Hobby Lobby

[gsh]

Am I the only one who things the uproar about the Hobby Lobby case is overblown? It seems that Kennedy is basically holding up a neon sign saying "apply the same let the insurance company pay for the cost of womens contraception compromize" that fully religious organizations have. I mean Obama can direct HHS to do that in a week, and then the women get full coverage for the items in conflict with no addtional burden. Or is it that I've actually read the 90 page opinion, and haven';t been paying attention to the yammering in the news?

Comments

[gsh]

The "yammering" was a comment of what was happening on the the tv commentators, which I think was fairly described by "yammering'. The people I know were making much better points than anything I saw on TV.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Which news sources have you been following on the topic? If I may ask? In which way did you feel they were yammering? Were they factually incorrect?

Eta waaagh phone

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Oh wait now that I re read I see you've admitted you haven't been paying attention to this supposed yammering so nevermind, kind of moot questions.

[gsh]

I was in Arizona, and the one news source I saw was Fox news, which I think was fairly described by 'yammering'. I was at fault for not being clear that not all the discussion was yammering, only the 15 minutes I saw while I had breakfast was.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Ok. The fact that Fox News is in no way actual news notwithstanding, please be aware that when you use the word "yammering" to characterize discussion of womens' issues, you're playing into a long history of sexist language that diminishes womens' voices. Now, done for the moment, as typing on my phone is terrible and I want to throw the damn thing at a wall.

[gsh]

I will attempt to not repeat my error.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Cool beans.

[tamnonlinear.livejournal.com]

I am not trying to get a fuller explanation of why you posted as you did. I assume you are a rational person who has a coherent thought process behind your actions. I am trying to get you to understand and acknowledge why your actions were hurtful, on the assumption that you have an interest on the effect your actions have on others, rather than just your internal motivations for said actions.

I only have the words you post to go by. There is nothing in your original post making the distinction of who you felt was worthy of regard and who was 'yammering', and as the implication was that anyone concerned with this issue was ignorant and making foolish noises, it's a fair assumption that you meant everyone. I am trying to express to you that this was insulting and offensive, and that admitting you spoke from ignorance may reassure me that you are working on addressing the ignorance itself, it does nothing to address what comes across as a fairly significant insult.

If your only concern here is finding a way to not be wrong, and not with the actual effect of your words, regardless of intent, then that is another reason for deep concern. It says you genuinely do not care if you have been disrespectful and insulting, and I will disengage from this conversation rather than continue it any further.

[gsh]

Perhaps I should not post to social media untill after I've fully woken up for the day. I posted an 'five minute impression' of the hobby lobby case, where I had at first didn't think it was that bad, but as I saw others opinions (not yammering) I had changed my mind. And I'm trying to have this discussion not because i'm only interested in not being wrong, but because I don't like how my words are affecting my friends. I under estimated the situation, spoke poorly, have admitted I spoke poorly, and am sorry I did so. Is there anything else you wish I might do?

[tamnonlinear.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[gsh]

Are we good?

[tamnonlinear.livejournal.com]

We're fine.