I used this term to refer to a strong aversion to homosexuals. A hydrophobic molecule is not afraid of water. It is averse to water. This is an accepted use of the suffix "-phobic". While clinical homophobia indeed refers to an irrational fear of homosexuals, the more common use of the term refers to aversion or hatred of homosexuals.

The old argument "I'm not afraid of gay people," is simply a diversion. No one stops to say "I'm not afraid of Mexicans" when they're accused of xenophobia in a conversation about immigration, because we all know what the speaker intended in that case. Aversion. Hate. It is distracting from an important conversation to use this tired argument when addressing an unambiguous - albeit apparently controversial - statement (such as, "It's very homophobic of H&R not to adequately consider the needs of its gay customers.")

***

Oh, by the way, that "organic" thing? I couldn't agree more; it drives me CRAZY.

sophistiKate

Trai_Dep

MARTHA__JONES

When you are providing a service to the public, you have an obligation to acccomodate differences among groups of people (at least those groups that are protected by human rights legislation). It doesn't matter if H&R Block doesn't think that it is worth their resources to update the software on time, because they have an obligation to keep their software up to date with the law and there is no reason to treat the civil union law any differently then any other amendement to tax legislation.

SomewhereOutThere

Trai_Dep

RandomHookup

sibertater

Trai_Dep

Vanvi

This isn't a question of whether people are allowed to act "flaming" or not. I knew someone who lived in the South who was gay but wasn't at all in your face about it. To meet him on the street you'd never have known. However, his landlord was suspicious of him because he'd been single so long, and threatened to throw him out if he ever had a male guest stay overnight. That's the kind of discrimination gay people have to put up with.

Orv

The issue is whether the LGBT community should be allowed the same right you and your wife have - to make a commitment to share your life together along with all the same legal benefits a marriage contract allows for heterosexuals, and then to have companies recognize that just as any hetero they merit the benefits of said contract.

MARTHA__JONES

You know I really HATE that term homophobic. The definition of homophobic is an irrational FEAR or homosexual people. There is a BIG difference between not agreeing with a chosen lifestyle and being SCARED of and running at the sight of seeing a homosexual person. Its almost as bad as the misuse of the term "organic" which actually means an object whose molecular composition is based around carbon.

Gorky

There is a big difference between the government saying, "You have the freedom to do x; we're not going to lock you up for it," and, "You have the freedom to do x, and if anyone refuses to hire/serve/help you because of it, we're going to fine and/or lock them up for it." I fully support the former. I do not support the latter when it comes to a controllable behavior.

Of course, you had to bring race into this. You people always do and it's clear what you're doing - trying to paint me as a racist bigot since you can't win your argument without attacking my character. The comparison is invalid, and I'll tell you why: A black man can't help that his skin is black. Anyone who sees him will immediately know he is black and there's nothing fair he can do about that (clearly asking black people to bleach their skin is barbaric).

A gay man, on the other hand, can very well help his behavior in public. He does not need to behave in a manner that informs everyone what type of sex he likes and it's perfectly fair for others to ask him not to advertise what turns him on. This is what I, and for that matter most of the rest of the American population, find offensive. The stereotypical homosexual behaviors - limp wrist, dressing outrageously, giggling like a schoolgirl, etc - can be controlled and we should not have discrimination laws that protect these controllable behaviors. Note that I feel the same about heterosexuals who dress, talk and/or behave in a manner that advertises their sexual desires.

Now, I realize that not all gay people behave inappropriately. I work with and have friends who are gay and I like them all just fine. What they do behind closed doors is no more of my business than what sexual positions my wife and I use is of theirs - and that's the key: The gays I like and respect don't advertise their sexual desires. In fact, you'd never know they were gay until you really got to know them.

jimconsumer

But saying that H&R block doesn't support Gay Civil Unions is needlessly inflammatory and distracting from the real issue. Their software doesn't support that type of filing. Still a problem, but a seperate issue.

Meiran

Trai_Dep

Trai_Dep

That's the same argument I have heard from a lot of people as to why it's perfectly alright for the U.S. to pass laws which allow us to legally discriminate based upon sexual preference.

Doesn't it make you wonder if our parents and grandparents thought it was nitpicking when people said it wasn't right that blacks and whites were not allowed to drink from the same fountains?

MARTHA__JONES

Each fills out the Federal return.

Then, they fill out a "phantom" joint Federal return.

Then, they use the numbers from the "phantom" return to populate the State field. This is the same in several other states.

