Can you help me out here?

14 posts in this topic

Posted

I think I understand the opposition to the organizations, businesses, etc. like Chick-Fill-A, and Hobby Loby. My quesion is this, Why put them in a grinder until they are silenced? My concern is this, if you silence the opposition you just gave them a reason to resent you. A classic example that is most evident to me would be the LGBT and conservative Christians. I will refer you to the Employers Don't Have To Cover Birth Control thread, as a primer for the discussion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because they are hurting real people.  They're not just promoting rhetoric, they are taking actions that cause actual harm.  And in America, we say we believe ALL people have equal rights.  If we don't enforce that, we lose that.  We don't get to select who gets full rights and say the other people don't.  We decided it wasn't okay to harm the rights of people based on their skin color, as the case with black, asian, or hispanic people.  We decided it wasn't okay to deny rights on being born women.  We don't get to decide now it's okay to harm them for the lgbtq population, like everyone else science (and common sense, no one would choose a life of bullying, pain, abuse, rape, suicide, and murder voluntarily) are born like that too. Hobby Lobby and ChickFIlA deny people their basic civil rights on how they are born and trying to live a normal life like everyone else.  And that's not okay, and because of that, they belong in that blender.  Everyone is a human being, and should be treated as such.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think I know where you are going with this and we are not far from agreeing. We may totally agree we just haven't had a chance for a full discussion. The two businesses you mention, like ALL businesses, maintain the right to refuse service. As patrons, or potential patrons, we have the right to boycott the business and deny them what they need to survive as a business. Which is money. To demonize them? I agree it is wrong. I dislike the strong arming technique the LGBT has taken to of late as a tactic. As patrons we who are LGBT are too small a portion to affect a multi state business. Our allies with us affect their pocket book. We don't need to demonize, and I find too much hypocrisy in the LGBT who has felt, rightly so, that we have been demonized but now feel it is justified to do that to others.

I find bitching while not offering solutions a fruitless endeavor. My solution is the same I always offer. Educate. http://www.thetransgendermovement.com/

Edited by EricaRavenwood
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You are absolutely right in that everyone equal with respect to law regardless of background (race, faith, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) and the law needs to be applied evenly/ uniformly, as we established in our dicussion in the thread Religious Freedom Laws- My Thoughts. This brings the discussion to  one of my concerns, when you disregard the other side's rights you become the group you are saying that is violating your rights. When that happens, what makes you different from groups like Chick-Fill-A or Hobby Loby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

@ Ravenwood, I believe we are in harmony. I want to reach out to you in educating myself, and lock arms with you. Please bear with me, when I ask you questions. I am seeking an understanding so I can be an effective ally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How am I disregarding their rights by expecting them to live by the same rules as everyone else, and not require exemptions from the parts of the rules they don't like so that they can control others?   I'm different becuase i"m not asking to opt out of the rules of equality for all.  And their perosnal right to not partake of the birth control is not infringed, only the rights of the people under them are being infringed by them removing their access.

I know I certainly wouldn't be allowed to harm the people I don't like, such as bullies, even though they are harming others I would defend.  If it's not okay for me to chuck the parts of the laws I don't like, it's not okay for those businesses either.  And I don't get to refuse a guy service in a job because i don't like an opinion, an employer shouldn't get to deny some employee benefits others have either.  I would love the right to just walk up and slam a bully over the head with a baseball bat, but I don't have it, and I shouldn't get given that right just because they offend my ethical beliefs. 

In the case of Hobby Lobby, tis' worth pointing out that they pay for male vasectomies.  So only men have the right to determine if family planning options are right for them? Here's a problematic biological fact - men cannot get pregnant if they are raped.  They can get injured and std's, same as women, but they can't get pregnant.  And most rapists don't use birth control like condoms.  And 1 in 4 women get raped.  It's not even uncommon, which is a really painful fact. 

Edited by Briannah
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This discussion is off topic of the thread. The topic was is a group better served when their opposition is silenced? I say the group is not better served. 

However I will go another round. I believe that we can agree that everyone has the same or equal rights, protections, duties, and responsibilities under the law. Along with the law needs to evenly applied. Where we disagree is this, laws "enforces equality" creating a special provision under the law to certain groups. Which beggs the question, why? If there are special provisions to certain groups, there can not be equal justice. If you are avicating to have these "special provisions" you saying that you are "inferior".

I fail to see how declining to cover someone for birth control is the equivalent of rape, assult, etc. If you truly believe that, I am concerned that you were emotionally manipulated. I can give you the mechanics of emtional manipulation in a private message or another thread if you like. Unless you mean abortion, that would a topic for another thread. Do you want to discuss that? Besides, I understand the argument of how birth control is a part of women's health and agree with you, in respect of how it should be covered. I just can't force someone to violate their conscious or convections. 

