Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:18 PM Jul 2014

why I suspect reaction to Hobby Lobby is somewhat hair-on-fire

I'm not saying that it's not a bad decision, I think it is a terrible decision. I'm not saying there is no reason to be angry about it.

What I'm talking about is the total, widespread, unadulterated rage. As if it is the worst decision ever handed down. Imo it's not even the worst decision that was handed down YESTERDAY.

As if it is a turning point in American history.

As if it has some similarity to "Sharia law", a term I'm hearing get thrown around.

The reason for my suspicion is Obama's compromise where he exempted non-profit organizations from the mandate. That compromise was in some sense making the same decision as the SCOTUS just did, but for a different class of company. I saw quite a bit of protest over that compromise here at DU, no doubt about it. But it was NOTHING like the reaction to this decision. This decision was significantly different from Obama's compromise, but not different enough to account for the difference in the reactions here.

204 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
why I suspect reaction to Hobby Lobby is somewhat hair-on-fire (Original Post) Enrique Jul 2014 OP
If you aren't hysterical, you aren't paying attention! quinnox Jul 2014 #1
"Hysterical"? Really? Quantess Jul 2014 #11
that is standard from that corner. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #20
Yep. SSDD redqueen Jul 2014 #42
The defenders of Rome have come out in full force theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #43
I am really curious about the "Defenders of Rome" descriptor. Laelth Jul 2014 #149
I see cwydro Jul 2014 #107
Things often become "standard" for very good reason. merrily Jul 2014 #135
This kind of shit is STILL way too common. nt redqueen Jul 2014 #184
Exactly. merrily Jul 2014 #185
Check this out REP Jul 2014 #199
Word police? It's a perfectly fine word. quinnox Jul 2014 #21
You're accusing ME of being one of the "word police"? That is laughter inducing. Quantess Jul 2014 #32
meh quinnox Jul 2014 #34
Well, it WAS passive-agressive! Quantess Jul 2014 #47
Because sometimes a little word like "meh" sums up my opinion of a post quite succinctly quinnox Jul 2014 #52
Fine. If you you don't care that you appear wimpy and passive aggressive, then neither do I. Quantess Jul 2014 #56
That was funny. seaglass Jul 2014 #70
I can't tell anymore... Zenlitened Jul 2014 #78
And you are perfectly aware of its origin and the offense it causes intaglio Jul 2014 #136
Except when it isn't. Please see Reply 135. merrily Jul 2014 #138
FYI Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #24
Thanks to the four jurors who believed in freedom of expression! quinnox Jul 2014 #27
No kidding yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #30
Yep, if there is one thing that sucks, it is word police quinnox Jul 2014 #41
You come across as irrational. Hysterical even. A little bit shrill, too. LanternWaste Jul 2014 #73
Lantern Waste, you so and so. merrily Jul 2014 #139
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2014 #33
It wasn't me who alerted, just so you know. Quantess Jul 2014 #36
You know something, quinnox....I want you to know something about me. msanthrope Jul 2014 #82
I will meet you halfway, since you asked politely, and edit my post quinnox Jul 2014 #99
Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #137
Little fool? Really? Given the post and the edit, I might delete "little" and replace it merrily Jul 2014 #140
"Overweening" is the type of word that might be involved in a Seinfield episode. Quantess Jul 2014 #192
Well done. merrily Jul 2014 #195
It was only "well done" if we can agree Quantess Jul 2014 #197
I can agree that you were talking about Quinnox. merrily Jul 2014 #198
Your deliberate use of the word "hysterical" is obvious, MineralMan Jul 2014 #168
BB says it best here: Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #191
Our country was founded precisely to prevent this religious-goverment bullshit. tridim Jul 2014 #2
Me, too. Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #104
But not founded for the benefit of women. merrily Jul 2014 #141
bad for workers, bad for women, bad for a secular society Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #3
.. redqueen Jul 2014 #5
I think it's all those things Enrique Jul 2014 #19
Everything's really only about Obama? merrily Jul 2014 #143
The Harris ruling was all of those things as-well... Chan790 Jul 2014 #29
i agree Enrique Jul 2014 #38
Oh, I think that was intentional on the part of the conservative bloc of SCOTUS. Chan790 Jul 2014 #50
So, how many OPs did you start about Harris? merrily Jul 2014 #146
Thank you for your posts in this thread. redqueen Jul 2014 #186
You're most welcome, but I deserve no thanks for merrily Jul 2014 #187
Right to work is not clearly partisan, but birth control is? WOW. merrily Jul 2014 #173
And what do you think that proves? merrily Jul 2014 #144
+1 Starry Messenger Jul 2014 #71
But notice ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #84
Yep--and, in the long run, bad for religion, too, as merrily Jul 2014 #142
What I think you don't get is the court handed upaloopa Jul 2014 #4
That's right. Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #105
I welcome my new theocratic overlords,... er...bosses. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #6
Nuttin new about old religious men, some celibate (supposedly) merrily Jul 2014 #158
with one stroke, gone, is the separation of church and state. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #7
He's not JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #14
I was afraid of that. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #17
not true Enrique Jul 2014 #22
now, you are conflating non-profit with churches. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #26
i suspect that's the reason many are going along with the outrage Enrique Jul 2014 #31
Well, speaking for myself, I'm going along with the outrage because I'm outraged. kickitup Jul 2014 #62
Then, you clearly must fine-tune your ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #89
"Going along with the outrage." You're kidding, right? Here's why you suspect the reaction Squinch Jul 2014 #72
Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #108
This right here JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #153
Wrong on that, too. You're 0 for about 20 so far. Keep going. merrily Jul 2014 #177
^this is so true^ JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #39
Obama's Compromise RobinA Jul 2014 #69
It has power, but is not binding legal precedent. merrily Jul 2014 #180
We've never had separation of church and state and the merrily Jul 2014 #174
Very good question. nt BootinUp Jul 2014 #176
um, not really snooper2 Jul 2014 #25
seems I am listening to one now. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #28
You are using your smart phone in pews again! snooper2 Jul 2014 #35
and you are showing your true colors. but, no one is laughing. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #46
my colors run deep! I didn't know I was trying to hide something snooper2 Jul 2014 #51
did you just play the race card with me? Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #59
LOL I have no clue what tone you are... snooper2 Jul 2014 #61
Why would you post a non-sequitor like that unless you meant it in a passive-agressive way? Quantess Jul 2014 #64
I'm starting to get lost here LOL, I responded directly to a post saying "showing your true colors" snooper2 Jul 2014 #66
Go ahead and take an extra job at Hobby Lobby, then, Quantess Jul 2014 #8
I can't even formulate a reply to you Skidmore Jul 2014 #9
Yeah, I feel the same way frazzled Jul 2014 #16
Interestingly, it is males who are doing the "there, there, calm down" bit. Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #44
Duly noted and deeply resented. Skidmore Jul 2014 #49
I'm with you. This is disgusting. Squinch Jul 2014 #76
But you are missing the point ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #92
Yeah, I coulda figured the OP would find a way to "Thanks Obama".. lol Cha Jul 2014 #112
That's transparently clear ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #114
It's the DU Pretzel faction. Cha Jul 2014 #115
