Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Talking to Liberals About the Hobby Lobby Decision

This is why you can’t talk to liberals:

In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision this week, The Daily Kos posted this article which showed up in my Facebook feed the next day with the comment, “Okay Bible-thumpers, answer me this:”; the title of the Kos article is “What if a Muslim Company Used the ‘Hobby Lobby’ Decision to Impose Its Values on White Christians?”

Always up for a challenge, I clicked on the article thinking I would read it and then respond to the Facebook query. 

The first line of the article says:

The slide towards American theocracy was nudged one more step forward by today's Supreme Court decision in support of the "freedom" of corporations with "religious" beliefs to restrict the rights of their employees. In essence, religious "beliefs" trump the obligations, rights, and responsibilities that come with being members of the polity and a broader political community.

That sentence alone was as far as I had to read. 

Absolutely no one’s rights were restricted by the Hobby Lobby decision.  Period.  Anyone that wants them can still go out and purchase abortifacients if they want to.  The Hobby Lobby decision did not ban the drugs. 

So, I responded to the person who posted the article in my feed, I'll call her Miss Liberal, and simply said:

“The first line of the article says the decision ‘restricts the rights’ of the employees, which is erroneous.  No employee rights are restricted.  They can all go buy whatever abortifacients they want.  The decision just means that the employer is not forced to buy them.  Because the first line is a lie, the rest of the article means nothing.”

Am I wrong?

The response I got from Miss Liberal was:

“It does restrict the rights of employees that you do not comprehend does not make it erroneous” [sic]

(We’ll leave the issue of her grammar aside; I'll quit putting [sic] out there; you get the idea)

I don’t usually take the liberal bait, but I was a passenger in a car zooming down the interstate and had nothing else to do besides look at cows, so I thought, “Why not?”

I wrote:

“What rights are restricted?”

Response:

“Insurance was created as a way for employers to pay you less this allows employers to pay you less and give you less access to healthcare because they don’t BELIEVE in certain medications and what things they might be used for What and Why my doctor prescribes me medication Is no one’s fucking business except mine and my doctor’s.” 

Uhhhmmmm, okay.  I’m shaking my head on that one. 

Unwilling to get drawn into the weeds on the origins and purpose of insurance, I’m sticking to my original question; I wrote:

“But can women still buy abortifacients?”

Simple enough, right?

Miss Liberal’s response:

“It’s none of your business what my doctor prescribes me”

(Apparently Miss Liberal doesn’t believe in end punctuation.)

Again, trying to keep her on the path, I wrote:

“Not talking about you – I mean women in general.  My point is that benefits and rights are not the same thing.  Nobody’s rights have been taken away.”

Clear enough?  I’m trying to be non-hostile here, and to keep her on the original question. 

Miss Liberal’s response?

“you cannot see the forest for the trees.”

It’s killing me not to critique the grammar, but I persevere.

It’s at this point that she begins to copy/paste her comment about “Insurance was created…”.  Twice.
So I said,

“Is a person forced to work for Hobby Lobby?  Does one still have the choice to choose a job with the benefit package they want?”

Miss Liberal:

“you’re an idiot”

She copy/pastes the insurance comment again.  It’s getting funny now, really. 

So I try one last time: 

“So you can’t tell me what rights were taken away from me yesterday?

Miss Liberal:

“no.  I just did.  Twice.  but you don’t have high enough order thinking skills to understand it.  I’m sorry, honey.  I’ll keep thinking on how to break it down for you.”

I can’t stand it anymore so I’m ready to get out of this dialogue.  I said:

“LMAO, okay.  But you don’t have the higher order thinking skills to explain what single right the Supreme Court stripped from women yesterday.  You’re assuming insurance is a ‘right’ rather than a benefit.  A woman still has the ability to purchase the same drugs as before the decision.”

