Freedom of Association

[Martin Hash]

Under the guise of "inclusiveness," the Freedom of Association, a Right, is just about gone, and literally nobody is fighting to save it. Who you associate with is liberty because you decide, no one can force your membership in an organization, or who you choose to work and socialize with, but inclusiveness reverses that power: others decide who you will associate with, and in 24 States, you MUST join a union or lose your job. The Inclusivity People, in conjunction with the Equality People, have taken control of the narrative; imagine how difficult it would be to argue that we need divisiveness, a demarcation between "us" and "them." How else can you protect the things you cherish if you are forced into sharing? How can you enjoy life to the maximum if you cannot escape those you do not like? It's clearly collectivism, even Marxist, but the penalties for objecting to inclusiveness have become legal. We must fight back; reject the rhetoric; Draw The Lines.

[heydaralon]

Martin can you give me some money? I don't like to beat around the bush here. If you say no, it was still worth a shot.

[Martin Hash]

Pat. Pat. Pat. You'll be okay, little guy.

[heydaralon]

Pat. Pat. Pat. You'll be okay, little guy.

Damnit. I thought coming at you straight would have increased my chances. I'm not going to apologize for trying.

[Martin Hash]

It's okay. Jesus will save you.

[Fife]

If there is any remaining doubt that we are immeasurably better off without whatever appointment Billary would have made and gotten through, just consider Justice Repo Man's role in the upcoming Janus case.

Will the third time be the charm for challenge to public-sector union fees?

With Justice Neil Gorsuch now on the bench, however, Janus hopes that the Supreme Court will seize its third opportunity to reverse Abood. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rejected Janus’ argument that requiring him to pay an agency fee violated his rights under the First Amendment, explaining that it did not have the power to overrule Abood. But the Supreme Court does have that power, and yesterday Janus asked the justices to step in. He argues that, because issues like salaries, pensions and benefits for government employees are inherently political, agency fees – even if characterized as the costs of contract negotiations – are supporting “speech designed to influence governmental policies.” Therefore, he maintains, requiring him to pay an agency fee isn’t actually any different from forcing him to subsidize a group that lobbies the government. Indeed, he observes, an agency fee may require state employees to “subsidize advocacy that they oppose and that may harm their interests. This is perverse, akin to requiring kidnapping victims to pay their captors for room and board.”

The stakes in this case are high, not only for the parties but also for any other union that represents public employees who must pay agency fees. If employees are not required to pay the fees, many of them probably won’t, which would have a direct effect on the financial health of public-employee unions. And although the fees now at issue before the court cannot be used for politics and lobbying, that could in turn lead to a reduced role on the political stage for organized labor, which by one estimate spent $1.7 billion during the 2012 election cycle.

[Ex-California]

So many of our Constitutional rights are in the shitter, why would Freedom of Association be any different.

Most people hate liberty

[TheReal_ND]

CLASS WARFARE REEEEEEEEEE

(Don't make the obvious conclusions based on race)

[Ex-California]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opin ... gin=google

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The world is full of loathsome, stupid, and irritating people.

As far as I know, you are still allowed to freely not associate with them by being a shut in.