"A Southern California couple is taking legal action to evict their live-in nanny who they say refused to work or leave.

Marcella Bracamonte, 31, and her husband hired Diane Stretton, 64, off of Craigslist in March as a live-in nanny to care for their three children, Bracamonte said.

The first few weeks of Stretton's tenure went smoothly, allowing Bracamonte to pursue work outside her family's home in Upland, California, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles.

But Stretton became a burden: She left her bedroom only for meals and later claimed she was suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Bracamonte said.

"She complained about me leaving her with the kids too long. I tried to be patient with her," Bracamonte said. "She just stopped working altogether."
The home gradually became more hostile, and Bracamonte was unable to fully pursue a new job with a multi-level marketing company.

The couple fired the nanny after she stopped working, but Stretton asserted her rights as a tenant and hasn't left. She has threatened to sue the couple for elder abuse, Bracamonte said.

Eviction papers filed against Stretton were denied. Bracamonte said the court documents were filled out by a paralegal. On Friday, the family hired attorney Marc Cohen, who said he plans to file a new round of eviction papers. [Source]

Lord have mercy! Black folks reading this are like, Hell. To. The. No!

Background checks, people; background checks.

Anywhoo, I am sure that you all heard about this Hobby Lobby ruling from the Supremes by now.

Progressives are up in arms because they think that once again the Supreme Court is telling the women of America that being a woman is not cool in 2014.

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for certain types of contraceptives for their female employees because it goes counter to their religious beliefs. (Yes, corporations are people, so they can be a part of a religion as well. )

Needless to say that I side with Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

"In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.....until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"

Jesus cannot be pleased. He was not a "commercial, profit-making" kind of guy.