Washed-Up, One-Trick Pony “Actor” George Takaei’s Unwanted Input on the Hobby Lobby Decision

The actor known only for playing a bit part in Star Trek had these things to say about the Hobby Lobby decision:

 “a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.” 

The ruling elevates the rights of a for-profit corporation over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”

Referencing Justice Ginsberg’s dissent, he described what he considers to be the slippery slope that we have started down. He said it could ultimately result in Scientologists refusing to cover antidepressants or businesses owned by Jews or Hindus refusing medications with pig gelatin. http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/07/02/star-treks-george-takaeis-liberal-rant-what-if-hobby-lobby-was-run-by-muslims/

The Asian Boy George goes on to muse “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that.” He then makes the assertion that owners of businesses give are no longer entitled to operate in a manner consistent with their beliefs when it conflicts with the almighty government.

Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Eventually, he got around to shutting up, ending with the words:  “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

Ok, this is one of the reasons homosexuals have such a hard time getting along with people that aren’t.  Stupid statements, like this.  Let me rebut this, ‘point’ (I’m being generous; Takaei doesn’t make any points) by ‘point’.

a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.” 

So, could someone tell me where those rights are?  Certainly, they’re not in the Constitution of the United States. I’ve read it, several times, and I seriously don’t recall seeing anything like that. How about you?

http://constitutionus.com/

The Roe vs Wade decision was unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court had no authority to even hear such a case.

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during goodBehaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

1:  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;10   –between Citizens of different States, –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.  In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3:  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

1:  Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2:  The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nowhere does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to deprive presumably innocent children of due process, resulting in the deprivation of life.

Article XIV

1:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does the Supreme Court think they’re above that?  That they, and they, alone, have the power to deprive innocent Americans of life, liberty and property, without due process of law?  Of course they do, because they use the unscientific canard that unborn children are not persons. Somehow, life comes from unlife, and, therefore, at the moment of conception, you’re still up for grabs.  In fact, no leftist, on or off the court, has been able to say exactly when life begins.  Some even believe you should be able to legally murder children after they’ve been born.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/15/Marco-Rubio-Liberal-Science-Deniers-Refuse-to-Believe-that-Life-Begins-at-Conception

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/05/28/liberals-are-in-serious-denial-on-the-science-of-abortion/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/26/people-sign-petition-to-abort-babies-after-birth-n1649777

No court in the land has that kind of authority, but we’re talking about liberals.  Liberals believe the Supreme Court (and all courts) enjoy papal infallibility, as long as it’s rendering the decisions and verdicts that they want to hear.  I don’t hear a lot of liberals bemoaning such decisions as:

The Dred Scott Decision, where the court (packed with people like George Takaei) legalized slavery.                                                                   http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3282

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850:                                                                                                       http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h137.html

Plessy vs. Ferguson, where the US got the jump on South Africa’s Apartheid system:                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

All kinds of enlightened decisions, all made by leftist, DNC leaning “justices”.  Those same leftist “justices” also gave the big Okee-Dokee on putting people like Georgie Boy in concentrations camps in America, during World War 2, because they had slanted eyes and yellowy skin.  

Something else a leftist, democrat president approved, right before nuking several hundred thousand other people that looked like that.  Conservatives, generally, while we might like some decisions, don’t pin our hopes and admiration on government institutions, like courts.  That’s what the legalistic left does.  In any event, there exists no right for killing unborn children without due process.  That’s called infanticide, or, more simply, murder.  You do not have the right to murder.

The ruling elevates the rights of a for-profit corporation over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”

A not-uncommon canard of leftist gays, who are all very against Christians, catholics and muslims (though they’re too gutless to say it).  For one, you’re not forced to work for any company.  If they have a corporate philosophy that you don’t like, Georgie, such as Hobby Lobby’s owners believing they should do business in a manner consistent with their theological beliefs, you can go find another job.  I work for the Koch Brothers.  While I’m not into their political beliefs, I don’t object to them enough to not work for them.  However, I do object enough to the policies of “Planned Parenthood” (you know; the white supremacists that are out to exterminate Blacks, and are the medical arm of the DNC, which is very anti-Black), and wouldn’t work for them.  