Edited by Archangel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The answer to that is..it depends on what the group is saying.  IF a group is saying another group doesn't deserve equal rights, or worse, advocating actual harm on them, they absolutely should be silenced. For example if a KKK leader advocates to his group to go kill black people, and one of them does it, he is legally also on the hook for that murder because he verbally encouraged it, and that encouragement is illegal.  If he encourages his followers to deny jobs based on skin color and not qualifications against local and/or federal laws, that is also legally liable and illegal.  Still happens, but it happens less when there are consequences.  Just like overall sexual harassment in workplaces has declined some since the laws protecting people of both genders from that have been enacted and enforced.  Humans don't naturally behave well to all others, whether it's a mild 'not my problem to care what happens to that group, nothing to do with me' form of benign neglect to other humans, to the extreme murder of others for being different.  Even good people turn a blind eye over and over at crime scenes without laws making them responsible. 

I never said declining them was the same as rape, I said that it's unevenly applied, and the consequences to their female employees are very real, and this is an example.  Men can get birth control, they're policy covers vasectomies, and they don't apply thier religious belief that sex is only for procreation to that.  And men don't face pregnancy from rape, which is an unfortunately common experience in the world, so they have no need of birth control outside of a relationship either,  but women do.  1 in 4 is not great odds that you don't need to be on the pill to protect your life from that eventualtiy.  Further, it's not okay to support men's right to family planning and not women's.  Especially if you are going to fire those women for being unable to work as the pregnancy gets advanced.  Further, Hobby Lobby isn't a person, it has no religious rights.  And the board's rights to not partake of birth control because it is against their religion is in NO way violated.  No one is going to force any women in that company to take the pill against their will.  But denying it to others is a violation of their rights, especially since that denial is clearly based on their gender since men have access to it.    I was not emotionally manipulated, I"m just really good at seeing interconnection between things and apparently not as good at explaing it.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Rights huh? I can assure you, you have a lot fewer than you think when it comes to the World you live in. Here are your "rights". You have the right to die on your feet fighting for the rights you think you should have or you have the right to kneel before your Mistresses/Masters and BEG for them. If you believe anything else, you are deluding yourself,  Just like democrats and republicans have been deluding they're constituents for CENTURIES! :) Voting is enabling behavior, for the love of all things Spock, STOP DOING IT! MEME-Spock-Not-Bad.thumb.jpg.2246be47613

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Briannah, How did I avocate for hate groups? What I am avocating is you should not silence people/groups that oppose you, and start looking for values that you have in common and build from there. I am a case in point of this. As I was a part of the opposition. You might be pleasantly surprised where you can find freinds/allies if you would do that.

Thank you for the correction, I was under that impression that you were saying that if you were to deny coverage to an individual (in this, case birth control to women). You were actively and maliciously inflicting harm to that individual. Why are you mentionting rape in a discussion about birth control? That is why you confused me. If we still discussing birth control I say again, I understand your argument and agree with you. And your argument saying Hobby Loby isn't a person,  according to the U.S. Supreme Court Case Burwell v Hobby Loby is exempt from the law based on religious objection. Love it or hate it that is the law and needs to be respected.The only way to get that changed is to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Edited by Archangel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think you are reading more into what I write than I wrote.  I didn't say YOU advocated for anything.  Reread that post, and you'll see I never commented on anything opinions YOU have because I have no idea what they are.  I'm discussing the topic only.  :)  And I'm discussing it and why I behave in this way because you asked.

I mention rape because access to birth control affects the aftermath of that.  A woman who has access to birth control has the ability to defend herself from unwanted pregnancies by availing herself of such birth control, in the form of pills, shots, iuds, or sterilization (and yes, many women do not want children and opt for a variety of permament solutions to the issue).  The attack is only one part of the affect of a rape on a woman, the aftermath can often be worse than the actual attack.  I mention it becasue it's part of any discussion about the denial of birth control to women.  When a quarter of the population faces this violence and those aftermaths, it's naive to have a conversation about birth control without discussing this application of birth control.  Especially since more and more anti-abortion laws are not writing in language for rape pregnancy.