So, it seems that this would be a very simple fix from a programming standpoint. H&R just needs to take the information that they already have from each individual return, combine them, and produce the "phantom" return.

That seems like something they would not have to work very hard at. The joint return processing parameters are already set up for the straights.

Some people have commented that they should just file as a couple on the Federal return. That would be a bad idea. They would be committing tax fraud, which is punishable with fines and jail time.

While I believe that this was an oversight, and a programming error, this software is discriminating. It cannot comply with the tax code for a specific group of people. The intent is not discriminatory, but the affect is.

A gay state congressman in CT should try to get their license revoked in that state. That would be great PR for the congressman...

Finally, it is not really clear from the tax code whether gay couples would pay more or less in taxes if their relationship were recognized. Pluses from deducting a partner's healthcare costs, minuses for the marriage penatly, pluses for shifting shared deductions, minuses for lower phase-out limits for tax-deferred and tax-free accounts...It's a sticky wicket, and some gays would do better, others would do worse.

But, the point is still equality.

WillScarlett

BStu

Oh, shut up. Fact is, this is the first time in our nation's history that our government has legislated protection for a behavior. If homosexuals didn't advertise their sexual tastes, they wouldn't need legislative protections. I don't walk, talk, and dress in a manner that screams, "Overweight women with big floppy breasts get me off." That would be inappropriate. Equally inappropriate are flaming gay men who act like little girls to ensure everyone around them knows exactly how they like to take it in bed, and I take great offense to being told by my government that I have to pretend this is acceptable. It isn't.

Look, I don't care if gay people want to live together and be gay together. More power to them, this is a free country. I do mind being forced to financially support their homosexuality in the form of benefits for "partners." I'm not saying they can't be gay, just saying I want nothing to do with it.

Interestingly, and just to be fair, I feel the same way about heterosexual marriage. I don't get why we give tax breaks to people for hooking up and producing children. Why should I have to financially support someone else's kids? I shouldn't.

jimconsumer

savvy9999

Peeved Guy

savvy9999

radio1

Clearly, you do not understand how new tax laws do affect software coding which then must be tested with multiple scenarios before being determined robust enough to be integrated into a state program. Would you really want your 'married filing jointly' to be affected on your state return because the coding also denied you some deductions in a special circumstance that should only apply to civil unions?

The only thing worse than telling a client they owe money or aren't getting as much money as they anticipated because of their stupid mistake; is when I would have to tell them the same thing, and explain that it's my fault or the software's fault.

radio1

Peeved Guy

BStu

To your original point...
Maybe H&R Block really busted their collective ass to get the MA change done in time for this tax season as it would effect EVERY citizen on MA, not just the (relatively) few who have to be in a same sex marriage...?

Peeved Guy

Don't forget Hanlon's Law, folks: Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

However, having said that, discrimination is all about intent. Just think back to those two girls who complained that they were considered "too hot to fly". Kicking them off a plane because of their looks is discrimination; kicking them off because they were being bitches is not.

It's the same here. In this case, I have to wonder as to HRB's actual intent, given that they were able to program their software to comply with Massachusetts' laws, but not Vermont's, which are MUCH older than MA's. Had that not been the case, I would simply have assumed that it was because of Connecticut's relative recency with the law and not being able to reprogram in time. But civil unions have been legal in Vermont for years, and to think that the software still can't support that after all this time makes things smell a little fishy, in my opinion.

AndrewJC

BStu

I'm giving HRB the benefit, and assuming they're just incompetent; still, they should catch enough hell from this to fix it. It's only a sign of how backwards we are that anybody even cares about this still; having a generalized return, with two de-gendered parties, would be much simpler to use, anyway.

ExecutorElassus

MorganButeo

disavow

What about in Massachusetts where we now have to prove that we have health insurance to get our personal exemption. Is H&R Block not bothering to support that?

H&R Block has managed to rewrite its software to handle gay marriages in Massachusetts, but not so with civil unions in Connecticut or Vermont, Smith said.

The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to think this is some sort of "protest" that these guys decided to stage. I'm wondering if they knew that the H&R Block site didn't "support" the CT civil union before they bought....?

Peeved Guy

I worked for Block for 7 years up until 2006. This no is not discriminatory issue. It is a simple software issue.

How Block works is that the Federal Program sets up figures for the State Program (like most 3rd party tax software).

The Federal Government does not support marriage benefits for gay people. Like, say in MA, that has gay marriage, which is where I live and work. So, civil unions will have neither of these benefits also.

Therefore, there will be no correct status to carry over to the State forms.