Of course it is, and just because they post here doesnt mean they are at ALL liberal randys1 Jul 2014 #79
wrong ibegurpard Jul 2014 #125
Cool. (Has she ever been wrong? If so, I missed it.) merrily Jul 2014 #183
I guess I should have phrased that differently. Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #200
purportedly being the operative word there VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #55
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #110
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #90
boston bean formulated the only appropriate reply... cyberswede Jul 2014 #172
So, it doesn't matter to you that the women in your life Ilsa Jul 2014 #10
this has nothing to do with Burkas Enrique Jul 2014 #23
No, it's worse than burkas. Wearing or not Ilsa Jul 2014 #45
Some of these men here remind me of the five criminals on the SC when asking randys1 Jul 2014 #81
Like Rushbag thinking birth control pills were like condoms Ilsa Jul 2014 #85
Look, for at least five of ten years I lived under Skidmore Jul 2014 #102
Same mentality as requires Burkas resents women's merrily Jul 2014 #179
Fertile men who enjoy sex with women are also affected. merrily Jul 2014 #181
Absolutely... Ilsa Jul 2014 #193
The court legalized discrimination mcar Jul 2014 #12
codified sexism is what I call it too VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #57
You mean the court just codified into law that it's okay for an organization hughee99 Jul 2014 #188
Where we once had religious non-profits & for-profit corporations Zambero Jul 2014 #13
fuck me sharp_stick Jul 2014 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2014 #18
Good point Vattel Jul 2014 #37
This is only the beginning theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #40
So they are trying to destroy ACA and separation with one swoop randys1 Jul 2014 #86
Thanks for the link to becketfund JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #156
As a female and a non-christian I find this ruling frightening Marrah_G Jul 2014 #48
I don't think I even knew about ohheckyeah Jul 2014 #53
We no longer have a Constitution! get the red out Jul 2014 #54
My hair isn't on fire, ohheckyeah Jul 2014 #58
I think this is a very good OP cali Jul 2014 #60
That I think is what's bothering me about the entirety of yesterday. Chan790 Jul 2014 #63
I wish you'd post that as a an op. really well said. cali Jul 2014 #65
I, for one, ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #94
Two things. Chan790 Jul 2014 #106
I respectfully do not agree angrychair Jul 2014 #120
We will have to disagree then. Chan790 Jul 2014 #124
It that because you value economic security over bodily integrity? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #93
no. because I think the ramifications- including for women- are even greater. cali Jul 2014 #111
So your answer is ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #113
Not happy with the Harris decision, but kcr Jul 2014 #96
I am still upset about the Shelby County decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act Gothmog Jul 2014 #201
Do you really have no idea what the potential implications of this ruling are? etherealtruth Jul 2014 #67
Maybe there is a bit of male-pattern baldness on this issue? Generic Other Jul 2014 #68
So in effect, we have a male telling women affected by the decision to calm down. LanternWaste Jul 2014 #74
i'm actually envisioning men as the people i'm addressing Enrique Jul 2014 #75
So you wrote this OP just for the guys? You just keep digging deeper here, don't you? Squinch Jul 2014 #77
*groan* smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #109
With "allies" like this, who needs enemies? Squinch Jul 2014 #148
Yup. I love when they are all like, "Well, I *was* on your side, but if you're going to be a bitch PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #151
Oh, yes! Their feminist convictions are so deeply held that if someone is mean to them on a message Squinch Jul 2014 #152
In your opinion? Rider3 Jul 2014 #80
why didn't that happen when Obama made his compromise? Enrique Jul 2014 #83
Obama making a compromise and 5 men on the highest court going out of their randys1 Jul 2014 #88
And more (and for accuracy's sake) ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #95
Why are you asking all these questions?? KarenS Jul 2014 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jul 2014 #87
Exactly, as I have said, these 5 justice, 4 for certain, are bought and paid for randys1 Jul 2014 #91
That's cool -- you might feel differently when your employer can get between you and your doctor. Brickbat Jul 2014 #97
I'm assuming you're not a woman lunatica Jul 2014 #100
it would have been progress Enrique Jul 2014 #101
The Canadian health care system does not cover drugs period laundry_queen Jul 2014 #132
Why does it bother you so much if other people get outraged over Rex Jul 2014 #103
because the issue isn't bullshit Enrique Jul 2014 #118
coincidentally...Right Winger Jennifer Rubin had the same idea BootinUp Jul 2014 #119
that's a separate point, but a decent one Enrique Jul 2014 #121
She covers both I believe. BootinUp Jul 2014 #122
You are using this issue to do a little Obama bashing? ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #150
No but in essence that is what you are saying to a lot of outraged people. Rex Jul 2014 #123
And again, you dig deeper. Women who have had their rights hijacked, because they don't see this Squinch Jul 2014 #155
The Citizens United decision is 100x more repulsive than the Hobby Lobby one. Calista241 Jul 2014 #116
they are two of a kind ibegurpard Jul 2014 #126
Are you a guy? Lex Jul 2014 #117
People have had enough Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2014 #127
I will not call you a sexist misoginist pig bluestateguy Jul 2014 #128
Then you're a better person than I. n/t JTFrog Jul 2014 #145
Perhaps my hair is on fire onecaliberal Jul 2014 #129
well said, onecaliberal Skittles Jul 2014 #130
Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #133
Exactly. Yeah. That does tend to set my hair on fire, whether Enrique thinks that is Squinch Jul 2014 #147
Thanks onecaliberal Jul 2014 #169
I am too! JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #160
. myrna minx Jul 2014 #190
My hair is on fire because... DeadLetterOffice Jul 2014 #202
No one cares what you think RainDog Jul 2014 #131
Saying corporations have religious beliefs that the 1st Amend. protects merrily Jul 2014 #134
He's not really that blind JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #154
I had a suspicion, hence the comment in my post merrily Jul 2014 #157
The "but what about me" mentality JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #159
On your part, it was just a general observation. merrily Jul 2014 #162
They are pretending JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #163
I usually operate on the assumption that it doesn't merrily Jul 2014 #164
I am German, and we have all that "socialist" healthcare. OldEurope Jul 2014 #161
that's interesting Enrique Jul 2014 #166
Interesting? It's a false equivalency. merrily Jul 2014 #175
You don't have free bc only because your law did not give it to you. merrily Jul 2014 #167
I happen to disagree with you Shankapotomus Jul 2014 #165
And you are wrong. A corporation was given religious status, and that is seriously 6000eliot Jul 2014 #170
why you should be worried DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #171
The precedent for basing this on religion is as phony as a three dollar bill nolabels Jul 2014 #189
excuse me DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #196
He never stated of being unable understand why people were angry, but even acknowledged it nolabels Jul 2014 #204
Thanks for reminding me to put you on Ignore. nt valerief Jul 2014 #178
So what if it is "hair on fire"? Who cares? Raksha Jul 2014 #182
Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #194
Maybe you had to be there... ljm2002 Jul 2014 #203

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
43. The defenders of Rome have come out in full force
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:07 PM
Jul 2014

I didn't even take 24 hours, as I expected. I've seen it all over GD this morning but I guess some folks didn't think I would notice. They really don't know who they are messing with. I wasn't born yesterday.

