Corporate Personhood, Hobby Lobby, Isn't it time to get the ERA passed???

The Equal Rights Amendment
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

There has been one version or another of the ERA presented to the congress from 1923 to 1972. Many times it wasn't even considered by congress. When it was it didn't passed and then finally in 1972 it passed congress but not enough states signed onto it.
Instead we've had a slew of laws protecting women from everything from discrimination in the workplace to abuse as well as the problematic welfare system to coddle the women. And all these special perks that have been given to women has causes a great deal of resentment within our society not to mention our economy..
Women were some of the strongest supporters when it came to freeing the slaves. They worked to give the former male slaves the right to vote and only after sought that vote themselves. Were are our constitutional rights? They have consistently refused to grant them to us for some reason?? When the wars came it was women who left their homes and went to work keeping the factories turning out the weapons of war. We have proven that we can do it when push comes to shove!
Women contributed on the battlefields during the world wars.
So why instead of granting us our constitutional rights were we given a ton of special treatments and perks designed to keep us in our state of dependency when it has cost us so much more than if they had just passed the amendment and gave us our equality?
dependency=servitude so in reality they are denying us our freedom. and a pampered slave is still just a slave!

And we've recently watched another entity step in front of us in the line to equality---the corporate personhood!!
who by constitutional rights can now preserve religious integrity!

Since the corps can now have the same rights as granted to men by the constitution and are free to practice that religion within the basic policies of the business. I have to wonder...
If the corp decides that they don't want to hire women because of their beliefs just how would that turn out??
would the constitutional rights of that corp trump a law that says makes discrimination against women illegal??

It's time to bring the ERA back into the picture I think!

a reply to: dawnstar

It would be nice. The great Alice Paul wrote the first ERA amendment and worked to pass it for decades (Paul was the person most responsible for the 1910s lobbying and protesting for the 19th amendment in the U.S., giving women the right to vote).

a reply to: Aleister

they are trying to change the deadline of the ERA of the 70's so that it will be accepted if they can get the three votes that is needed in the near future and trying to get three of the states to pass it,
The VA senate passed the law here that was proposed but the republican house rejected it.
you know those guys that are continuously complaining about all the special treatment that women get.
and how much it all costs us.

well it seems like they would prefer to pay that cost that grant women constitutional rights.
strange isn't it???

What does equal rights have to do with healthcare?
you have no right to healthcare.
Those are benefits provided by employers or you purchase your own coverage. One small company has a large deductible, say $2500. A federal employee has a small deductible, say $250. Would that inequality be covered in your era idea?

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
where did healthcare come into this specifically?
Hobby Lobby was about two things.
Did Hobby Lobby have the right to preserve the integrity of their reilgious rights
and weather or not obmacare's birth control mandate infringed on that right.

Hobby Lobby I do believe is baptist. A few years back a spokesman from the baptist church was asked in interview just what was meant when it said in it's doctrine that wives were to submit to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. His answer was something like well that means if the husband doesn't want the wife working then she shouldn't be working for one thing.

okay so one could assume that not hiring women who's husbands don't want them working would be another religious belief that needs to be protected doesn't it?

so if they decided to fire every women in their employ who couldn't produce a written letter from their husbands would the supreme court rule in their favor? after all their rights are protected by the constitution women's aren't! We just have a bunch of laws that protect our right to work. And well I do believe that the constitution would trump those laws wouldn't they?

a reply to: dawnstar

Not hiring a woman because of her religion is a violation of the woman's rights.
Forcing hobby lobby to pay for abortions is a violation of their rights.
That is a big difference.

Women having to sign up for selective service?

This is about "equal rights" correct?

No more gender bias either for or against women?

Okay.

originally posted by: beezzer
Women having to sign up for selective service?

This is about "equal rights" correct?

No more gender bias either for or against women?

Okay.