Miss Liberal:

“again I am sorry you cannot see what I’m trying to say it’s not thinking skills, kiddo it’s communication skills  talking to idiots takes a lot of work”

My final comment:

“Amen to that.”

I left the conversation on that one. 

The next comment that showed up in the feed was from one of Miss Liberal’s liberal friends who posted a vulgar picture of a woman’s spread legs and a one-fingered salute at her vagina with the caption:  "A message to Republicans from women voters.”

And the next comment (because I continued to lurk a bit after I quit commenting) was from another of Miss Liberal’s friends:

“This guy screaming about ‘abortifacients is cracking me up!  What a loon!   Lol!”

And yet another shows up and begins to complain about “the All-Male Supreme Court” who “has implanted their demon seed into the minds of conservatives everywhere…”

Oh, my.

I can’t even begin to go there.  By the end of the dialogue they had everything but UFO's in there.

I know better than to try and talk to a liberal; I really do.  But, like I said, I was killing time on the interstate and this one just looked so easy.  Low hanging fruit.  Obviously I never did get Miss Liberal to answer the question as to what constitutional right was taken away, or even restricted, by the Hobby Lobby decision.  The usual liberal M.O. is to resort to profanity and insults, in my experience, but I guess I still keep hoping I can get through to one or two of them every now and then. 

Not this time, I’m afraid.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pat:

I’ve been a FB discussion with an internet friend (I’ve never met the women and I have no idea how the hell we got linked up on FB). She and I have very difference political views but I’ve always found her engaging and logical. However, she seems to have gone off on the HL case.

My respose to her rant was:

“...you are wrong when you say "Hobby Lobby CHOOSES to not cover the pill". Per USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/), not exactly the American Spectator, the three times this covers are

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

What this does not affect (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/01/is-hobby-lobby-really-banning-birth-control-and-preventing-its-workers-from-being-able-to-make-their-own-health-care-decisions/), Hobby Lobby covered before Monday and will continue to cover.
1. Male condoms
2. Female condoms
3. Diaphragms with spermicide
4. Sponges with spermicide
5. Cervical caps with spermicide
6. Spermicide alone
7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
10. Contraceptive patches
11. Contraceptive rings
12. Progestin injections
13. Implantable rods
14. Vasectomies
15. Female sterilization surgeries
16. Female sterilization implants

I reviewed how this will not stop anyone working for HL from getting a morning after pill or IUD, but you will have to pay for it (30-65 dollars for the morning after pill, 500-1000 for the IUD).

What I’ve found really interesting in this debate is people seem to think their “right” to contraception obliges other people to fund it. I got into a debate with an old friend on this and she would never answer some simple questions:

“I have a right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean I can require you to buy my bullets and guns?”

“You have a right to free speech. You can go into the town square and start talking about what you want. Can you make me listen? “

This just makes me want to kick John Robert’s ass even more. If he had his head out of his ass two years ago and tossed Obamacare out like he should have this would not be an issue.

Pat Austin said...

“I have a right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean I can require you to buy my bullets and guns?”

This is a good point and I wish I'd thought of it when I was "talking" to Miss Liberal!

It never fails to amaze me (maybe I'm slow...) how many liberals won't debate but instead resort to calling you an idiot or insulting you personally. I actually do enjoy a good healthy debate with an intelligent liberal (oxymoron?), but they are so hard to find.

Mike Thiac said...

I made that exact comment with another participant of the thread. I still haven't gotten an answer.

In another debate, same subject, I mentioned the 2nd Amendment analogy and my old friend kept dodging the question.

I just picked up some styrofoam from Michael's....I may return it just so I can buy it from Hobby Lobby! :<)

Tina said...

So far, two different people on Facebook have jumped into conservative posts about the invasion of illegal aliens with "Bush did it! It is Bush's fault!" They completely ignore any rational attempts to focus on the here and now. Like I said about the Costco thing, they must be zombies because they truly seem incapable of rational thought when it comes to Obama.