The tack seems to be to downplay the SC decisions about abortion protest zones and contraception coverage and dismiss women who are outraged as hysterical. It's being played out in several threads here today. So predictable.

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
149. I am really curious about the "Defenders of Rome" descriptor.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:58 AM
Jul 2014

I hadn't heard that phrase before in this context, and I feel like I'm missing something important.

Help. Please.

-Laelth

merrily

(45,251 posts)
135. Things often become "standard" for very good reason.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:03 AM
Jul 2014

Women have long been diagnosed as suffering from the condition of hysteria, not infrequently at a cost of their very lives. And they are, to this day, often prescribed tranquilizers for what turns out to have been a heart attack.

A recent video on youtube is an example. A woman reported symptoms to her doctor, who diagnosed her as suffering from "stress," the modern day equivalent of a hysteria diagnosis.

She bought the doctor's assessment, to her detriment. Experiencing the same symptoms again--WHILE BEHIND THE WHEEL--she had both the extreme good sense and physical ability to pull off the road. And the brilliance to film herself even as she tried not to suffer from "stress." Actual diagnosis: a stroke.

Need I add that women get misdiagnosed with inability to cope with stress and similar things that benefit from tranquilizers than men do. Always have been. Still are.

Edited to add: Posted to Tuesday Afternoons, but NOT because I think he or she personally needs the info. This thread sure seems in need of it, though.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
21. Word police? It's a perfectly fine word.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:45 PM
Jul 2014

Hysterical -

feeling overwhelming fear or worry

filled with fear or dread <upon hearing the announcement that a shark had been sighted, hysterical beachgoers raced out of the water>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hysterical

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
32. You're accusing ME of being one of the "word police"? That is laughter inducing.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jul 2014

Haha. I guess you don't know about my liberal peppering of spicy words.

I see what you are doing, and I am calling you out, that's all. I think that you are fully aware that "hysterical" is an offensive choice of word (hyster is latin for uterus) , and that you are fully aware of the history of the word's usage.

You're like those passive-agressive jerks who throw around the word "niggardly" and pretend it was all done innocently. I think it was cowardly done and it makes you look bad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
47. Well, it WAS passive-agressive!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:19 PM
Jul 2014

Also, why even bother to reply to someone if it's just going to be "meh"? Totally wimpy.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
52. Because sometimes a little word like "meh" sums up my opinion of a post quite succinctly
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:26 PM
Jul 2014

Meh - Indifference; to be used when one simply does not care.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meh

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
56. Fine. If you you don't care that you appear wimpy and passive aggressive, then neither do I.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:31 PM
Jul 2014

That settles that!

Tetris_Iguana

(501 posts)
24. FYI
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:50 PM
Jul 2014

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:34 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you aren't hysterical, you aren't paying attention!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5177910

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

He is all over this issue making light of it. He uses "hysterical" (has sexist connotation) and that picture of a woman and IMO this post goes over the line. There are lots of posts making light of this issue but this one is a little to obvious with the sexism so I'm alerting

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:43 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems to me the poster is just being a little sarcastic. The pictures posted along with it are humorous. I think it's a bit of an over reaction to take offense.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm hiding because the poster is solely interested in stirring up b.s. - oh, the poster is a troll too.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is slightly obnoxious with sarcasm, but I find the alerter's hair trigger claim of blatant sexism to be without merit.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
41. Yep, if there is one thing that sucks, it is word police
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:00 PM
Jul 2014

As if they have any business trying to control other people's free expression. Authoritarian thinking sucks!

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
73. You come across as irrational. Hysterical even. A little bit shrill, too.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jul 2014

You come across as irrational. Hysterical even. A little bit shrill, too.

Response to quinnox (Reply #27)

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
36. It wasn't me who alerted, just so you know.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:58 PM
Jul 2014

Might as well keep your obnoxious, passive agressive, fake-innocent, post up for everyone to see. You should be embarrassed.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
82. You know something, quinnox....I want you to know something about me.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:32 PM
Jul 2014

I have asked to be banned in HoF because I so virulently disagree with many of the posters there. Thus far, my request has not been granted.

So I want you to understand that not only has your post so offended the women you seek to deride, you've offended me. On a very personal level.


The last poster who offended me on this level was named "HopeHoops." If you recall Meta at all, you will recall my role in that saga.

I am asking you, politely, to delete your post.

Response to quinnox (Reply #99)

merrily

(45,251 posts)
140. Little fool? Really? Given the post and the edit, I might delete "little" and replace it
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:17 AM
Jul 2014

with "massive" or "overweening."

But, that's just a matter of personal style, perhaps even more than a tinge of preciosity.

On important matters, I agree with your post, intaglio.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
192. "Overweening" is the type of word that might be involved in a Seinfield episode.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:55 PM
Jul 2014

Cosmo would say to Jerry "I think you're overweening."
Jerry "why do you think I'm overweening?"
Cosmo "Because you're a weenie."

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
197. It was only "well done" if we can agree
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:23 PM
Jul 2014

that it was quinnox I was talking about. Fuck, maybe "well done" means burned or something.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
198. I can agree that you were talking about Quinnox.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:29 PM
Jul 2014
Fuck, maybe "well done" means burned or something.


As I used it, it meant that I enjoyed your humor.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
168. Your deliberate use of the word "hysterical" is obvious,
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:48 AM
Jul 2014

and annoying as possible. You should be embarrassed, IMO.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
2. Our country was founded precisely to prevent this religious-goverment bullshit.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:25 PM
Jul 2014

I will fight to defend it... even though you don't think it's important.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
141. But not founded for the benefit of women.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:22 AM
Jul 2014

And so it continues, to the delight of some who will not admit to neither the continuing status--maybe not even to the original reality--nor to the delight.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
38. i agree
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:59 PM
Jul 2014

that's the decision I was referring to in my OP.

I think the difference is the lack of the clear partisan angle in that decision, compared to the Hobby Lobby decision.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
50. Oh, I think that was intentional on the part of the conservative bloc of SCOTUS.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:25 PM
Jul 2014

Save the two really awful for women rulings for the last day of the term, knowing that Hobby Lobby would draw all the attention and rage which conveniently lets Harris which destroys unions in a sector (home healthcare, home health aides) dominated by women and which ultimately will drive down wages and benefits (edit: for women) slip by unnoticed.

It's not that Hobby Lobby isn't an offensive and terrible ruling...it's just that I think Harris which hurts women more isn't getting enough attention and is slipping by because it was released the same day as Hobby Lobby.

There's a certain "Bread and Circuses" feeling to it, like we're being distracted from our own slaughter.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
146. So, how many OPs did you start about Harris?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:11 AM
Jul 2014

It's hard to distract women from the prospect of their own slaughter by wire hanger or butchering abortionists or self administered drugs.

