General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhy 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.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)That is a pretty offensive choice of a word.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)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)I hadn't heard that phrase before in this context, and I feel like I'm missing something important.
Help. Please.
-Laelth
cwydro
(51,308 posts)that some things never change, huh?
Sheesh.
merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Post edited to delete language I felt was too personally insulting to the OP.
REP
(21,691 posts)Never heard of Hobby Lobby, so what's the big deal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025184862
quinnox
(20,600 posts)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)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)Also, why even bother to reply to someone if it's just going to be "meh"? Totally wimpy.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Meh - Indifference; to be used when one simply does not care.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meh
Quantess
(27,630 posts)That settles that!
seaglass
(8,170 posts)Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)...who's playing dumb, and who really is.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Same 4 people I applaud you,
quinnox
(20,600 posts)As if they have any business trying to control other people's free expression. Authoritarian thinking sucks!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You come across as irrational. Hysterical even. A little bit shrill, too.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If I could, I'd hug you. Or not, whatever you preferred.
Response to quinnox (Reply #27)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Might as well keep your obnoxious, passive agressive, fake-innocent, post up for everyone to see. You should be embarrassed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)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.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Response to quinnox (Reply #99)
Post removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)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)Cosmo would say to Jerry "I think you're overweening."
Jerry "why do you think I'm overweening?"
Cosmo "Because you're a weenie."
merrily
(45,251 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)that it was quinnox I was talking about. Fuck, maybe "well done" means burned or something.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Fuck, maybe "well done" means burned or something.
As I used it, it meant that I enjoyed your humor.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)and annoying as possible. You should be embarrassed, IMO.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)I will fight to defend it... even though you don't think it's important.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)yeah I understand why you aren't outraged.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)you might have misunderstood my point
merrily
(45,251 posts)That's not a point. It's a disorder.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)and getting not even half as much attention.
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)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)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 Illinoissuch as the lead plaintiff, Pam Harriscannot 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.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Outstanding.
merrily
(45,251 posts)my purely selfish actions. I posted for me.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The "no skin off my ass brigade" is getting pretty loud here.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)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)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.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)making lousy rules for and about women.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)you are fucking kidding me with this shit, right.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)He's totally not *smh*
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)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?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)you are done here.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)they don't want to be told "you are done here".
kickitup
(355 posts)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)"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)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.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)Is perfect.
merrily
(45,251 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)Gee Whiz - This is fun!
RobinA
(9,874 posts)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)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)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?
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)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
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)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)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)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)That's pretty wimpy of you.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)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!
Quantess
(27,630 posts)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?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)in a coherent fashion right now.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)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 abortifacientsa 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"?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)The notion that it is acceptable for you not to have control over your own body and health is an abomination.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"But (President) Obama ...!" never-mind the facts.
Cha
(295,899 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And par for the course.
Cha
(295,899 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)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)the implications of this decision are far-reaching and frightening.
This male is 100% in agreement with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's blistering dissent.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I flat out love that woman.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)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.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Ilsa
(61,675 posts)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?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)nor did Obama's compromise have anything to do with Burkas.
Ilsa
(61,675 posts)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)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)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)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)Constitutional right to reproductive choice.
So far, not one thing right. Keep going.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's an 18 year support obligation legally, not to mention all the other mishigoss.
Ilsa
(61,675 posts)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)Or codified, if that's a more appropriate term.
Excuse me if I think that's worth getting upset about.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)to treat people differently based on their race or gender?
Zambero
(8,954 posts)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.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I don't even have a decent reply
Response to Enrique (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)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.
randys1
(16,286 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Perhaps your life experience puts this ruling lower on your list of things that matter to you?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)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)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)nor am I hysterical. Nice to see liberals throwing that around just like the rightwingers.
cali
(114,904 posts)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)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)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)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)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)I think this is what is playing out in this thread ... some place a higher value on economic interests over concerns of sexism.
cali
(114,904 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Yes", you value economic interests over the right to control your body.
kcr
(15,300 posts)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)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)The specific ruling is bad enough .... what may follow can be even worse
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Hard to have a hair-on-fire reaction when you have no dog in the fight.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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)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)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)ugh!
Clueless doesn't even begin to describe this poster.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)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)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)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)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)why was this the critical point instead of the earlier one?
randys1
(16,286 posts)way to say it is OK to discriminate against Women, NOT men, in healthcare, you cant see the difference?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)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)
Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.
randys1
(16,286 posts)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.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)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)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)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)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)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)In case your interested, warning its RW garbage:
The lefts 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 didnt 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)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.
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)I am not sure either is a decent point.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)Wow.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That they are bullshitting about it and that is just rude.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)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.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)giving corporations human rights.
Lex
(34,108 posts)When I look into my crystal ball, I see that it is highly likely.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)hopefully this energy will be put into campaigning hard fro the November elections.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I just think your analysis is wrong.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)onecaliberal
(32,471 posts)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.
Skittles
(152,963 posts)you know it
Response to onecaliberal (Reply #129)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Squinch
(50,773 posts)warranted or not.
Welcome to DU! Good to have you here!
onecaliberal
(32,471 posts)Good to know I am not the only one.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)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.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)...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)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)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)It is "charmed life syndrome" merrily. That space/place where the charmed just say "but what about me?".
merrily
(45,251 posts)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)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)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)Now that midterms are here - I'm wondering how that's working out for them?
merrily
(45,251 posts)matter if they are pretending or not. Either way, it hurts women.
OldEurope
(1,273 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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
valerief
(53,235 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)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)
Post removed
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...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.