does the IRS treat civil unions the same as it treats married couples?
If so, the plaintiffs may have a case.
If not, this case is nothing more than the ACLU trying to shove down our throats their view morality in America.

Everybody has a case. The lawyers make tons of $$, the "victims" a little bit of $$. In the end we ALL pay. If Adam and Steve want to live together - fine. Have a happy life, they are entitled. But the whole world
shouldn't have to,(no pun intended) bend over backwards to accomodate them. I am sick of the whole world being a victim.

I can't believe people are still upset about same sex couples. Aren't there more pertinent things to worry about in this world than whether two consenting adults who care for each other can use the word "married" to describe their relationship on a government form and get the benefits that other married couples get for that designation?

Seriously? This is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is regular married couples haven't done anything to make the title of "married" sacred in quite some time. Look at the statistics, divorce is rampant, infidelity at an all time high? What makes the public qualified to judge?

I think it's high time Americans pull themselves out of the gutter before they start worrying about the piousness of others, and I say this as a married, straight man, who is an atheist:

When they were about to stone Mary, Jesus said to the villagers, "Those who have committed no sin, cast the first stone." To that everyone dropped their stones and left.

It's your book, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Connecticut General Statutes s. 46b-38nn: "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman."

This is the law in this state. Each state has the power to enact and enforce discrimination laws above and beyond any existing federal laws. The only limit is that states cannot grant less rights - we are always free to do more than the federal constitution requires. H&R Block, by doing business in this state, has chosen to be subject to our laws. The ACLU is correctly using state law to protect the rights that citizens of this state enjoy under our law.

Oh, and it's inaccurate to assume that heterosexuals will not support the gay community and also boycott H&R Block until it fixes this. So, when you determine whether they should be quaking in their boots, add me to that estimate. Finally, it's ten percent, not 6 percent.

Luckily, this is all temporary - given the drastic difference in the attitudes of younger people towards this issue, it's only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes the law of the land.

LGBTI BOYCOTT CALL wrote:

All LGBTI folks MUST BOYCOTT H&R BLOCK until they take the ten minutes required to fix the glitch in their software.
Two years of paying a $155.00 premium for same-sex tax service is a discriminatory business practice which does not warrant support from the LGBTI community.
While we are boycotting H&R Block, we can use the latest edition of TURBOTAX which has been updated to fulfill our requirements.

You're, uh, different and a small minority. Don't overinflate your numbers. Kinsey was a doctor. So what? Doctors are flawless? Perfect machines? H&R is within their rights to charge more for your, er, irregularities.

Question wrote:

Car Companies don't make cars with hand controls for handicapped charging the same price as a standard car. Why shouild H&R Block have to get harassed by these deviants.

They are not being harassed. They are being boycotted until they get their act together.

By their own admission, it would take ten minutes to correct the error in their software.

H&R Block just doesn't want to give up the extra $155.00 discriminatory charge for serving LGBTI customers.

Creating a separate status like civil union does not make it equal to marriage. Some gay partners are waiting for full marriage rights-hence the registered civil union numbers are lower than you might think.
This case illustrates that civil unions still have financial disatvantages in that they are charged more for services than married people pay.
The stupidity of the federal government to recognize gay partnerships actually results in a loss for them, as married people pay more taxes than gay partners who can't file together.

Bristol Bound wrote:

I can't believe people are still upset about same sex couples. Aren't there more pertinent things to worry about in this world than whether two consenting adults who care for each other can use the word "married" to describe their relationship on a government form and get the benefits that other married couples get for that designation?
Seriously? This is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is regular married couples haven't done anything to make the title of "married" sacred in quite some time. Look at the statistics, divorce is rampant, infidelity at an all time high? What makes the public qualified to judge?
I think it's high time Americans pull themselves out of the gutter before they start worrying about the piousness of others, and I say this as a married, straight man, who is an atheist:
When they were about to stone Mary, Jesus said to the villagers, "Those who have committed no sin, cast the first stone." To that everyone dropped their stones and left.
It's your book, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

All excellent opinions but realize that the community of posters consit mainly of folks who love to complain and whine and grumble about darn near everything. It is just their way.

LGBTI BOYCOTT CALL wrote:

<quoted text>
They are alienating 50% of their customers.
Gay and gay leaning Bisexuals make up 50% of the human population of the earth:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hh...
Of course, If you had a Doctorate in Human Sexuality from Indiana University you would know that already.

Well, this has gotta be the first time I've been on the "far left" of anything!

Bristol Bound wrote:

I can't believe people are still upset about same sex couples. Aren't there more pertinent things to worry about in this world than whether two consenting adults who care for each other can use the word "married" to describe their relationship on a government form and get the benefits that other married couples get for that designation?
Seriously? This is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is regular married couples haven't done anything to make the title of "married" sacred in quite some time. Look at the statistics, divorce is rampant, infidelity at an all time high? What makes the public qualified to judge?
I think it's high time Americans pull themselves out of the gutter before they start worrying about the piousness of others, and I say this as a married, straight man, who is an atheist:
When they were about to stone Mary, Jesus said to the villagers, "Those who have committed no sin, cast the first stone." To that everyone dropped their stones and left.
It's your book, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

This quote seems off topic.

This article wasn't about anyone who is upset with same-sex couples; it's an article about same-sex couples who are upset with everyone else. LGBTI BOYCOTT CALL's attitude is a prime example of this.

Mostly all here were having a rational conversation about the article without any sort of gay marriage bashing... well, with the exception of Gotta Love It, he just likes to troll every thread here and can be safely ignored.

H&R is not saying they have some sort of moral objection, they just have not revised their software to handle the case. In the software development world, not having a feature that your competitors already have is just as damaging as a PC flap.

...And this is a PRIVATE company, not a public office. They don't necessarily have to offer anything they don't want to. It would certainly be in there best interest PR-wise, but they don't have to.

I highly doubt this is a 10 minute fix, in enterprise-scale software/web development, you've got miles of code, and SCM environment to work through, database design implications, beta testing, QA, documentation- we're talking many hours of many person's work weeks.