Now, Block may or may not decide to write in whatever state benefits married or civil union gay people deserve; figuring that the expense vs. benefit does not merit inclusion into their (appropriate) state tax forms. Furthermore, Block can not write any changes into their programs until whatever state has ironed out whatever benefits such couples will have. Usually these things are figured out and hopefully written into the next tax season's programs during the off season.

The upshot is Block will support your union in CT, just by filing a paper return (if those benefits have been clearly determined before the tax filing date). If they do not it's because one of two issues: 1) actual discrimination or 2) tax law ambiguity.

If it is #2, you can always ammend the state return the next year.

If it is #1, call your local EEOC.

radio1

BStu

Wow, classy.

modenastradale

Rey

Meiran

Oh, and italics be gone!

BStu

Squeezer99

BillyMumphry

Why is the page showing up and everyone's posts in italics?

david_consumerist

Source: [hartford.about.com]

Flame

oakie

But there is no provision for prohibiting discrimination related to the topic of this article, discrimination based on sexual preference, in most states.

reznicek111

It'll be even easier for the state to fund everything after Perry sells all the state roads to toll operators around the world.

GearheadGeek

It's just silly I think.

Blackneto

Frank Grimes

My analogy is proven partially incorrect (in most places, they could deny me service based on blonde hair or my ugly face). But there is no provision for prohibiting discrimination related to the topic of this article, discrimination based on sexual preference, in most states.

InfiniTrent

GearheadGeek

* The message is unfortunately easily misinterpreted. The issue is one of architectural support, and the capacity of the program to produce a civil union return, not support of the concept of civil unions. That should not have slipped past the User/Customer Experience teams.

* No provider will be able to support same-sex marriage electronic returns because your federal return must be accepted by the IRS before the state return can be processed. Because the IRS does not recognize same-sex marriage this cannot happen for electronic filing UNLESS the provider supports true state only for states that don't require a federal acceptance first. Massachusetts qualifies as this, but to my knowledge, neither H&R Block nor TurboTax supports true state only for electronic filing.

* What's failed to be mentioned here is that the TaxCut retail product that you can buy at Best Buy, etc., DOES support civil union/same-sex paper filing for Connecticut.

Know that these limitations are software architectural issues, not political issues.

bigpapi34

[www.legalzoom.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.eeoc.gov] (for definition of public accomodation)
That isn't opinion or semantics. It's the law.

My question was answered in the article:

The giant tax preparer was willing to prepare the couple's taxes at one of its offices for $199.80 - $155 more than the online price.

Rectilinear Propagation

Trai_Dep

Rather than making a big deal about it, they should have asked for a refund (because the software does not perform as advertised) and bought the competitor. Done. No muss, no fuss.

Peeved Guy

It won't make me happier, but it will certainly make your comment more correct.

InfiniTrent

I believe you should be mocked solely for thinking yourself quite the 'edgy' man and double-posting in an effort to have others come to that conclusion as well."

I don't think myself to be "edgy", despite the continued accusations to the contrary. I can see why my "banned" comment was taken the wrong way, and if I'd known it would obfuscate the issue so severely, I wouldn't have said it at all.

But please, by all means, continue to make judgments on my motivations and character.

InfiniTrent

Consumer007

Trai_Dep

This is something new. Whomever is to keep an eye on the changes let this one slip through.

I've had to file amended returns in the past because a change didn't become final in TT or TC until April but I had filed in February.

I thought gay people being overly sensitive was a stereotype...

This is how you get a ban InfiniTrent

Blackneto

Trai_Dep

Trai, that rebate is automatically sent based on your filing status and income on your tax return - there's nothing extra you have to do, other than to actually file.

InfiniTrent

Trai_Dep

Peeved Guy

buttheads.

katylostherart

I believe you should be mocked solely for thinking yourself quite the 'edgy' man and double-posting in an effort to have others come to that conclusion as well.

Rey

Step 1: Use Turbotax (yay!). Or a non-chain tax preparer, feeding the local economy. H&R Block chooses to discriminate, we chose to flee them.
Step 2: Let's get marriage on a Federal level that doesn't discriminate in the books. This is absurd, and unfair. We "allow" mixed-race couples to enjoy the 3,000 tax benefits of marriage, when just a few generations past we didn't. We allow childless and infertile couples benefits. We don't retroactively take back the benefits of couples if they divorce.
Fair is fair.

Trai_Dep

Yeah, how did that happen?

InfiniTrent

Even assuming you're right, they don't have to give a reason they're denying service.

