Slut Or Not??
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Exactly, she never said a word about taking birth control herself or if she was sexually active......
Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.
Ms. Fluke never asked anyone to pay for anyone else's birth control.....try again
Last edited:
Yet another rightwinger who forgot to learn anything about the subject before showing himself ignorant thru his remarks.
When I see one do that, I will think about it. But she never did that....and had you actually read the transcript or watched the testimony, rather than just listening to Rush, you'd have know that. DUH.
Maybe those who can't afford to buy contraceptives shouldn't enroll at pricey Jesuit or Catholic university and choose a more modestly priced university that does have that in their insurance coverage? Is that so difficult a concept?
Last edited:
Did she claim insurance is free?
As I said, COLLEGE is not a religion. First amendment applies to religion.
- Thread starter
- #291
I find it amusing that Liberals demand that one accept any behavior just because.
I don't.
"... attempted subjugation of your sisters."
This is bizarre to the point that I worry about your sanity.
You are the one trying to silence me....I don't want to prevent you from saying...or acting...in whatsoever manner you find acceptable.
Look at how angry you are...because you feel that you have made your bed...and now you have to lie in it.
I'm who I am. You, who you are.
I see the goal as Modesty. Restraint. Understanding and adhering to the kinds if behavior that most benefits the individual and the society.
Fine...disagree. But I will, in a public forum such as this, tell you that you are wrong.
I'm not impressed with your character, or your language.
In real life, you're not the kind of person with whom I'd have any interest in interacting.
Now, if you say the same about me, so be it.
No prob.
Now, a note on the subject that you attempt to use as a cudgel...feminism.
1. The single largest factor in the advances that women have made, after the right to vote and the right of wives to hold property in their own names, is technology. Prior to the many time saving and work saving housework devices, there was no possibility that a women could have both a family and a career.
2. Radical Feminists refuse to recognize the accomplishments of conservative women. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, none could be recognized or honored. Apparently there are men, women, and people who might otherwise have qualified as women but have chosen to be Republicans instead.
3. Your 'feminism' is not my feminism. Given the aspiration to remake humanity, the movement must be totalitarian.
a. Gender equality requires an assault on hierarchies.
b. The enormous increase in government that would be needed to produce the changes in humanity has to obliterate the boundaries between public and private, and between the emotional and the intellectual.
c. The result must of course be anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist, anti-family, anti- religion, and anti-intellectual. This is the feminism of the Left....the variety that demands that any morality must be accepted, and, in fact, everyone must pay for it. It encourages 'sluts' just because they are women.
These are not my 'sisters.'
4. Women should be prepared for events such as divorce and widowhood, marriage and family may reduce opportunities for outside work or education. But the solution, according to you 'sisters' like Simone de Beauvoir, who, in an interview with Betty Friedan, said “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.
Your sisters....not mine.
a. Like all totalitarian movements, the goal is not to give more freedom, but to take away choice.
Your perspectives would be a joke if they weren't so pathetic.
But it is we taxpayers who also pay the premium for our insurance policies. Every government mandate regarding insurance makes those policies more expensive. Requiring anybody to include contraceptives will do the same. So the principle is relevant even though she didn't specifically say 'tax payers'.
It boggles the mind that some here seem to think a private company should not be able to provide the product the public wants at a price the public can afford or that the public should not be able to order a product with the specific components they want and without the components they don't want if such a product is available.
Somebody tell me why that iis unacceptable.
1. This isn't denying women any rights at all. If they want to work for a religious based organization or contract their services, then they know full well going into it what to expect. There are many other organizations offering the same services or for whom they could work.
You know better Si, you do. You pay attention to whats going on. And honestly, the first was not to be used as an excuse to deny this.
2. The First Amendment is there to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is NEVER a one-way street. Without the integrity of the first, the gains in women's rights would crash and burn. (It reminds me of folks in recovery who put their sobriety first and always - without that, nothing else is possible for them.)
If you want to work for a religious based organization, then once you collect your wages and benefits, the gov't should protect you from that religious organization's attempts to control how you spend it.
Last edited:
Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
The behavior that you call being a "slut" will always exist, but if no one thinks there's anything wrong with that behavior, no one will call such women sluts. And that is why the word will, eventually, become archaic.
Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
A college does not become a church merely because a church owns it.
Now, if Georgetown were to be turned into a seminary, restrict its enrollment to Catholics, and declare its mission to prepare aspirants for the priesthood or other holy office, then it would arguably be due First Amendment protection. But as long as it is a general-curriculum institute of higher education, it's not -- regardless of who or what it's owned by. EDIT: Except, of course, insofar as the First Amendment also protects free speech and right of assembly and petition, and that applies to everyone.
Last edited:
Si modo
Diamond Member
I never said it did.
However, churches and religious organizations, which Georgetown is the latter, are exempt from following EEOC laws, FOR the reason that if a Catholic school wants to discriminate against an employee because their lifestyle is contrary to their teachings, the religious organization can.
For example, if a Catholic school wants to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried, they can and the EEOC can do shit about it.
And being exempt from some EEOC laws is exactly because of the First Amendment.
They do it simply to force a change. LIke the gay guy who enrolls his adopted son in a pricey Catholic private school and then demands gay sensitivity training.
Kiki Cannoli
Have you met my shadow?
I believe the organizations' primary purpose needs to be religious for this to be true. Georgetown is first an academic institution.
1. Religious Organizations
Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion.[42] The exception applies only to those institutions whose purpose and character are primarily religious.[43] That determination is to be based on [a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics.[44] Although no one factor is dispositive, significant factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include:
Do its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose?
Are its day-to-day operations religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion)?
Is it not-for-profit?
Is it affiliated with or supported by a church or other religious organization? [45]
Compliance Manual Section 12 - Religious Discrimination
Si modo
Diamond Member
Let me repeat that; Catholic schools can shitcan non-married and pregnant employees without any ramification from the EEOC.
Just for example.
So, these exemptions exist exactly for the reason of protecting First Amendment rights of religious organizations. Exemptions have been done before for that protection, and they can be done again.
Georgetown is run by the Jesuits, and the primary purpose of the Jesuits is religion.
Last edited:
Contraceptives being asked to be included is no different than including marriage counseling, dental insurance, mental health, addiction therapy such as smoking and drinking, youth counseling, etc.
They are all in there.
Very few objections to any of those.
Add in the elective surgeries such as store bought ta ta's and all that goes with it and there you have it.
Hell, folks now are demanding pet health insurance.
Group health insurance paid for by the employer has ruined American health care.
They are all in there.
Very few objections to any of those.
Add in the elective surgeries such as store bought ta ta's and all that goes with it and there you have it.
Hell, folks now are demanding pet health insurance.
Group health insurance paid for by the employer has ruined American health care.
Similar threads
