Supremes Get It Right, Almost!

image

LOL, yeh I pulled this pic from HuffPo’s front page!

How did they express their butthurt?

5 Political Operatives Just Hammered Women And Workers

Of course, this hasn’t a damned thing to do with politics, or, …. it does.  But, it’s about a larger question, FREEDOM!!!!

This is how Huffy/butthurt put it  ….

WASHINGTON — On Monday, the Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to the progressive movement, handing down decisions in two high-profile cases regarding birth control and labor unions.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage for their employees.

In its 5-4 ruling in Harris v. Quinn, the court gave certain workers the ability to opt out of paying dues to public-sector unions, delivering a setback to the organized labor movement.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion in each case.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the court ruled that the Obama administration had failed to show that the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act is the “least restrictive means of advancing its interest” in providing birth control at no cost to women.

Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain store, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Store, a Pennsylvania wood manufacturer owned by a family of Mennonites, had challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious freedom by requiring them to pay for methods of contraception they find morally objectionable.

Yes, the horrors of not forcing people to pay for things they find objectionable. 

In Harris v. Quinn, the court ruled that certain government-funded employees — in this case, home care workers paid through Medicaid — cannot be required to pay fees to the public-sector unions that bargain on their behalf. Requiring such mandatory fees would violate the workers’ First Amendment rights, the majority said.

The ruling was not the worst-case scenario that unions had feared. But it will have a financial impact on major unions that have organized Medicaid-funded home care workers and other workers who aren’t “full-fledged public employees” in the majority’s eyes.

How horrible is it that you may not be required to pay a union which doesn’t represent your views?  That’s atrocious!!!

The fact is, they didn’t go far enough in either cases.  However, I believe they left the door open for other cases to advance.

In the Hobby-Lobby case, they seemed to have restricted it to privately owned companies.  This is still wrong.  But, it’s less wrong than the Zerocare mandate.  Free birth control?  Do women not know they can insist that the male buy it, thus, making it free?  I shouldn’t have to pay for some sex I don’t get to participate in.  Plain and as simple as that.  You want to have sex and not worry about future kids?  That’s fine, there are plenty of cheap alternatives.  Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to pay for the procreation?  Let’s all try and pretend we’re adults and be responsible for ourselves. 

But, what about the “children”? …… Let’s all pretend parents are responsible adults and be responsible for their progenies.  Oh, you can’t, or won’t?  Then you shouldn’t have had the children in the first place, you idiot.  If you avow you were an idiot, and you don’t know jack, then, I’ll happily kick in for you and your child’s sterilization if unwanted pregnancy is a problem neither one of you can seem to overcome.  It could only be a problem you can’t overcome if you’re a complete imbecile. 

 

As to Harris v. Quinn.  …..

This burns me a bit, because the court let a horrid practice stay in place.  True, they stuck down one horrid practice, but, they let stand in place many others which are the same.

Unions are useless bureaucracies which do nothing but take the wages from people, most of which do not agree with the positions nor directions of the unions which pretend to represent them.  In some places in the US, it is mandatory that you pay union dues, regardless.  To simply have a job, it’s required you pay the extortion.  What foul person thinks that’s okay?

 

Both of these cases pertain to freedom in it’s truest form. 

It is true contraception provides protection from pregnancies.  And, it is true unions proved protections for the workers.  However, this nation, indeed, the very concept of individual liberty involves risks which are left to the individual, rather than the state, or worse, some jackasseried quasi bureaucratic self-serving, nothing more than a private club?  Screw them!  Don’t tell me I have to pay extortion to a group of idiots who have never represented me or my views before I can go work for a living!  I’m certain there’s a special place in hell for the bastards who believe that should be. 

Both issues are about people trying to impose their views on other people who disagree with their views. 

Truly, if I have a view, I’ll scream it from the mountaintop, over and over, again.  But, to impose on my fellow citizen and try to compel him, or her?  Especially when it comes to their sex lives or work lives?  I couldn’t muster such hubris.  I’ll preach what is right or wrong, but, to compel another person to do something, well that’s not within the confines of “freedom”. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Supremes Get It Right, Almost!

  1. leftinflagstaff says:

    I wonder if it’s CO2 causing people to stop maturing emotionally after the age of four, while the physical maturing continues as normal.

  2. Me says:

    You know you have to wonder, what are the unions any good for now days. Sure they served a purpose way back when, but now it’s like the too big to fail Wall Street BS. Jobs are so scarce that people that should be retireing are still hanging around, and good luck to a greenhorn. You are toast when there are cuts, the union does nothing for that person, but he still has to pay his friendship dues so that one day they can have seniority. These people move on to other things and don’t look back when an opportunity arises. And now certain areas can’t get enough skilled workers so they outsource it to cheap foreign labour that endsup being subsidised by guess who? The government!

  3. kim2ooo says:

    Huffy gets it wrong like so many.

    In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage for their employees.

