Can you break that down into something simpler, and possibly also show why you think it "favouring the government" would be a relevant thing, even if it was true?
I already tried to simplify, maybe that's the problem.
The government arbitrarily decided that these caregivers were government employees, and then put them into a union and/or charged them union dues. The ruling favored the caregivers who weren't government employees and didn't want to be dealing with the union. You seem to think the facts favor the government, right?
(FYI: It's not true, it favours the worker and the consumer.)
The workers and consumers didn't agree in this case, and won. Also not sure how forced unionization/union representation is a favorable scenario, but that's a bit of a fiversion.
That's.... not English, man. Can you try to make that clearer? Maybe try bullet points?
It's incredibly clear English in this case. But we'll try again.
The government said "screw your religious beliefs, you have to offer contraception." The company said "our religious beliefs are important, and the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" protects us. You appear to believe that the facts favor the government in this scenario and not the company.
Hobby Lobby: "The owners of a corporation should not be allowed to enforce the tenets of their religion on employees. They get the legal benefits of being a corporation, they accept the legal detriments of being a corporation. That's HOW IT WORKS."
This is not a logical, or fact-based, position for you to be taking. Again, statute and the Constitution protects their religious rights. Being a corporation does not negate one's Constitutional rights. This is actually how it works.
Harris v Quinn: "Health care workers paid for by the government should be held to 'government health care worker' standards and should obey the contracts the government has with their health care workers."
You understand that this wasn't about "health care workers," but rather individuals who were paid by other individuals who happened to get state assistance, right? Simply receiving public money does not make someone a public employee, and thus they shouldn't be categorized as such. Factually.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-06-30 07:50 pm (UTC)I already tried to simplify, maybe that's the problem.
The government arbitrarily decided that these caregivers were government employees, and then put them into a union and/or charged them union dues. The ruling favored the caregivers who weren't government employees and didn't want to be dealing with the union. You seem to think the facts favor the government, right?
(FYI: It's not true, it favours the worker and the consumer.)
The workers and consumers didn't agree in this case, and won. Also not sure how forced unionization/union representation is a favorable scenario, but that's a bit of a fiversion.
That's.... not English, man. Can you try to make that clearer? Maybe try bullet points?
It's incredibly clear English in this case. But we'll try again.
The government said "screw your religious beliefs, you have to offer contraception." The company said "our religious beliefs are important, and the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" protects us. You appear to believe that the facts favor the government in this scenario and not the company.
Hobby Lobby: "The owners of a corporation should not be allowed to enforce the tenets of their religion on employees. They get the legal benefits of being a corporation, they accept the legal detriments of being a corporation. That's HOW IT WORKS."
This is not a logical, or fact-based, position for you to be taking. Again, statute and the Constitution protects their religious rights. Being a corporation does not negate one's Constitutional rights. This is actually how it works.
Harris v Quinn: "Health care workers paid for by the government should be held to 'government health care worker' standards and should obey the contracts the government has with their health care workers."
You understand that this wasn't about "health care workers," but rather individuals who were paid by other individuals who happened to get state assistance, right? Simply receiving public money does not make someone a public employee, and thus they shouldn't be categorized as such. Factually.