Freedom of Religion - Car insurance rebate for married society?
I see marriage as something to do with religion, and should not enjoy anything to do with government. My motor insurance will give you a break if you're married, because apparently, married people are safer drivers.
Is this a defilement? Am I being discriminated due to my lack of a religion? What if my religious beliefs (or famine thereof) dictate that I will never marry someone?
Answers:
First of all, marriage isn't a religious institution, at most minuscule it isn't legally. It's a contract, and can be done with no religious overtones at adjectives.
Furthermore, different rates for married people has nought to do with religion. Like everything else in this world, it only just has to do with money.
The statistics show that married population get into fewer accident. Maybe they are more likely to have kids and drive safer; I don`t know they think they have more to live for. Who know.
But that doesn't make it discriminatory. Statistics also show that people who drive red cars are also more probable to speed and get into distraction- and alcohol-related accidents, and that relatives in certain fastener codes (for example, one with lots of apartment complexes and primarily street parking) are more likely to catch into fender-benders. That's not discrimination, either, it's a moment ago how the insurance companies do business.
(FYi: that's also why flood insurance is more expensive in Louisiana, and tornado insurance costs more in Kansas. Think going on for it.)
Marriage is a social contract and exist surrounded by all societies regarldless of religion. Some religions however give a constant status to marriage whithin that religion.
Marriage can have nothing to do next to religion.
Marriage is a legal status that grants specific legally recognized benefits.
And people can get married minus a church ever being involved in the process.
That's the problem near using the term "marriage" -- it refers to both a religious practice, and a legal status -- both of which are completely independent of respectively other.
But as far as insurance companies, they base their rates on statistics. And statistically, people who are legitimately married are less of an accident risk.
I don't infer discrimination against the unmarried is religious discrimination, but it is still wrong. If I married my fiance right immediately, we would get a tax reimbursement of several thousand dollars instead of a couple hundred, and I would be able to quit my job and still own his health insurance (or vice versa). Gay couples currently do not have this prospect. It's not discrimination against lack of religion though, because anyone can return with married by a judge or a non-religious officiant.
However, I don't think the auto insurance item is any different from their other policies for determining rates. I would pay less than my fiance for alike insurance because statistically women get in smaller quantity accidents, not because I am a better driver. And next year when I turn 25, I will suddenly wage a lot less, not because I am suddenly a safer driver but again because of statistics. Same I guess go for married drivers.
Right on man. What about us divorced single parents that have full custody of our children. Does that count for anything?
No you are not man discriminated against. Insurance rates are based on statistics. Married men are in a lesser amount of accidents than single men, whether that is because their partner drive some of the time or b/c they aren't out there doing stupid things like drag race, etc. The insurance companies don't car if you are religious or not, an atheist or a Wican. They care more or less what category of driver you fit into vs. their statistics and based on that, that is what you wages.
There are all types of discounts within insurance, They also give discounts to people that enjoy had no accidents or tickets, Should this not be allowed any? They give discounts according to age, should this be age discrimination? There are also discount base on where you live. I don't see it as a violation.
If it is true that married people are better drivers,then I am adjectives
for the breaks. Our insurance companies are finally starting to pick up on the fact that anything that a person does have something to do with what happens to him.And everyone should not own to pay equally. Finally cigarette smokers must pay high rates. I believe that people who have demonstrated the invective of emergency room priviledge with
minor illnesses should pay more. If the stats voice that married
people are better drivers then hear! hear! What I really believe is that after 10 years of coverage everyone regardless of status should own their rate adjusted up or down based on their own personal statistics.
Related Questions:
Is this a defilement? Am I being discriminated due to my lack of a religion? What if my religious beliefs (or famine thereof) dictate that I will never marry someone?
Answers:
First of all, marriage isn't a religious institution, at most minuscule it isn't legally. It's a contract, and can be done with no religious overtones at adjectives.
Furthermore, different rates for married people has nought to do with religion. Like everything else in this world, it only just has to do with money.
The statistics show that married population get into fewer accident. Maybe they are more likely to have kids and drive safer; I don`t know they think they have more to live for. Who know.
But that doesn't make it discriminatory. Statistics also show that people who drive red cars are also more probable to speed and get into distraction- and alcohol-related accidents, and that relatives in certain fastener codes (for example, one with lots of apartment complexes and primarily street parking) are more likely to catch into fender-benders. That's not discrimination, either, it's a moment ago how the insurance companies do business.
(FYi: that's also why flood insurance is more expensive in Louisiana, and tornado insurance costs more in Kansas. Think going on for it.)
Marriage is a social contract and exist surrounded by all societies regarldless of religion. Some religions however give a constant status to marriage whithin that religion.
Marriage can have nothing to do next to religion.
Marriage is a legal status that grants specific legally recognized benefits.
And people can get married minus a church ever being involved in the process.
That's the problem near using the term "marriage" -- it refers to both a religious practice, and a legal status -- both of which are completely independent of respectively other.
But as far as insurance companies, they base their rates on statistics. And statistically, people who are legitimately married are less of an accident risk.
I don't infer discrimination against the unmarried is religious discrimination, but it is still wrong. If I married my fiance right immediately, we would get a tax reimbursement of several thousand dollars instead of a couple hundred, and I would be able to quit my job and still own his health insurance (or vice versa). Gay couples currently do not have this prospect. It's not discrimination against lack of religion though, because anyone can return with married by a judge or a non-religious officiant.
However, I don't think the auto insurance item is any different from their other policies for determining rates. I would pay less than my fiance for alike insurance because statistically women get in smaller quantity accidents, not because I am a better driver. And next year when I turn 25, I will suddenly wage a lot less, not because I am suddenly a safer driver but again because of statistics. Same I guess go for married drivers.
Right on man. What about us divorced single parents that have full custody of our children. Does that count for anything?
No you are not man discriminated against. Insurance rates are based on statistics. Married men are in a lesser amount of accidents than single men, whether that is because their partner drive some of the time or b/c they aren't out there doing stupid things like drag race, etc. The insurance companies don't car if you are religious or not, an atheist or a Wican. They care more or less what category of driver you fit into vs. their statistics and based on that, that is what you wages.
There are all types of discounts within insurance, They also give discounts to people that enjoy had no accidents or tickets, Should this not be allowed any? They give discounts according to age, should this be age discrimination? There are also discount base on where you live. I don't see it as a violation.
If it is true that married people are better drivers,then I am adjectives
for the breaks. Our insurance companies are finally starting to pick up on the fact that anything that a person does have something to do with what happens to him.And everyone should not own to pay equally. Finally cigarette smokers must pay high rates. I believe that people who have demonstrated the invective of emergency room priviledge with
minor illnesses should pay more. If the stats voice that married
people are better drivers then hear! hear! What I really believe is that after 10 years of coverage everyone regardless of status should own their rate adjusted up or down based on their own personal statistics.
Related Questions:
- Car insurance claim-3rd delegation F & T,provisional licence,vehicle be hit when i be away & parked legitimately?
- When claiming for flood wreckage on coupé insurance?
- If someone's coup¨¦ insurance is cancelled, does this invalidate the road import tax?
- Why don't they hold sports car insurance basically for blokes?
- Is within a mode to find out someone's sports car insurance company if they throw out to make a contribution it to you surrounded by an twist of fate?