Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Duelix

Sexism in The Supreme Court

44 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for 411.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hmmm, I don't think I want to pay for your Viagra. Ibuprofen is sold prescription and is covered by insurance, I don't want to pay for that either. I don't give a crap if you can't sleep, I don't want to pay for your Xanax. I don't really care if your kid wets the bed, so I don't want to pay for imipramine. I don't care if your kid is hyper either, I don't feel like paying for their Ritalin. Shall I continue?

I sound ridiculous don't I? You do too.

What this ruling did was prevent women who can't use hormonal birth control from getting contraception, and millions of women who suffer from endometriosis and ovarian cysts from finding any kind of treatment. Of all the women I know who use IUDs, it's because they have some female specific problem... I know VERY few (actually zero) who use them for the sole purpose of contraception, there are much easier and less invasive options for contraception.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

I know several JWs who own largish businesses... One who owns three large hotels with convention centers and employs well over 2000 people, my uncle owns a construction company, and another friend owns several mailbox/shipping stores... JW's definitely own businesses and now, they could refuse blood transfusions based on this ruling.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this ruling did was prevent women

How? How does this ruling stop them from obtaining it on their own?

JW's definitely own businesses and now, they could refuse blood transfusions based on this ruling.

They possibly could. Why is the onus on an employer to provide medical needs at all? You could do one of two things if you're employed by such a business. One, be lucky they provide any benefit at all. Two, don't work for them.

Stretch it all you want but it's that simple.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right, they've established precedent under law for saying companies can impose their religious beliefs on their employees

No that's wrong. It's not an imposition. Employees are not and cannot be forced to practice religion on the clock or elsewhere. Some of you people are trying to imply, as a comparison, that if I work for a Muslim who won't buy me porkchops for lunch I in turn am forcefully forbidden from buying and eating porkchops on my own.

Now, what the ACA and all of you other government force lovers does, or did until this ruling, is force the Muslim employer to provide me with porkchops whether he wants to or not.

I know porkchops and medical stuff is two different things but the premise and ideology behind the comparison is spot on.

Hopefully that makes sense to you SWoH. I'm not sure I believe that you'd think this ruling is bad if you understood it better.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should they have to? They pay for their insurance! It's part of their employment compensation package! Hobby Lobby USED to cover this until they got p***ed at the ACA! This isn't about religion at ALL. It's about their blind hatred for a president they don't agree with. And women became the victims of their blind hatred.

And how does a woman who likely makes minimum wage afford a $1200 IUD they might need NOW for a medical condition that has nothing to do with contraception? She might be taking care of children already, her condition might be so debilitating she can't pick up another job, maybe she simply can't find another job. Female medical conditions are what most women use IUDs for, it's an off-label treatment that is highly effective. It allows many women to make it through menopause so they can avoid a hysterectomy. Know what a hysterectomy costs? I had a "TAH" hysterectomy about 18 months ago... the bill was over 70 grand! Not too mention the 6 weeks of lost wages. Trust me, the IUD is the more effective treatment to avoid the surgical nightmare.

Sure, with ACA the employee could go out and purchase their own insurance, but is Hobby Lobby going to increase their pay? Their asinine medical insurance is part of their employment compensation plan. Walking away from it is like leaving pay on the table.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I don't think I want to pay for your Viagra. Ibuprofen is sold prescription and is covered by insurance, I don't want to pay for that either. I don't give a crap if you can't sleep, I don't want to pay for your Xanax. I don't really care if your kid wets the bed, so I don't want to pay for imipramine. I don't care if your kid is hyper either, I don't feel like paying for their Ritalin. Shall I continue?

I sound ridiculous don't I? You do too.

What this ruling did was prevent women who can't use hormonal birth control from getting contraception, and millions of women who suffer from endometriosis and ovarian cysts from finding any kind of treatment. Of all the women I know who use IUDs, it's because they have some female specific problem... I know VERY few (actually zero) who use them for the sole purpose of contraception, there are much easier and less invasive options for contraception.

Why should you be forced the pay for any of that?

Should I pass a law forcing you to pay for all of those things for me ?

The ruling isn't stopping anyone from doing anything. If someone else wants something they are free to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yes, you have four conservative male judges on the SCOTUS who voted for Hobby Lobby directly against women. They are politically vengeful and sexists. Would you expect them to vote against men's health care? Take away their Viagra? Or their prostate health medications? No.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should you be forced the pay for any of that?

Should I pass a law forcing you to pay for all of those things for me ?

The ruling isn't stopping anyone from doing anything. If someone else wants something they are free to buy it.

You don't get it. they are already paying for it THROUGH THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS which is part of their employment compensation package! Are they going to get a pay raise now? They should.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should they have to? They pay for their insurance! It's part of their employment compensation package!

Shouldn't an employer decide what goes into their employment compensation package?

It's about their blind hatred for a president they don't agree with. And women became the victims of their blind hatred.

I don't think this decision to file suit was made blindly. I think, actually we now know, that this was a successful stand against government force. So what if they used to cover it? Suddenly this administration opened some eyes up to principle and that's what this suit was about.

I know an employee of a company who offers great insurance benefits. A few months ago, on principle, this employee called his HR department and told them to remove his insurance package. Likely not the brightest move but he didn't want to do something simply because the government says so. He doesn't get compensated in his paycheck for the difference and he doesn't care. He stood on principle and feels good about it.

And how does a woman who likely makes minimum wage afford a $1200 IUD they might need NOW for a medical condition that has nothing to do with contraception? She might be taking care of children already, her condition might be so debilitating she can't pick up another job, maybe she simply can't find another job. Female medical conditions are what most women use IUDs for, it's an off-label treatment that is highly effective. It allows many women to make it through menopause so they can avoid a hysterectomy. Know what a hysterectomy costs? I had a "TAH" hysterectomy about 18 months ago... the bill was over 70 grand! Not too mention the 6 weeks of lost wages. Trust me, the IUD is the more effective treatment to avoid the surgical nightmare.

Sure, with ACA the employee could go out and purchase their own insurance, but is Hobby Lobby going to increase their pay? Their asinine medical insurance is part of their employment compensation plan. Walking away from it is like leaving pay on the table.

That sounds tough and all, as life is, but I fail to see how any of this is your employers responsibility to make happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they going to get a pay raise now? They should.

Why should they have to? Your problem is not theirs and you can always go find another retail job if it's that important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.