It may be hard for males like you and the OP to get that, but no one is stopping you from drawing more attention to the slaughter Harris will wreak on women.

Given you are worried about the slaughter that Harris will wreak on women, go for it.

About Harris:

In the case of Harris v. Quinn, the court's five conservative justices ruled that home-care workers in Illinois—such as the lead plaintiff, Pam Harris—cannot be forced to pay dues to a union if they're not union members because they are not full-fledged public employees like cops, firefighters, and teachers.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/supreme-court-harris-quinn-unions-right-to-work

While I have not read the Harris opinion, I am still more worried about the literal slaughter Holly Hobby could lead to before very long.

Both my parents were union members and I was a union member, whenever I worked in a category that unions could represent. Been grateful to and wildly supportive of unions since I was old enough to say the word "union." I still see eroding the right to even contraception as more of a danger to both men and women than deciding that people who care for relatives are not public employees and therefore are not subject to mandatory dues payment.

But, that's just me. If you feel differently, feel perfectly free to start some "hysteria" about Harris. I bet you won't get half the abuse from your fellow DUers for doing that, as those posting against Holly Hobby are getting.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
84. But notice ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:35 PM
Jul 2014
The reason for my suspicion is Obama's compromise where he exempted non-profit organizations from the mandate. That compromise was in some sense making the same decision as the SCOTUS just did, but for a different class of company. I saw quite a bit of protest over that compromise here at DU, no doubt about it. But it was NOTHING like the reaction to this decision. This decision was significantly different from Obama's compromise, but not different enough to account for the difference in the reactions here.


IOWs ... never-mind, the compromise President Obama made was "for a different class of company", i.e., wholly religious organizations vs a wholly secular organizations; but "Thanks (President) Obama, anyway!"



merrily

(45,251 posts)
142. Yep--and, in the long run, bad for religion, too, as
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:29 AM
Jul 2014

Thomas Jefferson understood. The alleged "wall of separation between church and state" that he saw the First Amendment as having created was for the good of both the state and the church.

In this instance, women are over 50% of the population. Those who see this decision as harmful to any fertile male who enjoys having sex with women without worrying about unwanted offspring and 18 years of unwanted support obligations are not an inconsiderable percentage of the population, either. And that includes churchgoers.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
4. What I think you don't get is the court handed
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:29 PM
Jul 2014

the decision of whether an insurance co. should cover a woman's medication over to an owner of a company. We should not honor religion in this country that way.
So the women who work for hobby lobby are subject to the owners religious beliefs.
Even if the number of people impacted is small those people have the same rights as you yet the court doesn't recognize that.
The impact of this decision can grow even to a place where your employer takes rights from you based on his/her religious beliefs.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
158. Nuttin new about old religious men, some celibate (supposedly)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:31 AM
Jul 2014

making lousy rules for and about women.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
7. with one stroke, gone, is the separation of church and state.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:33 PM
Jul 2014

you are fucking kidding me with this shit, right.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
22. not true
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:46 PM
Jul 2014

we still have separation of church and state.

If you see the decision in such stark terms, did you see Obama's compromise in the same terms?

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
31. i suspect that's the reason many are going along with the outrage
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jul 2014

they don't want to be told "you are done here".

kickitup

(355 posts)
62. Well, speaking for myself, I'm going along with the outrage because I'm outraged.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:00 PM
Jul 2014

I suspect that's why others are as well. But I'm just a little woman without enough sense to understand these things.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
89. Then, you clearly must fine-tune your ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:42 PM
Jul 2014

"Thanks, (President) Obama/See Democrats do the same thing" meter!

Some are all to willing to suspend the facts to make the above argument.

Squinch

(50,773 posts)
72. "Going along with the outrage." You're kidding, right? Here's why you suspect the reaction
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:46 PM
Jul 2014

is "hair on fire:" because you are not directly affected by it, because you can't see the wider implications of it that do affect you, and because, given your words here, it is clear that you have limited respect for those who are affected by it. Because, hey, we're just going along with others, right?

"Going along with the outrage" is an asinine statement on too many levels to count.

RobinA

(9,874 posts)
69. Obama's Compromise
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:35 PM
Jul 2014

is meaningless in the scheme of things, it has no power. Supreme Court decisions are caselaw. As in Law. Law of the land.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
180. It has power, but is not binding legal precedent.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:32 AM
Jul 2014

However, the alleged outrage of we hysterical women has nothing to do with Obama's limited exception. It has to do with the Supreme Court decision.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
174. We've never had separation of church and state and the
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:14 AM
Jul 2014

Holly Hobby decision eroded it even further.

Female DUers are upset about Holly Hobby because they are really upset with Obama. Right to work is not clearly partisan, but birth control is. Holly Hobby did not diminish separation of church and state. Seriously, dude, which reality do you live in?

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
25. um, not really
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:50 PM
Jul 2014

besides in a hundred years churches in this country will be about as popular as scientology...and in a small minority-

That is when the fundies will REALLY get vocal

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
51. my colors run deep! I didn't know I was trying to hide something
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:26 PM
Jul 2014



Well, my daughter may think I am. A couple weeks ago she asked me why I was black LOL. I told her, well, I'm not really considered black sweetie, my mom was from Austria. Then we went on to go through pictures on google and all the different shapes sizes and colors of humans, and cats of course


Anyway-

This will make you laugh!







Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
59. did you just play the race card with me?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jul 2014

fuck me. am I not black enough for you?
how black do I have to be?

wtf is with you?

get the fuck outta my face with a video.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
61. LOL I have no clue what tone you are...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:41 PM
Jul 2014

not sure why you are so angry either...

Shit, only thing I know is EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY!!!!!!! is AWESOME!




Quantess

(27,630 posts)
64. Why would you post a non-sequitor like that unless you meant it in a passive-agressive way?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:10 PM
Jul 2014

That's pretty wimpy of you.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
66. I'm starting to get lost here LOL, I responded directly to a post saying "showing your true colors"
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:21 PM
Jul 2014

which reminded me of a conversation I had with four year old recently. I never got that phrase "showing your true colors" anyway. I thought that was just called being blunt LOL.


But anyway, as another non-sequitor, to keep this sub-thread greatness, an old but good one!

Now has 89,649,658 views!
and-
637,779 likes versus 18,234 dislikes!


Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney!


&list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK9FwA77ic9UmDn9SgyGEKvQ

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
8. Go ahead and take an extra job at Hobby Lobby, then,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jul 2014

if you would like insurance that covers your viagra and vasectomy, while knowing that your female co-workers have to pay full price for their contraception

Also. have you somehow missed the part about this being a dangerous legal precedent that opens up a Pandoras Box? And that it reaffirms that corporations are people?

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
16. Yeah, I feel the same way
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:42 PM
Jul 2014

I'm gobsmacked that the vast implications of this decision are not being taken seriously by many on this (purportedly liberal) board. The issues are many, and I'm too busy with work, and my mind is too roiling, to list them all:

The precedent that corporations can hold religious beliefs

The precedent that even false beliefs (e.g., that Plan B and their ilk are abortifacients—a scientifically proven falsehood) should be recognized as true "beliefs"

The idea that corporations, which are formed usually to separate out the owners from the business, in this case are identified with the owners.

