Union Sued For Supporting Gays

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/080205unionSuit.htm

Does someone have the right to withhold their union dues if they disagree with its policies? That is the essence of a lawsuit about to be heard in a Tennessee court.

Teacher Dewey Esquinance is suing his union over its spending on campaigns to promote "abortion and homosexual rights."

Esquinance's suit challenges union rules that require him to relinquish his membership if he wants to withhold dues the unions spend on certain political issues.

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. Kick him out!

End of Story.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Another fundie who hates the fact he has to pay union dues

I've had it with the Christian Jihadists! They are more of a threat to us than Osama bin Laden.

[Clark2008]

2. Right to Work is such a joke

Right to be Fired is more accurate.

Sorry - OT just a little - but it is the National Right To Work people who are supporting Dewey's lawsuit.

[Ian David]

3. What's next? Withholding your HMO dues because they provide contraception?

And then demanding they cover your health-care anyway?

This should be a no-brainer.

You can't receive services you're not paying for.

[Orrex]

4. Hey, I think that these bigoted assholes are onto something!

I don't like the fact that my taxes are being used to murder Iraqi civilians and stuff Haliburton's pockets; do I therefore have the right to withhold my taxes while still reaping the benefit that tax-funded services provide?

If they don't like the union's policy, then they should either exit the union or work to change the union's policies through democratic means. This kneejerk boycott response of Rightwingers is a cowardly tactic embraced by unthinking-but-loudmouthed idiots in every arena.

"If you don't like someone's opinion, do your damnedest to suppress or (preferably) destroy it."

[wli]

5. countersue for malicious prosecution

[dsc]

6. I wish the article had been more clearly written

My understanding of current law in this regard is that there are two tiers (one in which a person pays the full freight) and a tier in which they withold the amount going to political activity. My assumption is that those in the second tier still were members. If they aren't that really isn't right. The amount of the difference is miniscule and that is supposed to be due to the fact the union does much more than just political activity. My state teachers union had endorsed Republicans for governor and senator and I wanted to pull out myself over that. I should have that right.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. Damn, I love it . . . idiots who wanna squeeze money outa anything.

.
Damn, I love it . . . idiots who wanna squeeze money outa anything. It must be terribly boring on that side of the tracks! Have pity on 'em, huh? Now, it's unions too?

Pharmacists who whine "oh, Lordy, not me; I ainta gonna fill THAT prescription, it's against my morals!"

Hospital workers who sigh "oh, noooooooo, I won't 'assist' for THAT abortion, it's against my religion!"

Any Bush follower who hates himself and everybody else, "oh, I cannot serve (fill in the blank) to THAT person, s/he's a homo, ewwwwwwwwwwww, it's too icky!"

But when it comes the other way around, no one can "discriminate" against any of THEM because it would be discriminating against their religion!

Go figure.



.

[kbm8795]

9. If that was the case. . .

and people could withhold their union dues because of policies supported by the membership, I would think gays could have been dues-free members for decades. Doesn't this nut realize that gays were paying for benefits packages negotiated for HIS relationship and family without getting one dime for themselves?

Moreover, I hope his Union has some strong by-laws about supporting brothers and sisters in the Local. That alone would call into question his right to attack other members in order to claim special personal political rights. And if this doofus wins his case, every gay American should immediately demand tax relief and union refunds from those locals who support benefits for heterosexual families at our expense.