When congresswoman Gabby Giffords was a the victim of a crazed shooter in Tuscon a few years back, the MSM initially went bererk on "The violent Tea Party rhetoric", of which exhibit A was "Sarah Palin's crosshairs".
Naturally, the reserved and civil left, noted for restraint and always non-violent is treating the HL decision with their usual even handedness by suggesting that Hobby Lobby stores should be burned down,
"Progressivism" deems itself to be the Robin Hood of "justice". "Take from the needy and give to the greedy" or maybe it is vice-versa, at least when it starts. Does that only work in a financial sense?
If a woman works at HL and doesn't like the ruling, she may:
- Work elsewhere
- Pay for her own do-over pill
- Maybe even ask the involved male to help?
- Go to a family planning clinic like Planned Parenthood and get it for at least close to nothing
- Potentially use birth control in advance?
- Abstain ... oh, I ought to shoot myself! This is like asking an alcoholic to abstain, or someone that doesn't like to exercise to exercise, or a smoker to stop smoking ... we NEVER do that, it requires WAY too much self control. NOT POSSIBLE!
How about a "progressivism" that says that those with the most options ought to be willing to give up one or two rather than forcing those with less options to give up their last one?
I'm guessing that "progressives" are sure that "leveling bit" only applies to money.
'via Blog this'