The idea that women's health can be directed by their employers--and, frankly, at least at this point, ONLY women's health

The list could go on and on .. But REALLY, "what's the big deal"?

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
49. Duly noted and deeply resented.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:24 PM
Jul 2014

The notion that it is acceptable for you not to have control over your own body and health is an abomination.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
79. Of course it is, and just because they post here doesnt mean they are at ALL liberal
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:27 PM
Jul 2014

Just means they are good at posting here, borderline and cautious and so on

BTW, using the word hysterical, AT ALL Ever should put you in the doghouse for a week, but if used directly at any Woman, well



We know what is what here, we know just how bad this ruling is and the doom and gloom it will result in....

Remember, practically all rightwing men hate ALL Women, and many self proclaimed Dem men do too...

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
125. wrong
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:55 AM
Jul 2014

the implications of this decision are far-reaching and frightening.
This male is 100% in agreement with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's blistering dissent.

 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
200. I guess I should have phrased that differently.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:47 PM
Jul 2014

What I meant was, from what I've seen, the handful of DUers who are basically saying "stop overreacting you hysterical drama queens" are male.

But I do think most of DU's good men are outraged.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
90. Okay ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:49 PM
Jul 2014
Pull back a bit and read what the poster was actually saying:

The reason for my suspicion is Obama's compromise where he exempted non-profit organizations from the mandate. That compromise was in some sense making the same decision as the SCOTUS just did, but for a different class of company. I saw quite a bit of protest over that compromise here at DU, no doubt about it. But it was NOTHING like the reaction to this decision. This decision was significantly different from Obama's compromise, but not different enough to account for the difference in the reactions here.


IOWs ... never-mind, the compromise President Obama made was "for a different class of company", i.e., wholly religious organizations vs a wholly secular organizations; "but, thanks (President) Obama, anyway!"

It will help you understand the real meaning/purpose of the post ... and inform whether you should take the time to formulate a reply.

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
10. So, it doesn't matter to you that the women in your life
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:35 PM
Jul 2014

Can be treated as second-class citizens because of someone else's "religious beliefs"? Would you feel differently if your wife (sister, daughter, etc) was required to wear a burka?

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
45. No, it's worse than burkas. Wearing or not
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:15 PM
Jul 2014

Wearing a burka won't kill a woman in the US. Not having the right contraception, or Any contraception, or hormone therapy, can have life-altering consequences.

This ruling just reinforces a religious belief that all women aren't entitled to the healthcare they need.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
81. Some of these men here remind me of the five criminals on the SC when asking
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:30 PM
Jul 2014

the lawyers about birth control, showing they had no clue what it was, how it worked, who needed it and why and when and how expensive some of it is or all of it is to some people.

They could care less, they showed that in their questions.

This is pure hatred of Women, people.

Now how god damn long are us MEN (and Women) gonna stand by and let this shit go on?

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
85. Like Rushbag thinking birth control pills were like condoms
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:36 PM
Jul 2014

in that you need one for each sex act.

Aside from doctors, I suspect most men know very little about how birth control works and why women need more than one option.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
102. Look, for at least five of ten years I lived under
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:59 PM
Jul 2014

Shari'a law in post-revolutionary Iran. When religion slammed the door shut on women's rights it felt pretty much the same as this does now. This decision is an intrusion on women's rights to their own choices and bodies. It is just another one of a full on assault right now. What makes this SC decisions so awful is the finality it carries because, in the absence of a Congress that is concerned with the effects of policy on women, the chances the law being changed are slim to none. It also sets a precedent which will be tested to the limits over and over again. Whether you are forced into hejab or into silence, it is all the same as the door slams shut. I take this very seriously and it is frightening to see how many are willing to help slam that door.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
179. Same mentality as requires Burkas resents women's
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:25 AM
Jul 2014

Constitutional right to reproductive choice.

So far, not one thing right. Keep going.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
181. Fertile men who enjoy sex with women are also affected.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:34 AM
Jul 2014

It's an 18 year support obligation legally, not to mention all the other mishigoss.

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
193. Absolutely...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:02 PM
Jul 2014

I can't imagine why so many male partners leave contraception up entirely to their female partner. I think that if I was a man, I would educate myself on birth control so I could at least converse intelligently and make appropriate inquiries at the right time.

mcar

(42,206 posts)
12. The court legalized discrimination
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:39 PM
Jul 2014

Or codified, if that's a more appropriate term.

Excuse me if I think that's worth getting upset about.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
188. You mean the court just codified into law that it's okay for an organization
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:20 PM
Jul 2014

to treat people differently based on their race or gender?

Zambero

(8,954 posts)
13. Where we once had religious non-profits & for-profit corporations
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:40 PM
Jul 2014

Now we have for-profit religious corporations, an extrapolation of the original ACA non-profit concession that is beyond the pale. As we speak, corporate lawyers are pouring through cherry-picked Scriptural references in order to link their findings with whatever pertinent Constitutional arguments might serve their clients' self-serving interests. The 3-way intersection linking money, the exercise of absolute power over others of perceived weaker standing, and of course religion -- is not a pretty sight.

Response to Enrique (Original post)

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
40. This is only the beginning
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:00 PM
Jul 2014

May I direct you to...

http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

The Hobby Lobby case is not the last battle in this war, just the shot across the bow.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
48. As a female and a non-christian I find this ruling frightening
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:21 PM
Jul 2014

Perhaps your life experience puts this ruling lower on your list of things that matter to you?

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
53. I don't think I even knew about
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:26 PM
Jul 2014

Obama's capitulation. I don't spend every minute of every day on the computer at DU or news channels.

A Supreme Court ruling is quit a bit different than just one of many of Obama's compromises.

get the red out

(13,458 posts)
54. We no longer have a Constitution!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:28 PM
Jul 2014

The Supreme Court is using it as toilet paper, and Scalia's fanatical ass has a lot of shit to wipe off.

Yes, I've got rage. In my mind anyone who shops at Hobby Lobby is an enemy of women's rights. And true religious freedom in general.

My hair might be on fire, but so are the last claims to freedom and equality in this country.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
58. My hair isn't on fire,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:35 PM
Jul 2014

nor am I hysterical. Nice to see liberals throwing that around just like the rightwingers.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
60. I think this is a very good OP
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jul 2014

I believe it was a seriously bad decision that opens a pandora's box, but frankly, I think yesterday's union busting decision was even worse and has greater ramifications.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
63. That I think is what's bothering me about the entirety of yesterday.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:02 PM
Jul 2014

The Harris ruling on public sector unions is probably actually worse for women and is getting no attention because it was released the same day as Hobby Lobby. As I said in reply #50, I think this was intentional.