I suppose we're all debating semantics and opinion now, but why should that stop us? :)

InfiniTrent

Maybe.

bonzombiekitty

this is one reason same sex marriage should be legal. stupid stupid stuff like this would be so much simpler.

katylostherart

RandomHookup

jeffjohnvol

Just as I suspected - the name calling and heavy insinuations against my mental capabilities ensue. Whoops, that was a little "edgy".

Despite your double negative ("poorly uninformed"?) I must disagree. You make a pretty good point, if the problem was that they simply wouldn't allow the deduction. It sounds like H&R Block effectively efused the business altogether because they weren't capable of processing the appropriate paperwork.

I choose to believe this is incompetence, not intentional discrimination. Most people here apparently think it's an intentional conspiracy.

InfiniTrent

Rectilinear Propagation

(Kinda makes me wonder what value they've assigned to Connecticut domestic partners....)

Cranky Customer

InfiniTrent

I think you're right about people being upfront about their preferences in who they serve. However, I don't think that's what's going on here. It's bad phrasing that has spiraled into a ACLU circus.

H&R Block is interested in making a profit, not turning away customers. Barring some big internal conspiracy, I think this was just someone who wrote bad copy for the website, trying to indicate their programs

I'm not sure why you think I should be mocked - probably because I disagree with your opinions?

InfiniTrent

Civil unions are not marriages, for one thing. They're a creature of statute, which means the state legislatures mulled them over and then enacted them, as they would any law. That's how most laws are enacted in a representative democracy.

In any case, I don't think the H&R Blockhead thing is really discrimination. I think it's just a failure of an inferior service provider to implement particular software features that would only be used by a small number of filers. They'll eventually get around to it, I'm sure, and then CT citizens in civil unions, like the rest of us, will be able to overpay for crappy tax service. :-)

modenastradale

@InfiniTrent: Wrong. They do not have the legal right to deny you service because you're white.

Didn't we already discuss this one? [consumerist.com]

Rectilinear Propagation

RandomHookup

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the general ignorance of geography by Americans even about their own country. I once had a (non immigrant) guy in Florida ask me if Missouri was near North Dakota where "Mount Rushmore is".

Fred Phelps nonwithstanding, Kansas City is in Missouri.

There is a Kansas City, Kansas, but I, none of the employees of HR Block, and, I strongly suspect, Fred Phelps would be caught dead there. It is, for all intents and purposes, a war zone.

JGB

KJones

BStu

You are correct that a private business has every right to refuse to serve a customer (or community of customers), but they should at least be brave about their reasons and outline just exactly why they are discriminating against or are ill-equipped to serve segments of the population.

Our tax guy brought up the tax filing situation in our tax meeting last year. He's a true professional and was well-aware of California's law that passed requiring domestic partners to file their 2007 State taxes as if they were married even though the Fed will not recognize it. It was fully on his radar and when we met with him this year, he had everything mapped out and things went as smoothly as possible.

Incidentally, he's a rather conservative Republican although not in the fakey-neocon style that's emerged over the past several years - more like a Barry Goldwater. He fully disagrees with the feds attempting to trump states' rights and says it's only a matter of time before legal arrangements like domestic partnerships and civil unions must be fully recognized.

H&R Block did our taxes many years ago before the domestic partnership option was even there for us and even with that and the lower-complexity of our returns at the time, their service was very lacking. I understand some folks don't think they have another choice, but comparing what we used to pay for H&R Block against what we currently pay our taxman, they should really reconsider.

Rey

This is the same state that gave the world Fred PedoPhelps and his inbred cult/family, as well as a schoolboard that tried to outlaw evolution.

How much more embarassment can the majority of Kansans take?

KJones

InfiniTrent

My "I'll probably be banned" comment was made because the Editors above said that they think H&R Block's alleged "policy" is BS. Not to mention that making any comment that could be construed as unsupportive of "gay rights" is considered neanderthal and unenlightened.

InfiniTrent

picardia

@InfiniTrent: You should be banned for speculating that you will get banned for saying something. Its insufferable enough when people have a smug "Oooh, I'm so edgy!" attitude, but it gets taken to another level when they actually open their mouth and SAY, "Oooh, I'm so edgy!"

BStu

sophistiKate

@LJKelley: A poor business decision doesn't necessarily amount to discrimination. I mean, I would probably be righteously pissed if I were gay too, but the upshot should be taking your business to a company that has updated their system to fill your needs. They don't offer the product you need, therefore they don't get your money. They may also lose the money of people who don't need that particular product but still find it objectionable that the company has clearly made it a low priority.

