infectedwithnyanites:

infectedwithnyanites:

lshift:

i know theres like. the whole queen thing rn but i do want people to know that in the US a federal judge ruled that mandated coverage for HIV PrEP is against religious freedom because they don’t want to encourage “homosexual behavior”

Federal judge rules that mandated HIV PrEP coverage violates religious freedom

The court said that requiring companies to cover HIV PrEP violates corporations' religious rights.

Axios

The only thing an insurance company believes in is money and finding any excuse to deny coverage and save it. Nobody has a religious right which entitles them to violate the right of others to access life saving medicine. The preservation of human life supersedes the fake right to be a bigot which does not actually exist no matter what any illegitimate judicial body may proclaim. HIV is a disease which can afflict absolutely anyone the opinion that it is restricted to the LGBT community is not based in fact and so has zero standing in a court with a moral if not structural obligation to pursue truth. For the stupid notion that a company’s ability to deny PrEP coverage is protected by an absurd religious right to be a homophobe to be grounded in reality HIV would have exclusively affect gay people. But in practice this factually harms everyone’s including straight monogamous couple’s ability to have safe sex which is then rationalized under a further stupidity that the only straight people who’d ever catch an STD must be promiscuous sluts who therefore deserve to suffer which is another supposed religiously protected sentiment entitling someone to make other people suffer. But this line of arguement skips an important point and presents it’s objection from another angle out of a timid desire to evade a controversy: no “stakeholder” has a right to have rights which violate the other more fundamental rights of another “stakeholder” such as the rights to life and liberty in the face of which the prejudiced sentiments of homophobes are not legitimate and do not matter. That fact sparks protest because in the abstract it can seem ambiguous what rights are more fundamental but if we consider a concrete example the fog clears: the slave owners of the south had no actual right to own black people as their claimed property because this practice infringed upon the later groups inalienable right to own themselves. It does not matter that the rulings of the corrupt courts bought off by the southern plantation owners sanctioned this tyranny prior to the civil war it means that as an insitition standing in defiance of universal human liberty and negating the dignity of black people as equals to white people the courts had no right to make the rules which is to say to exist at all. That after the war the former slave masters were compensated for their “loss of property” is a repulsive putrid vile utterly wrong perversion of all that justice is and means and if righteousness had prevailed in this country back then the whole lot of them would’ve been dispossessed of everything they ever built atop the enslavement of other human beings and the cruelest among them all would’ve been put on trial by their victims and executed for unforgivable crimes against humanity. No reconciliation with demons would’ve ever been sought during reconstruction there only would’ve been an iron fist to eternally smash the influence of the former tyrants beyond all repair and so the social disease of racism would’ve been swiftly put to the grave a century and a half ago. Now all of that is a seperate matter but the lessons of it all apply to this situation here.

Of course the framework of rights is an inherently flawed lens to navigate justice with which is always confined within the boundaries of abstract bourgeoise concepts. This is made apparent by how in practice rights don’t actually matter or mean anything substantial the only thing palpable is power. A court may not have moral right to make judgements nor slavers to possess another human being but when these groups are armed with guns it matters little what *should* be. Only what destructive capacities of your own you can muster to rival theirs and assert your own interests is a subject worthy of consideration. For that’s all that politics after the illusions are shattered really is just groups of people threatening to hurt one another to get one’s way so in a word: barbarism. The point is to end it forever by bringing about the conditions which make it unnecessary which make it obsolete the material foundations to enable the fulfillment of this task are already here.