Which is the worse ruling:

*The one that lets your boss control your genitalia? (This isn't me using the rhetorical trick of posing a long complex choice against a simpler one to frame one as less important. I just think there's nothing to explain about why the Hobby Lobby ruling is terrible for women that hasn't already been said. We all know it's an offensive and terrible ruling that acts to allow employers to compel pregnancy on women, denigrates the rights of women, and allows an employer to impose their religious values on employees.)

or

*The one that destroys unions and ultimately depresses wages and benefits in a employment-sector dominated by women (I don't have the national numbers but someone told me here in CT home health-aides are ~90% women; that reflects my impressions and is probably pretty close nationally and everywhere) and one of the few jobs that pays well while not requiring a lot of training or education; a job that is an entry-way to meaningful employment for single parents (more often women than men), caretakers to their own parents and children (more often women than men), and women who may be escaping the oppression of misogynistic men who want to keep them from entering the workforce from a lifetime of child-rearing and housemaking...applicable skills to that career-field?

Neither. They're both fucking awful...but one is getting no attention. Both rulings are about keeping women down and gender-inequality.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
94. I, for one, ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:02 PM
Jul 2014

think a "boss controlling my genitalia" is far worst, in that the Harris decision only harms unions (and depresses wages), IF those currently represented (and paying for that representation) walk away from the unions.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
106. Two things.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:02 PM
Jul 2014

1.) They probably will. Why pay for service you can get for free? "Here's an extra $5/week in your paycheck and better health insurance, you can pay me for getting these for you or not." Few people turn down a free ride unfortunately.

2.) Expansions of RtW laws like this generally depress wages across the board, both inside and outside the affected employment sector. That is, it's likely to going to depress wages and benefits of everybody, not merely the union membership. Home-care workers will leave for other jobs once their benefits and wage recede...jobs they will likely take for less than the workers they're displacing, those workers in-turn displace-down other workers. Worse, these displacements generally skew demographically towards women and minorities. It has a potential compensation cratering effect across the landscape, particularly for those with less skills-education or college within most-affected groups.

It doesn't just affect union membership. I'm not saying either is unimportant...they both need to be combated. One just seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of attention in light of the joint and separate consequences to all women of these rulings. We can't dedicate so much energy to combating Hobby-Lobby that we fail to combat them harming women in other ways that are less immediately-obvious.

There is more than one front in this war on women from conservatives.

angrychair

(8,592 posts)
120. I respectfully do not agree
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:31 PM
Jul 2014

The hobby lobby ruling attacks women and religious freedom or freedom FROM religion at its very core. The implications are far to many to list but have already been spoken too by many here at DU and TV and the Internet.

The Harris ruling is IN NO WAY on the same level. It DOES NOT prevent people from joining a union. It does not prevent unions from collecting dues. It does make the way forward for private sector unions a little harder row to hoe.

The hobby lobby ruling PREVENTS women from getting medically required medical care because their employer doesn't like women having the same rights and freedoms of their male counterparts and CODIFIES it into LAW.

It gives an employer the right to decide what health care a women can and cannot get.

It gives a for-profit corporation the right to have religious beliefs and to press those beliefs on their employee

It says that a private corporation can control their employee's private lives.

If you are Jewish or Muslim or an atheist that your belief system or desire to not have a belief system is not has important as your employer's christian belief system.

With all due respect, I don't see how Harris is even in the same paragraph as hobby lobby.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
124. We will have to disagree then.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:25 AM
Jul 2014

I am skeptical that the impact on women of Hobby Lobby will ultimately be even remotely-comparable of that of Harris.

In a lot of ways, I expect the Hobby Lobby precedent to be a lot like Heller where the perceived impact at the time seemed huge and it's actual factual impact a decade later is negligible. Like it never happened; reality, circumstance and political maneuvering trumped the courts. The law cannot compel the unattainable.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
93. It that because you value economic security over bodily integrity? ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:56 PM
Jul 2014

I think this is what is playing out in this thread ... some place a higher value on economic interests over concerns of sexism.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
96. Not happy with the Harris decision, but
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:08 PM
Jul 2014

Union busting is sadly expected and nothing new. The HL ruling is shocking for how direct the attack on women is.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
201. I am still upset about the Shelby County decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:03 PM
Jul 2014

This decision is horrible but the Shelby County decision is even worse. If nothing else, Shelby County relied on the same legal principle used to justify Dred Scott

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
67. Do you really have no idea what the potential implications of this ruling are?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jul 2014

The specific ruling is bad enough .... what may follow can be even worse

Generic Other

(28,979 posts)
68. Maybe there is a bit of male-pattern baldness on this issue?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:33 PM
Jul 2014

Hard to have a hair-on-fire reaction when you have no dog in the fight.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
74. So in effect, we have a male telling women affected by the decision to calm down.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:58 PM
Jul 2014

I'm presuming you're male, yes?

So in effect, we have a male telling women affected by the decision that they need to calm down. Odd-- because that almost never happens on DU, does it...?

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
75. i'm actually envisioning men as the people i'm addressing
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:12 PM
Jul 2014

I can't of course tell the gender of people that post, but the outrage I'm talking about strikes me as male. Guys taking the opportunity to beat their chests over a righteous cause. That's a prejudice on my part, but that's where my OP is coming from.

Squinch

(50,773 posts)
148. With "allies" like this, who needs enemies?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:50 AM
Jul 2014

Because those who make comments like his are usually the first to tell us that we are "alienating our allies" when we disagree with them.

Lots of folks here need to look to themselves and realize they are kidding themselves in thinking they are not holding byzantine and obnoxious sexist ideas.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
151. Yup. I love when they are all like, "Well, I *was* on your side, but if you're going to be a bitch
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:10 AM
Jul 2014

about it..."

I've heard that about abortion rights as well. You know what? When someone can be swayed against a position because someone is passionately arguing for it on the internet and offends their delicate sensibilities, they never really supported that cause.

Squinch

(50,773 posts)
152. Oh, yes! Their feminist convictions are so deeply held that if someone is mean to them on a message
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:12 AM
Jul 2014

board, they cry for burkas.

They have no idea that they are broadcasting their actual beliefs in a way that everyone can see them but themselves.

Rider3

(919 posts)
80. In your opinion?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:29 PM
Jul 2014

Maybe that's your opinion, but we women just took a turn backwards. This whole country went backwards. Corporations are considered people, but a woman is not. There is so much at stake with this verdict. If you cannot see this, then there's no reason for me or anyone else to try and explain sense to you.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
83. why didn't that happen when Obama made his compromise?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:35 PM
Jul 2014

why was this the critical point instead of the earlier one?

randys1

(16,286 posts)
88. Obama making a compromise and 5 men on the highest court going out of their
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:41 PM
Jul 2014

way to say it is OK to discriminate against Women, NOT men, in healthcare, you cant see the difference?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
95. And more (and for accuracy's sake) ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:07 PM
Jul 2014

President Obama's "compromise" applies only to religious organizations; whereas, this decision applies to all (closely-held) secular organizations ... Big difference in scope and impact.

KarenS

(4,022 posts)
98. Why are you asking all these questions??
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:28 PM
Jul 2014

Why does it matter to you when folks got upset??

so, I "should" have been upset last year? last month?

The fact is I am beyond angry and sad about yesterday and
I resent the all of the things you are saying and implying.