I'm aware of what the supreme court says, however, the reality is, Hobby Lobby isn't a person.  It cannot have a belief.  It can't attend a church in support of that belief.  And it certainly doesn't have ALL the rights of a person, it does not have the right to vote.  Furthermore, by having the same rights as a person, that requires it to have the same responsibilities regarding those rights (obviously it can't be drafted, for example, because it's still not a person), and that includes freedom of religion (allowing those employees who do not have a religious doctrine against birth control to make the choices that are right for them) and the responsiblity to treat all others fairly, and respect their freedoms and rights.  Especailly if we want to pretend a corporation is the same as a person, then it absolutely must live up to the same responsibility to preserve the freedom and rights of others, and to impose upon that freedom and rights by getting special exemptions to unevenly reward workers for the same jobs.  Male workers have a birth control option in that case, female do not.  In the Chick Fil A case, strait employees are treated well and welcome to work, the gay worker was not.  Since being a person doesn't give one the right to discrimination, the corporations wanting to be viewed as people should not have that either.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Briannah as a side note, that manipulation comment was not an insult by any means. Being manipulated does not mean you areally dumb, weak,etc. That reality is that if you believe you can't be manipulated, you will be the first to fall victim to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thank you for being a sparring partner (I have been enjoying this) .You are proving to be an interesting teacher. I bet that you never saw yourself as that. 😉

It sounds like you are saying that you are saying abortion is a form of birth control. I can't classify abortion as a medical procedure on the grounds that you are taking a life. The best I can do is to be comflicticted. Because, I veiw all life as sacred regardless of origin, but at the same time of what are you argueeing, defense of the aftermath of rape. I have a conviction that everyone has the right and responsibility to defensed themselves. The unborn baby has a right to exist, and the woman has the right to defend herself withtout no middle ground. I literally can't do anything. Where both is an abomination to me, the woman in the scenario has my greatest sympthy and support. Please bear with me on those grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I"m saying that if we aren't going to allow rape victims to abort and unwanted pregnancy that occurs then we are obligated to give women a way to protect themselves from that event in the first place.  Pregnancy can ruin a life financially, physically, and emotionally when it's unwanted.   And, like rape, abortion is tied in with birth control.  It's part of the discussion.  It's why we culturally struggle so hard with the subjects, they're not simple and disconnected, it's all connected.  And it all ties into women's rights and equailty as a whole.  Control of one's own body is the most basic of rights.

You are allowed to feel how you feel, we all are.  Where your rights to those feelings stop is legislation.  You absolutely have the right to your beliefs about abortion, and you're feelings about them, and to teach them to your children and share them with others around you, but you don't have the right to force that belief and take away the option from those of us who do not share it.  If you dislike abortion, you have the right not to have one, or not to pay for one for a woman you impregnate, etc.  But you don't have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body and life.  Or the life of her unborn child, in the tragic cases where something is horribly wrong with the child.  No one will ever convince me a life where the baby can do nothing but scream in agony is better than an abortion to end it quickly and mercifully.  Or that mothers forced o die and not be there to care for their existing children in favor of a pregnancy going wrong.  More power to the women who choose that route, but it's not right for all women and all families.  I can't make decisions for your body and your family, and you can't for mine.  Freedom of choice allows everyone to practice their beliefs as they see fit without forcing those beliefs on others.  You can practice your beliefs in your choices without infringing on mine is my basic belief.

And of course I see myself as an educator, I'm both a parent of a son I managed to raise to adulthood without killing him, myself, or random bystanders during the process, and a former volunteer literacy teacher in a program back in Jersey through my families church that offered illiterate adults free volunteer teachers, started when I was fourteen and ended when I was 23 and moved out of state.  That period is where I picked up a lot of random information about a variety of subjects, since the first thing I did was throw out the idiotic reading material they gave us and ask my clients what their interests were, and got a magazine to teach them.  I taught from hunting magazines, comics, fashion, wrestling fandoms, car and motorcycle, camping, and sports magazines off the top of my head.  It worked out so well combining tutoring with a subject the client was actually interested in and wanted to be read for me the program coordinator altered the system.  I was sad to hear the program died with the coordinator though, no one else in the church wanted to organize it.  

The only other reason I sat through Sundays in church was to be in the bell choir, that was FUN. And literally my ONLY musical ability.  I can ring a bell at the right time with the best of them.  And the bell choir leader was thrilled because I'd had an elective class in music the year before and could read my own music sheets and mark my own notes down, I was one of three out of twelve. Carol of the bells was awesome live.   When the bell choir instructors health failed and she couldn't lead it anymore was when I left the church, I'd long since realized it wasn't for me but being bored for an hour a week uncomfortably on the worst chairs ever (pews are so not comfortable) at service was a small price for a free music program that was fun.

And now I'm rambling, that is a clue it's time to go get something to drink and steam my face again.  And grumble at Nikki for sharing the germs.

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