15th March 2012
Post with 4 notes
In US vs Lee (1985?) an Amish farmer argued the Amish should not have to pay social security tax on their employees because their religion required the Amish community to take care of their own sick and elderly. The Supreme Court ruled that even though US code specifically grants an exemption to individual Amish to opt-out of the social security program, that law does not extend to an Amish employer. To grant such an exemption to an employer constitutes imposing their religious values on the employee and certainly to the disadvantage of an employee who may wish to participate in the program. Their further conclusion? The individual’s right to freedom of religion practice is not absolute when it begins to infringe on the rights of others! So don’t blame this on the President and the White House who are simply doing their job by trying to uphold Article 1 of the constitution and the rulings of the US Supreme Court. I would expect nothing less of them. So it seems to me if the church does not want to be in the position of providing contraception to folks, then it’s simple: get out of the health care business and any other business that involves providing a service to the general public.
Have to credit this to someone speaking on my Facebook dash. Just could not be more perfectly said.
1st March 2012
Link with 1 note
This vote was WAY too close. I’d like to know the 48 who voted in favor of it so I can NOT accidentally vote for any of them.
17th February 2012
Link reblogged from A Pro-Life Friend with 10 notes
I don’t know if they should have been arrested (but I’d like to see someone dig up an AP article on this because this source is biased and I’d like to know what I’m reading is fully factual). Based on what is here, I don’t think it should have been right to arrest them, and I would like to see more details on the case from an unbiased source.
However — to touch on why they were there: Obamacare has nothing to do with religious freedom. Period. An employer is not paying his employees out of pocket. His company is. His company does not have first Amendment rights, and under the Civil Rights act, you cannot discriminate against your employees for multiple prejudices you hold, whether racial, gender-related, religious, or whatever. If this were a religious organization, they would be tax exempt, receiving no aid from the government, as LAW REQUIRES, and would therefore not be affected by the mandate.
Your religious freedom is not being attacked. You are attacking the religious freedom of OTHERS by insisting that laws based on your religious beliefs be held over the civil rights of other Americans.
Stop demanding special treatment, accept that you are privileged and you are given WELL BEYOND what the first amendment promises in terms of “freedom”, because you openly trample over the rights of others in the name of God, and sit down.
20th January 2012
Link with 14 notes
If you take part in any discussions regarding activism of any kind, you should read this before engaging in any political conversations.
Because I am white, educated, heterosexual, able-bodied, and young, I am privileged. I do not have privilege in that I am a woman, I am lower income, I am overweight, and I am not a Christian.
I acknowledge both of these aspects of my being and one does not cancel out the other.
If you want to be involved in activism, educate yourself, acknowledge where you stand, where your unearned advantages are, and start to help make the debate a little more civil everywhere.
16th January 2012
Free speech goes both ways, people. It does not mean you get to run your mouth off and nobody’s allowed to respond or call you on being a doucheburger. If all you want are pats on the ass, then post to your friends, not the whole internet.