I’m also not compelled to work for them, either, just as idiots like Takaei aren’t compelled to work for Hobby Lobby.  

Like a lot of gays, Takaei is too mentally incapable and emotionally immature to see anybody else’s viewpoints and rights as valid, unless they’ve in the process of validating his own. Because he’s the spawn of monkeys and apes that he laughably believes transformed into Humans over millions of years (http://toptenproofs.com/article_youngearth.php), he’s not capable of seeing anyone else’s viewpoints, nor mentally sophisticated enough to understand religion. There are plenty of atheists that, while not believers, do realize the significance of religion and personal faith.  No, instead, Takaei falls into the camp of the mentally deficient, incapable of seeing further than the length of his own nose, and believing that if he doesn’t have any use for a certain set of rights, then nobody should.  All this whining, and yet I’ll bet he doesn’t have any problem with businesses and schools that state they don’t want employees to mention Christmas, or the name of Jesus Christ.  It’s perfectly to discriminate against people for their beliefs, when atheists are doing it in the name of corporate interests.  It just can’t be the other way abound, because it hurts little Georgie’s feelings (which is all Georgie has, because he’s obviously not running on intellect).  I wonder if he thinks that organizations like the Triangle Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Michigan) should allow Evangelical Christians on their board of directors.  Or that Planned Parenthood (aka Premeditated Murder) should allow Evangelical Christians in their corporate governance.  Funny, I’ve never heard him making that case.  So it’s alright to discriminate against people with their viewpoints, just not his.  

There’s a word for people like that.

Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

It’s funny how he makes sure to include the words “neutrally crafted laws of general applicability”, when, in reality, the types of laws he’s talking about have been anything BUT “….neutrally crafted”.  They’re invariably the result of lobbying, money, pressure, etc., but I guess it’s all good, when it goes to causes that are supported by gay, washed-up, has-been, one-trick-pony ham actors, that spend the majority of their time trying to look clever on Twitter and Facebook, because they can’t find a job in Hollywood, outside B movies and TV.  Again, though, if businesses should be forced to comply with those laws, how about when those very same institutions discriminate against ‘classes’ of people you don’t feel deserve protection?  You can be fired for being Christian…

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/20/christian-teacher-fired-after-allegedly-criticizing-evolution-and-refusing-to-remove-religious-posters-loses-latest-court-battle/

…but if you’re a disgusting assclown, you’re covered, right?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/horndog-high-teachers-jobs-back-article-1.1728121

Why do I say they’re disgusting?  I would call anybody disgusting that would engage in sexual activities, in a school for children.  However, I guess a jerk like Takaei would just call them ‘sexually daring’.  Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held sexual fetishes’, there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.  In fact, this case with the ‘teachers’ is case, in point.  Indeed, this is the same logic that certain bureaucrats and politicians have been trying to deploy to allow perpetrators to violate the rights and wishes of parents to teach them about things that should not be taught in public (or private) school systems, in an effort to indoctrinate them into their way of life, and damn what their parents believe.  After all, if their objections are merely based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’, that amounts to nothing but excuses to engage in mischief, right?  After all, gay values are good values, not those pesky religious dogmas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html

The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.

Gays, generally, won’t learn.  They are, in too many cases, too narrow minded and selfish to see anybody else’s viewpoints.  They launch racial attacks against anyone they perceive to not be on their side, and they attack the economic well being of anyone that dares disagree with them. Apparently, they’re not bright enough to realize that the same tactics would work just fine, against them.  Remember, the new CEO of Apple is gay.  

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/cnbc-co-anchor-accidentally-outed-apple-ceo-tim-cook-gay-article-1.1848553

Imagine if their company was attacked, financially, by people that decided to go that route.  In any event, Hobby Lobby is still on the hook for a lot of other methods of contraception.  I guess Takaei’s either too uninformed, or too stupid, to talk on this.

Facts Liberals Don’t Want You to Know: How Many Kinds of Birth Control Hobby Lobby Offers Employees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

~ by virusx on July 6, 2014.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: