Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Sexism in The Supreme Court


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1    Duelix

Duelix

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 July 2014 - 09:42 PM

Birth control coverage has been denied multiple times now and many are wondering if there are too many men in the supreme court.

http://www.msnbc.com...traception-case


#2    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 04 July 2014 - 09:47 PM

Is this thread a joke?

Edit: guess I should clarify my reaction to this thread.

1: none of those rulings had anything to do with sexism. Because you don't want to pay for someone's stuff that dosent make you sexist.

2: two the fact that someone wants more women on the supreme court just because they are women is in itself sexist. Imagine if someone said we need more men on the supreme court because they are men.

The cases are about forcing people to pay for someone else's stuff. Or to alot of people its about religious freedom
People pulling the sexist card because the case didn't go your way is low.

Edited by spartan max2, 04 July 2014 - 09:52 PM.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#3    Duelix

Duelix

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 July 2014 - 09:56 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 04 July 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Is this thread a joke?

Edit: guess I should clarify my reaction to this thread.

1: none of those rulings had anything to do with sexism. Because you don't want to pay for someone's stuff that dosent make you sexist.

2: two the fact that someone wants more women on the supreme court just because they are women is in itself sexist. Imagine if someone said we need more men on the supreme court because they are men.

The cases are about forcing people to pay for someone else's stuff. Or to alot of people its about religious freedom
People pulling the sexist card because the case didn't go your way is low.

When I post something it is to get people thinking critically, do you really know who I am or what my political views are? I'm just another bunch of pixels on a computer screen. I often like to post things to get people to really think long and hard about the world around us.


#4    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 04 July 2014 - 09:59 PM

My post is only directed at you if you hold the same views as the article.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#5    Duelix

Duelix

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 July 2014 - 10:04 PM

Do you really think the left actually cares about all of these "groups". Hell Sonia Sotomayer herself is nothing more than a puppeteer as are all politicians and so called activists pulling the  strings of the public.

Edited by Duelix, 04 July 2014 - 10:05 PM.


#6    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 04 July 2014 - 10:38 PM

I think it is much worst than sexism, they are giving corporations the same or more rights than people.   What about companies run by Muslims do their employees have to conform to sharia law.  How about blood transfusions and JW's, can they say they won't let the insurance company cover it because it is against their religion. They have really open the gates of stupidity with this.   It is against my religion to fight wars, can I withhold the part of my taxes that go to pay for it?

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#7    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,570 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 04 July 2014 - 10:49 PM

Something to chew on OP....

Up here in socialized British Columbia, Canada birth control is not covered under our universal health care plan.    Wait for it.......... -the individual chooses to pay for it or go without.

Not sure how any critical thinking individual believes birth control is a right which somebody else should be forced to pay for it.  Birth control contraceptives are not cheap and studies proved that when it's offered at somebody else's expense the recipient will choose the most expensive.  Many woman, who aren't sexually active, take 'the pill' for the delightful side effect it has at cleaning up their complexion.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#8    Mike D boy

Mike D boy

    ...from the Desert...

  • Member
  • 2,401 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Palm Desert, Cal US America

  • he's Native and Indio-geneous to the Americas.

Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:00 PM

The issue isn't too many men in the USSC, the five judges (all conservative males) involved in the case don't understand the women's POV. Conservatives want to force their beliefs on birth control or contraception on this country based on personal religious or moral beliefs not everyone agrees with. What they're doing is a disservice to women, because they don't want to take time to analyze (this is called empathy) what it would be like to be in "her shoes"...the USSC might have this problem.

:innocent: The Truth is Out There - the X Files. :alien:

#9    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:09 PM

View PostGreenmansGod, on 04 July 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

I think it is much worst than sexism, they are giving corporations the same or more rights than people.   What about companies run by Muslims do their employees have to conform to sharia law.  How about blood transfusions and JW's, can they say they won't let the insurance company cover it because it is against their religion. They have really open the gates of stupidity with this.   It is against my religion to fight wars, can I withhold the part of my taxes that go to pay for it?

Forcing your employees to live a certain way is not the same as being forcing a company to pay for someones stuff. Hobby lobby is not telling people they cant be on birth control if they work there.

They are just saying they do not want to pay for it.

Hobby Lobby is not forcing anyone to do anything, its everyone else who seems to be trying to force them.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#10    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:11 PM

View PostMike D boy, on 04 July 2014 - 11:00 PM, said:

The issue isn't too many men in the USSC, the five judges (all conservative males) involved in the case don't understand the women's POV. Conservatives want to force their beliefs on birth control or contraception on this country based on personal religious or moral beliefs not everyone agrees with. What they're doing is a disservice to women, because they don't want to take time to analyze (this is called empathy) what it would be like to be in "her shoes"...the USSC might have this problem.

Hobby Lobby is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Not buying someone something is not the same as denying it to them. If Hobby Lobby told its workers they cant work there if they are on birth control then I would understand the outrage.

Everyone wants to force hobby lobby to pay for peoples stuff and then everyone freaks out and says hobby lobby is the one trying to control people

This is backwards logic at its finest.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#11    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,808 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:30 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 04 July 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Forcing your employees to live a certain way is not the same as being forcing a company to pay for someones stuff. Hobby lobby is not telling people they cant be on birth control if they work there.

They are just saying they do not want to pay for it.

Hobby Lobby is not forcing anyone to do anything, its everyone else who seems to be trying to force them.
Quite right, they've established precedent under law for saying companies can impose their religious beliefs on their employees - "we won't cover/do X because it's against our beliefs".
Which on the face of it is fine, it's ensuring that you're not compromising your beliefs while at the same time trying to protect the rights of the employee (as has been pointed out, Hobby Lobby DOES provide contraception as part of it's health plan).
But ... this does mean Jehovah's Witnesses can say "we don't cover anything that involves injections or taking of blood because it's against our beliefs".
But imposing Sharia? maybe the could in the workplace, as it was their beliefs, but not outside of the workplace, that's against Constitutional Freedoms.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#12    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 July 2014 - 02:58 AM

Apparently the female members of the court got together and issued a truthful statement.

Pointing out the court's irrational 2 recent decisions about birth control and such, Sotomayor commented "those who are bound by our decisions usually believe that they can take us at our word.  Not so today"

And that the irrational and corrupt decisions "undermine confidence in this institution"

I say Bravo to the lady for telling it like it is. :tsu:


#13    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,112 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 05 July 2014 - 09:59 AM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 04 July 2014 - 11:30 PM, said:


But ... this does mean Jehovah's Witnesses can say "we don't cover anything that involves injections or taking of blood because it's against our beliefs".
.
do Jehovah's Witnesses run a buissnes and employ people of different religions??? not that i know of.

better example would be, should a Jewish company pay Muslim employees for taking day off on Muslim holidays? i think not, even if roles reversed

RESIDENT TROLL.

#14    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 05 July 2014 - 10:52 AM

Actually, if you read about Jehovah Witnesses you will find that they are structured with a series of non-profit corporations.  Most notable is the Watchtower.

With the Supreme Court ruling there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to claim this: http://www.peterdavi...based-business/


#15    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,112 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 05 July 2014 - 10:57 AM

thanks for 411.

in that case just do not offer ins. at all.  let your employees get their own.

RESIDENT TROLL.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users