Shut up dude!
I have a daughter....lol

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

but is forcing a business to hire a women when the person's religion says that she shouldn't be working unless her husband wants her to
is that any different than forcing a health insurance mandate onto a business that includes a birth control mandate?? aren't both forcing them to go against their beliefs?

mind you I also agree that the gov't shouldn't have passed obamacare to begin with and they did and because of this the corps noW have constitutional rights and we women DO NOT!!

a reply to: beezzer

sure why not?? they've been on the front lines since bush's term in office.
think about this...
if they had gone that route to begin with men and women would have been treated equally in the divorce process. both would have been equally responsible for both monetary support and the nurturing aspect of raising the family.
it would have prevented many of those things that the men gripe about now.. not to mention saving us alot of money.
and society would have adapted much easier then than they are going to be able to now.

a reply to: dawnstar

How do you correlate the Hobby Lobby decision with women's rights? As a woman you have the RIGHT to work for what ever company you want, you have the RIGHT shop at any store you want, as a female business owner you have the RIGHT to make decisions for your company and its employees.

This just sounds a lot like Hobby Lobby bashing.

If the ERA was passed in the way they wanted it to be passed then the Christians would be crying about that also. How is a woman supposed to be subservient to her husband if they have equal rights?

People tend to forget how weak women are and they need a man to protect them and tell them what to do and how to do it. After all a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen cooking a meal for the man she worships like unto a God.

a reply to: dawnstar

No I don't believe it is.

Equal employment is a right. You cannot discriminate against anyone because of gender, race or religion. They must also be given the same benefits as other employees in the same position.

They must only follow the letter of the law. The Supreme court ruled in favor of hobby lobby just like it ruled in favor of Obama care.

a reply to: dawnstar

Okay. Personally, I'm all for equal rights, not preferential rights. Then again, I only have sons and no daughters.

originally posted by: buster2010
If the ERA was passed in the way they wanted it to be passed then the Christians would be crying about that also. How is a woman supposed to be subservient to her husband if they have equal rights?

People tend to forget how weak women are and they need a man to protect them and tell them what to do and how to do it. After all a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen cooking a meal for the man she worships like unto a God.

Wow
Have you ever actually talked to a Christian?
How bout a woman?
You apparently think this is the June clever era. Churches have changed over the last century you know. Women burnt their bras. Maybe you should update your view to the present day.

a reply to: Watcher777

I explained to you how I correlate.
the corps businesses are considered to have the same right as far as religion as people do.
they shouldn't be forced to do anything that goes against those rights.
one of those beliefs is that women shouldn't be in the workforce, hobby lobby is baptist and well they believe that they shouldn't be in the workforce unless the hubby wants her to be.
that is their belief and it is protected by the constitution according to the laws.

the closest thing women have is the 14th ammendment:
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

and the equal protection was kind of passed over by the supreme court in the hobby lobby case with the justification that the gov't could find another means to provide those women with the birth control they want them to have instead of infriging on the religious rights of the corp... and the ammendment alsot excluded women when it when it came to voting rights so I doubt that it provides much protection for women anyways

so there isn't anything at least constitutionally that would prevent them from bypassing the laws regarding discrimination in the workplace for the same reason is there? just laws that are trumped by the constitution along with a law that gives the corps the same religious protections given by the constitution.
which technically not even sure the women have.

a reply to: dawnstar


I find it odd that the 14th gave people equal rights but women could not vote until the 19th. That's just a little perspective to how equal was perceived back then.

a reply to: dawnstar
You are assuming because they are a Baptist affiliation that they believe women should not be in the workplace unless they have their husbands' consent. Then you are reaching further and stating a business could because of it's religious beliefs not allow a woman to work for the company. If this was the Middle East I might agree with you, but I think you are pushing the boundaries on this one.

a reply to: Watcher777

it seems like our gov't has been doing a great job at pushing the boundaries of late and the supreme court has been just going along with them on most of it..
ya I am pushing the boundaries!!
who'd have thought 20 years ago that we'd be force to become the customers of the insurance companies?

and that is the doctrine of the church by the way.
and I know at least some people believe the same way along with some business owners.