"And you really don't have the luxury with Tax Software on picking and choosing what to finish."

Why not? It's rather like suggesting that a grocery store doesn't have the luxury to not offer gluten-free baked goods. A certain percentage of the population will have a gluten intolerance, and if they want gluten-free pasta or cake mix they'll end up taking their business elsewhere, probably to a larger store that offers a wider selection of products. As a result, some of their family and friends will go with them, either for convenience or to support the business they see as better. Unfortunate though it may be for some consumers, it is within every company's right to decide which products they want to offer. It's not as though the first store is saying "no people with gluten intolerances may shop here", or as though H&R Block is simply refusing to do taxes for all gay people or even just gay people in civil unions/marriages. They've just decided that their profit margin is not benefited by offering a product that some people want or need. Rather than complain that it's not fair or right of them to not offer a product specifically targeted to a subset of a certain group of people, use your power as a consumer to show them that they've wrongly underestimated your demographic, and go to the business that does act like it wants your patronage.

The Boyg

overbysara

Yes Turbo Tax got it in time for this year. Why? Because they work on their software every single year, because that's what they are. A software company. And that's it. Completeness and accuracy are tantamount of course, so testing and other QA are probably pushed every day. But they have no professional services staff. H&R Block does.

H&R Block is known more for their locations and walk-in service, so their priority in terms of change management favors that. Their software has the same risks and complexities that Turbo Tax does, but the company make a decision that the couldn't implement the change in time for 2007 taxes.

When different types of write-offs came out (e.g. hybrid cars), I'm sure not all tax institutions handled them on time.

So get over yourself (regardless of what the missing feature is in the software), and go somewhere else *cough* TurboTax.

One last thing: H&R Block could have been more specific in their verbiage:
- H&R Block does not support civil unions. OR
- H&R Block software does not yet support civil unions.
Tack on an apology for the inconvenience, maybe a suggestion to visit a brick'n'mortar H&R and we're done.

wesrubix

InfiniTrent

If someone owns a restaurant, and wants to deny me service because I'm blonde, or white, or over 6 feet tall, they have EVERY FREAKIN' RIGHT to do so.

I may get really mad, and I may accuse them of discrimination, but unless they're some sort of government funded entity, they DON'T HAVE TO SERVE ME.

The same principle applies here.

InfiniTrent

jeffjohnvol

Juggernaut

In a hundred years, I imagine that our descendants will look back on the various anti-gay marriage initiatives and amendments of the past decade as a dark episode in American government. The legal institutions of democratic nations should protect the rights of minorities no matter what the majorities think of those minorities.

TWinter

Anitra

I just have never seen a checkbox anywhere on a tax form in any state I have ever lived in that asked whether I was M or F. Meaning, if I was gay and wanted to file jointly with a partner, why could I not simply attach any 2 SSNs (M&F, M&M, or F&F&) to the form and run with it? At what point in the process would the IRS deny a filing because it thought maybe you weren't legally 'married' (by whatever state-contrived definition)?

Along those lines, I never recalled having to send my marriage license to the IRS to prove to them I was married; one year I filed single, the next year joint. How would or does the IRS assume the same between unioned gays?

savvy9999

Like JustAGuy2 said - their "support" probably just means the software hasn't been updated in time to handle it.

Either that, or they just didn't feel the time and expense involved in updating the software to handle it wasn't worth it. I mean, seriously, how many gay civil unions are there in Conneticut :)

RokMartian

As it is, its an official CT Tax form that their competitors managed to include. So the least one can say is that the creators of TaxTurbo are more likely to be up to date with the lastest changes and thus prepare your taxes better.

As a Gay, I'm gonna go ahead and pull the gay card on this one. I doubt many of you would be so 'forgiving' had it been a federal form or other vital change in a state form. Their comptitor had time to include the tax law changes, and they should have as well. And you really don't have the luxury with Tax Software on picking and choosing what to finish.

LJKelley

jeffjohnvol

BlondeGrlz is having a BlondeBoyz!

Based on my past attempt to do my taxes with H&R's crappy software a few years ago I am voting for at least incompetent with a distinct possibility they are also passing a moral judgment.

bohemian

jeffjohnvol

JustAGuy2

There amount of people who were going to use H&R block and were apart of a civil union in Connecticut probably did not justify H&R block including the support for it up against a dead line.

Tax software is one of the few types of software that has a really hard deadline, and god forbid it has an error in it.

I'm sure they will support civil unions next year after this black mark.

ndjustin

sickofthis

sleze69

jeffjohnvol

MickeyMoo

Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★

hubris