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

[kandrathe]

Sorry about the size of the post, but we are covering quite a bit of ground.

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.

The problem is that the government has its hands in marriage, which grants certain rights and privileges -- and then discriminates on who can participate in it. Many peoples religious convictions also define marriage as between a man and a women, such as the Catholic Church and protestant groups who adhere to scripture. We don't want them to foist their definitions on us, but I don't think you should force your definition of marriage on them either. If two adults wish to sign a contract granting each other joint power of attorney, property rights, and etc. Then they should -- and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. If people wish to form a "family" to raise children within the laws of the state protecting children, then they should and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. I'd say we need to step back and re-address the wall of separation here.

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.

As opposed to... The government forcing the Catholic Church to offer contraception in opposition to their beliefs. It makes about as much sense as forcing the peace corps to have a paramilitary wing. If you work for a religious organization, then you should probably be willing to adhere to the stipulations of that organization. Otherwise, you are probably working for the wrong organization. Free association, again, is a two way street. The Catholic Church doesn't need to worry about catering to it's protestant or atheist employees, since it has the constitutionally protected right to "discriminate" based on religious orientation.

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.

Or, has he vowed to gut the $487 million government funding for PP (whose budget is about a $1.05 billion)? If he were to vow to abuse his power to destroy an individual or an organization, then it would be similar to Obama vowing to destroy private health insurance industry or using the power of government to go after Donald Trump. Why is this different than someone vowing to cut food stamps, or military funding according to their ideas about what the government should fund? I'd say it makes a good sound bite that caters to the base of the Republican party who are rabidly anti-abortion -- but since Congress writes the checks, a president can suggest all he wants about defunding -- and, from the reality chair, it's not gonna happen.

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

Now you are talking... What are you willing to give up?

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.

My kid... is a kid. And, so, sometimes he follows my teaching, and sometimes he doesn't. Ok, so let's do away with school lunch, and kids can go back to brown bagging it. Move the money necessary for the poor into the "food aid for the poor" bucket so poor families can send their brown bags to school too, and defund the school lunch program. I use the term "Nazi" in the vernacular, as in "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld. I doubt the lunch lady is really a Nazi. But, yes, if this BS gets bad enough I'll have to move him to a non-government run school. Consider that they aren't allowed to have candy at all, even for Valentines day or Halloween. Nazis!

Edit: Check out the backlash -- #BrownBagginIt -- just another brick in the wall...

I don't want the government making birth control decisions either. Roe V Wade was decided. Let's move on.

They did. They've pretty much followed the principle of stare decicis, and only revisit old decisions if new information renders the precedent suspect. The SCOTUS is what enables the Constitution to remain a flexible legal basis since we can adapt our framework to the modern age. I do think the government has a role in determining at what point a human being deserves constitutional protections.

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.

Why? Is it the governments job to ensure that all citizens have the same choices for caloric intake? I can't afford to eat the same quality of food as a rich person, so should the government give me a special allowance to level the playing field? Is it the governments role to ensure we all live equally, or just that the laws are applied equally? Do we stand for equal protection, or egalitarianism?

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.

What I mean by Liberty.

And, fascists... Yes. I think our system is increasingly become fascist, and it's both the Democrats and Republicans who are doing it. So, yes, I think we are really becoming a fascist form of government, akin to pre-WWII Italy or Spain. Who owns GM? Who owns Amtrak? Who owns and sells the rights to use communications channels? How many banks does the US government own? Who owns Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? Who up until recently owned 92% of AIG? The government is comfortable stepping into take over private corporations at will, and coercing them to surrender control. Right?

And planned government violence... Consider Oliver Stone's interview of Nestor Kirchner, who said "I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war." Then, what happened?

We are not going the way communists would like, towards a model of common ownership and central planning. We are going the way of fascist Italy or Spain, where we elect saviors who will wield the power of government to save us from our bad decisions. The only difference between 1930 and now is that it hasn't gotten bad enough yet where some idiot can get elected by suggesting that we can save ourselves by giving the government more or ALL power.

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.

The set of documents describe the association, but they aren't the entity. It's the association of stockholders who own the corporation, and employ the workers. The speech rights are given to the owners to defend their rights and interests. A private corporation may only have one person who owns 100% of the stock. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I don't like junk mail, or phone solicitations either, but I respect the rights of companies who are trying to advertise their products and make a profit.

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...

They aren't. Dan Cathy was asked about his beliefs, and he exercised his rights to free speech. He gave his opinion, and because the corporation also uses their money to support causes they believe in, they were pilloried by the 24 hour news. They don't espouse their views in any other way than to donate money to organizations they believe in. Do you check on every product you buy as to what that corporation funds with it's donations? I don't. In fact, the way that Chick-Fil-A was treated reminded me of brown shirt tactics.

Edit: A short list of corporations you might also want to look into: Exxon Mobil, Urban Outfitters, Domino's Pizza, Walmart, Carl's Jr., White Castle, Wafflehouse. And, those are just the ones who have principle ownership who support organizations who are supposedly against gay marriage. By the time you are done with all your beliefs, you might be making your own soap.

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

From Wikipedia on Citizens United... "the majority found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." So, yes, according to the SCOTUS interpretation of constitutional law, the BRCA was censoring a group of people from exercising their rights to free speech.

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.

They aren't speaking for you. They are exercising free speech and defending their own rights. Even though I don't like coal at all, and think it is should be abolished, I believe in the right of the coal company to express its opinion on Romney vs Obama. They have the right to give people the day off (without pay) to attend the rally. They have the right to send out letter to all their employees suggesting that their future might be tied to electing one candidate over the other. We should also have the right to ignore them and vote for whomever we like, quit our job at the coal company, or sell our stock if we don't like what they are doing.

Where they erred was in intimidating/coercive behavior linking attendance at the rally to their future employment.