I don't care that you think you are "above the fray" on this and that you and only you know when it is appropriate to get upset. Laughing/making fun of/shaming upset people is truly not the way to go ~ ever. It comes off as patronizing and authoritarian both of which truly make me crazy.

Yep ~ hysterical and hair-on-fire ~ have a blast!

Response to Enrique (Original post)

randys1

(16,286 posts)
91. Exactly, as I have said, these 5 justice, 4 for certain, are bought and paid for
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:51 PM
Jul 2014

groomed by CATO/KOCH/Heritage to go to the SC after two stolen elections to reverse ALL progress made by the adults over the past 50 yrs.

The progress we have made is counterproductive to the Oligarchs and the for profit masters of these 4 or 5 men...

What I am saying is not only not an exaggeration, it is clear and obvious fact.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
100. I'm assuming you're not a woman
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:48 PM
Jul 2014

Although your name is masculine.

It's just that this decision is like just another scoop of shit piled onto the rest of the misogynist laws going around this country. It may not be Sharia law, but give it time. Erosion is a progressive thing that takes time.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
101. it would have been progress
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:55 PM
Jul 2014

the reactionaries on the Supreme Court prevented important progress. But they did not cast us back into a dark age. The Canadian health system does not cover contraceptives, and Canada is not under Sharia law.

Regarding women, Chan790 makes a very good point that the other ruling made yesterday, the Harris ruling, affects women on a much more substantial level, but it's almost totally being ignored, by men and women here alike.

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
132. The Canadian health care system does not cover drugs period
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:52 AM
Jul 2014

Unless you are a child in poverty or a senior, so that's a weak argument. We have to buy supplemental insurance to get drugs covered. So the fact that Canada doesn't cover contraceptives is a bullshit argument...because they don't cover any drugs at all.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
103. Why does it bother you so much if other people get outraged over
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:12 PM
Jul 2014

a bad decision? You think lesser of the men on DU for being outraged along with their DU sisters?

What a strange OP. Your lack of empathy is telling.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
118. because the issue isn't bullshit
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:21 PM
Jul 2014

the issues are real, and the false outrage makes it look like it's just some election-year ploy. Which it's not.

Yes, I'm making a judgement about what is true outrage and what is false outrage, and a lot of what I'm basing it on is comparing the reaction to Obama's compromise.

BootinUp

(46,924 posts)
119. coincidentally...Right Winger Jennifer Rubin had the same idea
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:29 PM
Jul 2014

In case your interested, warning its RW garbage:

The left’s hysteria over the Hobby Lobby decision

BY JENNIFER RUBIN July 1 at 10:30 AM
From the caterwauling on the left over the Hobby Lobby case one would never guess that the statute that guaranteed the religious accommodation for the Hobby Lobby owners in the case was one passed overwhelmingly by Congress (97-3 in the Senate and by a voice vote in the House) and signed into law by a Democratic president.

Now the Democrats, some of whom voted for the bill, cry foul. They didn’t mean to cover closely held corporations, they say. In that case, they should have complained when there was an exemption afforded to not-for-profit corporations. There was no outcry.

(More Trash at the link above)

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
121. that's a separate point, but a decent one
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:37 PM
Jul 2014

I was talking about the more recent Obama compromise.

I wasn't talking about that legislation Rubin is talking about, which I wasn't aware of until recently. I just watched a video posted here of Hillary discussing the decision, and the interviewer asked her about that law, which he pointed out was singed by President Clinton.

That might be a right-winger writing that column, but she's latching onto a legitimate point.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
123. No but in essence that is what you are saying to a lot of outraged people.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:15 AM
Jul 2014

That they are bullshitting about it and that is just rude.

Squinch

(50,773 posts)
155. And again, you dig deeper. Women who have had their rights hijacked, because they don't see this
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:21 AM
Jul 2014

issue exactly as you do, are full of "false outrage." Because, if we don't see exactly it as you do, we must be dissembling harpies with our hair on fire.

Second, nice try there where you say the issues are important. Thanks a heap but no one is believing that this issue of OUR bodies being co-opted is anything more to you than a chance to slam Obama.

Seriously, look to yourself. What you are broadcasting loud and clear here is that, in your opinion, women's control of their bodies is secondary to the political point you want to make. You are saying that the women who object to this decision are dishonest. You are saying that you are the arbiter of what are and are not true emotions within the women you are addressing.

Look to yourself. You are holding astonishingly sexist positions, and I bet you don't even realize it. But we can all see it as if you have shone a klieg light on it.

You are a big part of the problem.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
127. People have had enough
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:06 AM
Jul 2014

hopefully this energy will be put into campaigning hard fro the November elections.

onecaliberal

(32,471 posts)
129. Perhaps my hair is on fire
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:33 AM
Jul 2014

Because old white motherfuckers keep insisting on controlling my body, my healthcare, my employment, my family planning, the amount of money I can earn.

I am really fucking tired of white men thinking I not capable of running my own life and making decisions for myself.

Response to onecaliberal (Reply #129)

Squinch

(50,773 posts)
147. Exactly. Yeah. That does tend to set my hair on fire, whether Enrique thinks that is
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:46 AM
Jul 2014

warranted or not.

Welcome to DU! Good to have you here!

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
160. I am too!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:40 AM
Jul 2014

The one I'm married to knows better that to try to control me - that's a lesson in futility. I wish the ones who I'm not married to would butt the fuck out.

DeadLetterOffice

(1,352 posts)
202. My hair is on fire because...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jul 2014

...the society I live in has these idiots who walk around dousing me in lighter fluid and throwing matches.

Damn right my hair is on fire. And my GOTV boots are on and laced up tight.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
131. No one cares what you think
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:42 AM
Jul 2014

at least I don't, and, luckily, I won't have to see what you think after I post this comment.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
134. Saying corporations have religious beliefs that the 1st Amend. protects
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:56 AM
Jul 2014

is NOT a turning point in American jurisprudence and therefore in American history?

This much of an infringement on women's constitutional right to reproductive freedom,n even to the degree of contraception should NOT really be that important to women?

Opening the door to the pre-Griswold era, when choice often meant choosing among unwanted teen (even pre-teen) pregnancy that could easily ruin a young girl's life, a wire hanger and a back alley abortion, either of which could easily end a young girl's life? Not really a big deal for women?

Because....Obama.

Let me guess, Enrique. You're not a woman. Still, though, is your blind loyalty to Obama, who will not even be up for election ever again--or whatever actually motivated you to start this ugly thread--really that literal? Are you literally that blind to reality, history, women's rights, etc.?

I criticize Obama often, way too often for many here.

Here I am, though, yesterday, criticizing the disgusting Holly Hobby decision without a mention of Obama's exceptions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025175902


To the contrary, the poster who DID mention them was supporting the decision (for whatever bizarre reason) and I simply distinguished those exceptions.

With all due respect, Enrique, everything is NOT about Obama. I highly recommend that, for the sake of your own credibility, you delete the OP, which will shut down this disgusting thread.

