U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 07-02-2014, 03:24 PM
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,361 posts, read 6,783,711 times
Reputation: 14412


Allow me to draw a parallel from another area of labor relations; here in Pennsylvania, we still have a "union shop" law requiring union membership at organized plants. HOWEVER, if an employee raises objections to union political activity (support for pro-abortion candidates being a common example) that employee may request a reduction in dues, but only up the point of union dues spent on lobbying and other direct political activity. Organization and management of the union, and strike funds, etc, must still be paid for.

No harm, no foul; save in the minds of those who think they alone know know what's best for everyone.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-02-2014 at 03:53 PM..

Old 07-02-2014, 03:28 PM
20,979 posts, read 15,612,174 times
Reputation: 10270
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
I hope so.

The Bush-Gore decision was an eye-opener.

The Citizens United decision was disheartening.

But if this gutting of the separation of church and state isn't a wake up call, it ought to be.

What if an auto insurance corporation doesn't want to provide blood transfusions because it goes against their religion (Jehovah's Witnesses)? Does that mean anyone who gets in a car accident covered by that insurance is allowed to bleed to death?

What if another CEO's religion doesn't believe in Viagra believing that if the good Lord meant for old men to get it up they wouldn't need any little blue pills to do it?

Why we are handing our nation over to the 1%ers is beyond me.

Why we allow churches to lobby for legislation and openly support political candidates and then operate tax free while the rest of pick up their share of the tax burden is beyond me.

Why anyone would think this SCOTUS decision is wise and moving us in a positive direction is beyond me.
Another reactionary post from someone who didn't read or totally ignored the narrow scope of the decision.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:31 PM
Location: SW Florida
9,144 posts, read 6,329,250 times
Reputation: 12709
Originally Posted by rdflk View Post
I've read all the posts so far, and it's interesting that some won't answer the questions that are asked but instead choose to obfuscate.

Tell me again why Hobby Lobby (or any other CLOSELY HELD CORP, usually family run) should be FORCED to cover birth control?

As for the union case, I'm a union member and pro union (because of job benefits and protections) BUT in this case the unions were absolutely wrong. They argued that becase a person gets medicaid funds to take care of a disabled child -- they should technically be considered a state worker. WHAT?!

The below is from Font Page magazine's website:
In the union case, plaintiff Pamela Harris serves as the primary caretaker for her son, Josh, who has a rare genetic syndrome. She receives Medicaid funds and essentially functions as a state employee.

During the administration of disgraced ex-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) saw an opportunity to expand by organizing two groups of people: home-based caregivers in the state’s Medicaid program and daycare providers.

Neither group had previously been considered state employees, and for good reason: Most of these caregivers watched over disabled relatives at home, and the daycare providers were small businesses that took in children from low-income families that received state child-care subsidies. Calling people in either group “state workers” just because they took advantage of a public social program would be as crazy as classifying food stamps recipients as state employees.
Thanks for pointing out the facts in the union case. It's true, the SCOTUS decision does not affect public or government unions such as teachers', firefighters unions. Sad to say, most of the folks who've posted in this thread don't deal in facts, don't care to know facts, preferring instead to expand on the liberal reactions to the events as creatively as they know how.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:31 PM
20,979 posts, read 15,612,174 times
Reputation: 10270
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Do you realize that women use "contraceptives" for things that do not involve contraception?

My sister had to start taking the pill at age 13. Not because she was sexually active or even thinking about it, but because for her periods were debilitating. They meant 3 days of nausea and painful cramps followed by several days of heavy bleeding. She couldn't go to school. She couldn't walk around or even sit up straight when her period was visiting due to the pain. This meant missing several days of school. Even now, well into adulthood, she has the same symptoms if she misses her doses of the pill.

Not all women can use the "pill" and use the other alternatives to help with period regularity, and period symptoms.
The Pill: Not Just For Pregnancy Prevention : Shots - Health News : NPR

And hobby lobby is misinformed about these so-called abortion causing contraceptives.
5 myths about the Hobby Lobby case, debunked | MSNBC

Clearly they don't care that much, as they still invest in these companies via there company sponsored retirement plans:
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection - Forbes

I am absolutely sure, that soon, some company is going to claim cancer treatments are against there religion, and they don't want to pay (because it is expensive).
And another poster who has no idea about the narrow scope of the decision, yet runs with leftie talking points.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:34 PM
20,979 posts, read 15,612,174 times
Reputation: 10270
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It is not birth control. It is women's health!

Ad if they care so much about covering "reproductive and sexual health" why do they cover viagra and vasectomies? That is the same sort of thing.
Viagra and vasectomies have the OPPOSITE effect of abortion.

The decision was about the store owners beliefs about 4 types of birth control which they believe cause abortion.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:38 PM
20,979 posts, read 15,612,174 times
Reputation: 10270
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
What conservatives don't understand is that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion.
LOL. That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:41 PM
20,979 posts, read 15,612,174 times
Reputation: 10270
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
So because you don't understand that birth control is part of healthcare, people need to suffer.
Birth control isn't healthcare, unless the particular drug is needed for some other reason.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:42 PM
10,287 posts, read 12,397,783 times
Reputation: 5967
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
All the posts about "men" not understanding women's health issues.


Why can't all those women simply keep their legs closed? Why is that so hard to do? Women claim it's their body when it comes to abortion but when it come to avoiding the issue of getting pregnant, suddenly it becomes everyone else's problem.

How does that work?
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
LOL. That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
You must not read much.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:43 PM
10,287 posts, read 12,397,783 times
Reputation: 5967
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Birth control isn't healthcare, unless the particular drug is needed for some other reason.
News to me and doctors around the world.
Old 07-02-2014, 03:54 PM
7,282 posts, read 8,380,090 times
Reputation: 11407
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
I literally laughed out loud at this one! I imagine the lord inspired thinking like this. Why can't men keep their penis in their pants?
Since you brought it up, just how does the penis get into the vagina if the woman's legs aren't open or the woman isn't participating?

You see, it always comes back no matter how you try to twist it.

Perhaps sex education wasn't part of the curriculum in your school? Parents forgot "the talk"?

Legs closed, no pregnancy. I can't wait for all the excuses as to why that doesn't work or that woman shouldn't be subjected to such an alternative.

Lets hear it for the newest Constitutional Amendment, the right for woman to have sex without consequences.

If women want to say it's their body so they have all the rights to it, why doesn't that include the right not to get pregnant without someone else footing the bill?

So far, not one reasonable response to keeping your legs closed. Not one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top