How about restoring it to its original appearance?
Minus the unfortunate name, of course.
Sad that the owners would rather insult Tucsonans by saying we don't understand slow food than accept any responsibility for the restaurant's failure.
"Ride the SLUT" was funny in part because the actual name is so close; to unwittingly call it the "South Lake Union Trolley" instead of "South Lake Union Streetcar" is an honest and hilarious mistake. Like a bad Seth MacFarlane bit, "CLITT" is just made up for the sake of being shocking, and not even remotely clever. The best thing anybody bothered by this can do is ignore it. It will go away.
It applies to all contraceptives, according to this AP article about the clarification issued today by the court:
An excerpt: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling...Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception."
Now that you know this, feel free to go back and reread my previous post and consider my questions anew, instead of ignoring or belittling them. Thanks!
Zoe and Carlos: Birth control pills have vital medical uses beyond preventing pregnancy, such as controlling endometriosis--in fact, I know two women who take them for exactly that reason. Now consider this: Gout is typically caused by excessive drinking and a rich diet--recreational choices made for pleasure (not that there's anything wrong with that.) Some gout sufferers, though, cannot control it without medication--should they have to pay out of pocket because their employer has decided gout medication subsidizes amoral choices?
Do you have a problem strictly with A: employers being required to pay for something they disagree with or are you B: questioning the whole system of employer-based health care?
In the case of A, what other religious exemptions should we allow? I can't say it any better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent: "Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]"
In the case of B, I'm all for dumping our current system that ties health care to employment. It's an artifact of WWII-era wage controls that is inefficient and harms our economy by incentivizing people to stay in jobs that are not a good fit. But this is not what about the case is about. It's about fucking. Specifically, the ability for women to have the same rights as men when it comes to fucking. If you don't agree, ask yourself why Hobby Lobby has no problem paying for Viagra, Cialis, or vasectomies.
Steve has become my favorite member of the city council; I'm glad someone is paying attention and asking questions about this and other pressing issues. If only someone would have done the same for Grant, but we're probably too far along in that debacle to do anything about it. Grant is congested, an eyesore, and crumbling to pieces, but the work proposed (and already underway, in places) there is similarly massive and overengineered, with too little consideration for anything but automobile traffic flow. On top of that, it will remain a dilapidated mess, and an embarrassment--on par with or worse than Speedway in the 1970s--for close to a decade while the construction works its way along the corridor.
That is a ridiculously cute dog. If I didn't have 2 already...
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation