Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[shoju]

If he supports get the government out of the concerns of deciding/influencing 'Birth Control' or 'Marriage' then he is practicing less government.

The problem is, He isn't supporting that.

He has decided that Gay Marriage is wrong, and that you shouldn't be allowed to marry the same sex. Thus ensuring that the government can tell you who you can and can't marry.

He has determined that if you work for a company, they can use their "standing" as a "religious entity" to determine if you can get your Birth Control covered by your insurance.

He has vowed to gut Planned Parenthood, and thus remove a vital aspect of women's health care, and well patient visits from the picture.

Get the government out of the picture. Hold EVERYONE to the same standard.

I'd like to see them cut off funding for many things that I think should be done, but just not by my federal, state, or local government. For example, in a fascist society the government tells you what to eat. In my sons (government run) schools this year -- when they go through the school lunch line if they refuse to get a serving of fruits and vegetables -- they are charged 50 cents more. Instead, they get the serving, and throw it away, thus saving 50 cents. I guess eventually, they'll have to hire another Nazi to police the garbages to charge them for waste.

Nazi? Really? Come on now. How old is your kid? Is he going to make the right decisions on what to eat on his own without someone there? If you have a problem with your child's school enforcing a healthy eating plan, then maybe you should just home school him. When you send your kid to a "Government Run" school, you are in fact trusting that they will do their best to make sure that your child is learning. Part of learning is learning how to eat properly, and healthy.

But, you are right in that there is a block of the Republican party that is just as fascist as the Democratic party in trying to use government to control peoples lives. I don't want the government making birth control decisions. I don't want the government making health care decisions. I don't want the government making decisions on whom I might associate with, or whom I decide to marry. There should be no legal advantages or laws that favor or discriminate based on marital status. The opposite of government control is liberty, something we should attempt to preserve.

I don't want the government making birth control decisions either. Roe V Wade was decided. Let's move on. Let's make sure that your citizens ALL have access to the SAME health care choices, no matter where they are employed.
Let's make sure that all people have a chance to HAVE Health Care.
Let them marry whoever they want.

I'm not quite sure I follow you on the "Opposite of government control is liberty", and your claims that Democrats are Facist. If you are going to debate my partisan remarks, you could at least not jump the shark with nazi's and facism.


EDIT:

I guess the problem, as described by recent SCOTUS briefs, is that free speech and association are FREE.

The government can't censor the free speech rights of a corporation, because a corporation is just a bunch of people freely associating.

This is what I disagree with. A Corporation, is a set of Legal Documents that bind together a group in a contract, most commonly used in commerce of some shape or form.

A Corporation is a bunch of paper documents. The people are more than welcome to have their free speech as people. Not as a conglomerate of people under the name of a pile of papers.

When they start wading into political and religious waters with their corporate policies, they can (and do) run afoul of the personal beliefs of the people who comprise the corporation, or are employed by the corporation.

I don't care if the owner/CEO of Chick-Fil-A wants to be a bigot. But I don't think that he should be able to endorse his bigotry with his fast food restaurant.

Likewise, I don't care if the owner/CEO/Board of Directors of OREO wants to be "Pro Gay". I don't think that they should be making cookies about it though.

I'm a huge fan of advertising. I understand the implications that these statements can have, and the amount of "extra" funding that can arise from things like this, and the loyalty generated in a group of people from it as well.

That doesn't mean that I think it should be acceptable business practice. Personally? I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A. I never will either. Because I know that a portion of the profits that they make from me is going to go to fund things I don't believe in.

People shouldn't be faced with "moral questions" about the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc...

Companies, shouldn't be able to try and build a brand based on the stances of the CEO's / Board / Owners, either.

If the board, ergo majority of stockholders, are OK with the speech, then what right does the government have in censoring the speech?

The government isn't censoring them. They are more than welcome to say whatever they want. Just not with their brand name.

Most importantly when that speech is political, because in a tyrannical system political speech would be the first type of speech to be censored.

And in a wide open deregulated system, the first type of speech that is allowed is from lobbyists, and those who have the biggest check books, writing the biggest checks. Sorry, I don't want Chick-Fil-A, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, Perdue, Swanson, Campbells, or any other food company capable of making a public statement about the rights of human beings.

Can any group express their political viewpoints, such as "The Catholic Church of America", or "The Teamster's Union"? If they can have a collective opinion, then why censor any other organization (even if their motives are profit driven)?

I don't think any of them should be able to. I don't want businesses, Religious groups, Unions, etc... advocating for or against "My rights". Because in the end, the pile of papers isn't what has to deal with the fall out. It's the human beings.

So, If Bill Gates would have wanted to lobby for some legislation, I don't care. He has tons of cash. As long as it has his name on it, I don't care.

I care, when MIcrosoft, the Brand, is pushing the issue.