    ———————–


    Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke
    Follow
    Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control. #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness

    9:24 AM – 30 Jun 2014

    ————————————–

    In 2014, a woman’s right to contraception shouldn’t be up for debate. 99% of women will use contraception in their lives.

    Senator Kay Hagan (@SenatorHagan) June 30, 2014

    ————————————–

    Actually, morons… it doesn’t…

    You are either lying or stupidly repeating party / progressive nonsense.

    Holly Lobby still pays for 16 of 20 methods. HobbyLobby doesn’t want to pay for birth control AFTER conception because kills a life

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      But still burdens them with much too much personal responsibility. Without knowing they can kill unabated, it’s just too hard to even get out of bed in the morning.

      • kim2ooo says:

        They’ve always amazed me. 😦

      • Me says:

        It condricts their animal rights thing they spaz about when they so easily do the opposite here.

        • Me says:

          …..contradicts….

        • kim2ooo says:

          “It condricts their animal rights thing they spaz about when they so easily do the opposite here.”

          It contradicts EVERY cause.

          Women’s / sexists Rights? How are you defending women when you kill them in the womb?

          Racial? What race is being killed more frequently?

          You have no MORAL STAND… If you won’t protect the life of the most innocent of human life! – kim

        • Me says:

          Exactly, but they have no problem protecting animals. So I guess it comes to the resolution with me they are no better than animals and yet put animals above humans except for themselves of course.

        • Me says:

          The thing is, I never thought much about it, and then looking at groups like PETA and Greenpiss, and what they are doing, some good no doubt but it’s BS when you see some of their kind at work. Money racket is all what it is.

    • suyts says:

      Kim, I assume the verdict applies to more than just what Hobby Lobby is willing to do, or, not do. That is to say, Hobby Lobby’s particular policies are not the standard, but, a (or any?) religious belief is.

      • kim2ooo says:

        To be sure it is about Religious belief and moral conscience.

        “In reality, it is the law attempting to aggressively instill secular thought on a company currently run under religious principles.”

        One of the best secular articles, I’ve found.

        So what does all this have to do with Obamacare? As part of that law, health insurance policies are required to cover certain contraceptive prescriptions as part of the basic coverage under the rubric of preventive services. For example, co-pays are not allowed for colon-rectal cancer screenings and the like. To the government, contraception is a “preventive service” which somehow ghoulishly equates pregnancy with colon or breast cancer; preventing pregnancy is equal to the early detection of cancer. [Personally, I would rather see contraception offered than to see babies aborted and become medical waste, but I digress.] Under Sebelius, the HHS has identified 20 acceptable contraceptive services. Holly Lobby contests only four of the twenty because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. They include drugs like Plan B. In effect, it is not contraceptive services per se that Holly Lobby objects to, but abortificents because the Green family’s religious beliefs dictate that a fertilized egg is human life and should be respected and protected.

        To look at this another way, it can be argued that a business clearly being run in accordance with Christian principles is being forced, via Obamacare, to adopt secular values- namely, the acceptance of these four particular drugs which prevent implantation and that do not deter fertilization. Thus, the liberal media and their academic allies are clearly trying to make this case appear as if Holly Lobby and other similarly situated corporations are perpetuating some battle against contraception. To illustrate the point, one need look no further than the New York Times and an editorial by Linda Greenhouse who has covered the Supreme Court for that newspaper and is a professor at Yale University. She characterized this case as an example of the “sustained aggressiveness of religious groups” to instill their theology on the law.

        http://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2014/03/13/holly-lobby/

    • cdquarles says:

      Correct. The article is incorrect. They can’t be forced to pay for *abortifacients* that offend their faith. (Imagine O telling Muslims that they must do something, buy something, or sell something offensive to them)

  4. philjourdan says:

    Closed shop versus open shop. Closed shop is extortion. But the Quinn case was not really about “shops” at all. It was not even about health care workers. In the case, it is about a mother caring for her invalid child – trained to do so – paid by the state instead of bringing in another person – and the parent being extorted by a Union. It is amusing that before he died, even George McGovern – probably the original raging liberal – was against that practice!

    Those for it are definitely anti-freedom. They sought to enslave mothers to their organization.

  5. philjourdan says:

    On the Hobby Lobby ruling, it was not a constitutional issue. It was a regulation versus a law. Clinton Passed the RFRA and that was the basis of the ruling. It was another slap down of Obama. SCOTUS said a regulation (an executive order in effect) cannot usurp a law passed by congress and signed by the president.

    HuffPo has no clue.

  6. play nice says:

    to me “hate” is a strong word to be used sparingly but it would be so easy to “hate” women as a group
    they bitch bitch bitch about every little freaking thing always complaining nothing is good enough they want their cake and eat it too
    they really are not the center of the freaking universe they consider pregnancy to be a malady to be cured
    they can’t even control their weight yet they want to control the world I can’t even stand to look at them any more so freaking ugly in every way
    of course, men today are a sorry pile of poo fat, weak, pussy whipped lost souls, a pathetic example of manhood for future generations God have mercy on us all por favor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s