If it were about any set of rights other that women's reproductive rights, it woudl be shut down anyway, as it should be.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
154. He's not really that blind
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:19 AM
Jul 2014

It is "charmed life syndrome" merrily. That space/place where the charmed just say "but what about me?".

merrily

(45,251 posts)
157. I had a suspicion, hence the comment in my post
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:28 AM
Jul 2014

that said something like, "Let me guess: You're not a woman."

There is also such a thing as willful ignorance, aka very convenient ignorance.


But, in fairness, he said, But what about Obama?, not what about me?

Then again, I never discounted the possibility that Obama was only an excuse.

This goes back to Trumad's question about whether one actually must have been poor at some point to understand the poor. My answer on that thread was yes. Though of course, you don't need to have been poor to care about poor people. That is a different issue.

Unless and until you have been a member of a group that has been discriminated against forever, or at least for centuries, I don't think you can get it. And those people should get that don't get it and STFU about mocking people who do get it.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
159. The "but what about me" mentality
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:38 AM
Jul 2014

That's just a general observation. . It's what drives people like Cliven Bundy and his minions. They are so concerned that someone is getting something they are not - they can't see what users and takers they are.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
162. On your part, it was just a general observation.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:50 AM
Jul 2014

On my part, though, it was an observation about the OP and the others on this thread who don't get it, think they do and therefore don't know better than to mock those who have lived it and therefore do get it.

And, for good measure, don't get the difference between a landmark Supreme Court decision and one that is simply more of the same ole, same ole. Or do, but pretend they don't.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
163. They are pretending
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:53 AM
Jul 2014
just like they pretended last summer when the VRA took a sucker punch.

Now that midterms are here - I'm wondering how that's working out for them?

merrily

(45,251 posts)
164. I usually operate on the assumption that it doesn't
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:58 AM
Jul 2014

matter if they are pretending or not. Either way, it hurts women.

OldEurope

(1,273 posts)
161. I am German, and we have all that "socialist" healthcare.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:43 AM
Jul 2014

What we do not have is free BC. Only young girls under the age of 18* get BC for free, and abortions are covered only in case of medical reasons. Everybody else has to pay for their BC (and Viagra, too). So I'm not sure what the whole excitement is about.

Is it because the judges used faith as a reason to overturn parts of the ACA? That I find indeed very disturbing. It seems to be a logical consequence of "corporations beeing people". And that should scare you all because you can't tell what comes next in pseudo-Christian bullshit.



* Age of consent is 16, but girls do get BC earlier if her parents and gyn agreed. My daughter for example was 15 when she started with the pill.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
166. that's interesting
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:26 AM
Jul 2014

I wonder, is there any activism to get BC covered in Germany? My opinion on this is that the failure to cover birth control amounts to discrimination against women. So that would be the case in Germany as well as the U.S.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
175. Interesting? It's a false equivalency.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jul 2014

The considerations in the US are different than in Germany.

Check the name of Merkel's party, to illustrate just one difference. My reply to Old Europe raises other differences between the two countries.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
167. You don't have free bc only because your law did not give it to you.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:30 AM
Jul 2014

Our law did not give us free bc per se, but it did require health insurers to cover bc, along with other things. However, the SCOTUS, whose members serve for life and therefore do not answer to voters, overruled the people we elect to make laws, yes, using fake religious grounds. Yes, fake. Corporations do not have religious beliefs. Their human owners might, but the human owners were also free to stay clear of birth control.

Also, a woman's right to choose is supposedly a right protected by our Constitution, just as Holly Hobby's alleged corporate religious belief is, according to the SCOTUS protected by our Constitution. Is that the case in Germany?

Also, our SCOTUS is supposed to be nonpartisan, but it makes 5-4 decisions all the time, right now, 5 Justices nominated by Republican Presidents vs 4 nominated by Democrats, not the Constitution vs. all politicians, as it should be.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
165. I happen to disagree with you
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:09 AM
Jul 2014

but if it fires up the Democratic base for 2014 and beyond, why extinguish the flames?

To regulate corporations is a valid battle. They should not be able to select what kind of medical care is available to their workers. Period.

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
170. And you are wrong. A corporation was given religious status, and that is seriously
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:15 AM
Jul 2014

fucked up. We need to let our anger carry us into the November elections and beyond. We need to vote a Congress into office who will help us to write a constitutional amendment to undo the damage the SCOTUS has done.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
171. why you should be worried
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:44 AM
Jul 2014

Presidents come, presidents go, Supreme Court decisions stuick around for Generations, especially on a SCOTUS that is stacked with Scalia acolytes like Thomas and Alito that will be injecting the court with influence. Sad fact is, whether you have Bush or an Obama, the SCOTUS lasts, which makes it deadly once it gets hijacked by the likes of the Scalia-Roberts cabal.

Also, if you think this is not a "turning point" you are ignoring the fact that we are based on precedent, which in many ways is a fancy word for momentum. Once Religion is given the power to decide people's health issues, which, make no mistake, is exactly what happened here, religion will use it's money and power to expand it's power, until it controls everything!

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
189. The precedent for basing this on religion is as phony as a three dollar bill
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:31 PM
Jul 2014

It's about power and money, proving to the onlookers who actually is wielding the power to shape things on how things will be decided. To me it seems more like some kind of cancer that people let in and then fall to pieces because of it. The damage being done by the five fools is more a symptom than a cause. As long as we can be kept divided the longer the dividers win. It's a spectacle, much like any thug would use to make you fearful.

If you would notice what real cards are left to play in the deck you might understand why it's happening.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
196. excuse me
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:10 PM
Jul 2014

My reply was to an OP that did not understand why people were angry. You seem to be on another tangent.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
204. He never stated of being unable understand why people were angry, but even acknowledged it
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:06 PM
Jul 2014

Yet even later on, in the thread, thought some of the outrage was trumped up for one reason or another (which i don't agree with). I am also sorry to get involved with your personal messaging with the OP. Perhaps also i have made a mistake about this being an anonymous public forum

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
182. So what if it is "hair on fire"? Who cares?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:37 AM
Jul 2014

Aside from sticking it to their employees, Hobby Lobby also flipped their customers the bird. And they did it very publicly too. If they haven't figured out by now that most of their customers are women, they are about to learn the hard way.

Response to Enrique (Original post)

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
203. Maybe you had to be there...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:41 PM
Jul 2014

...but I came of age when birth control had only just been approved for non-married women, and when women could not get safe and legal abortions. We fought long and hard for our rights, only to see a bunch of ideologues throw them right out the window. Because, you know, it's just wimmin folk.

This decision was more significant than Obama's precisely because this is the Supreme Court we are talking about. The Supreme Court of the land said that a BUSINESS has BELIEFS and can OPT OUT of laws that don't comport with those beliefs. Well, but ONLY if the beliefs concern wimmin folk and those icky reproductive issues. We don't want anyone thinking this decision sets a PRECEDENT or anything. Goodness gracious no! Why the MIC would be out of business if we allowed people to opt out of taxes based on their own "sincerely held beliefs".

This is a Big. Fucking. Deal.

Yes it is.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»why I suspect reaction to...