One more step closer to The Handmaid's Tale.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Next stop:

Comments

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I do wonder what will happen if a Jehovah's Witness owned company wants to exclude blood transfusions from their employees' health insurance. Would the Supremes rule differently if the issue is excluding something they believe is 'life saving?' How about excluding insulin that is derived from pigs for Jewish or Muslim owned firms? Not life saving in the same way as blood because there are other types of insulin available.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Or excluding *all* health care for a company owned by a Christian Scientist or a Scientologist.

It's a stupid decision, that leads to stupid outcomes, and it went on strict 5 faith-based judges versus 4 fact-based judges. This is one of the problems you get when you choose judges based on ideology and not on competence, and it gets worse when there's only two sides, and one *is* picking on competence.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Also, you want depressing? Take a look at Harris v Quinn (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-681), also decided today. It's a union-busting case, the short version of which can be summarised "fuck the worker, and fuck the customer. If the company wants to pay peanuts and hire incompetents who will harm the customer in violation of the contract they have with the union, they can." Again, decided 5-4 on faith-based versus fact-based grounds.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, to be clear, you think the facts involve people who aren't public employees being designated as such and being forced to pay union dues favor the government and not those individuals, and the facts that individuals who run corporations have religious freedom rights under statute favor the government, and not those individuals?

Just want to make sure this is clear.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm trying my best and I still can't parse your sentences in any coherent way.

you think the facts involve people who aren't public employees being designated as such and being forced to pay union dues favor the government and not those individuals,

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?

(FYI: It's not true, it favours the worker and the consumer.)

Same deal here:
the facts that individuals who run corporations have religious freedom rights under statute favor the government, and not those individuals?

That's.... not English, man. Can you try to make that clearer? Maybe try bullet points?

Just want to make sure this is clear.

Indeed. In the mean time, I'll restate my objections, so you have a clearer idea of what you're supposed to be objecting to.

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."

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."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The government arbitrarily decided that these caregivers were government employees,

Weird how they might think that about people being paid by the government to provide government services.

and then put them into a union and/or charged them union dues.

More, "the government's contract with their employee union required that they either not hire scabs, or make the scabs pay into the union that got them the current deal".

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?

Ah, I see the disconnect. The ruling favoured the scabs who wanted to benefit from the collective bargaining but didn't want to pay for it. It ALSO favoured the government who didn't want to pay for the outcome of the collective bargaining and wanted to hire unqualified scabs. The ruling disfavoured the UNION, which is why I called it "union-busting", and why I was so confused when you were all about "FACTS FAVOUR GOVERNMENT" when they obviously don't.

Also not sure how forced unionization/union representation is a favorable scenario, but that's a bit of a fiversion.

Fiversion: Like a diversion, but 250% more effective.

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.

Try "You're a corporation of a certain sort, you're legally required to treat your employees in a certain way, you cannot force your employees to conform to the religion of the owners". Combined with the owners "but we don't WANNA obey the law, even though we offered all that coverage before it was legally required", and the concomitant "now that it's legally required that we not enforce our religion on employees, we want to force our employees to obey the restrictions of our religion."

Being a corporation does not negate one's Constitutional rights.

So, tell me, if a corporation is a "person" with constitutional rights, what rights does it have to disagree with the owner?

How do you reconcile "corporate personhood" with the 13th Amendment?

And should controllers of a corporation that dissolves be prosecuted for murder?

None of that, of course, negates that you're disingenuously claiming that an employer has a fake "first amendment" right to dictate the religious choices of employees, but I'm curious to see how deep down the concern-troll rabbithole you're willing to keep digging.

Simply receiving public money does not make someone a public employee,

Except we're not talking about "receiving public money" in some abstract case. We're discussing EXCLUSIVELY public money being paid to an individual for doing a job that is EXCLUSIVELY a legal obligation of the government.

1/2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Weird how they might think that about people being paid by the government to provide government services.

They're not providing government services, though. They're providing in-home services for individuals, hired privately. It's like saying that the SEIU should be able to unionize bank workers because some banks got a bailout.

More, "the government's contract with their employee union required that they either not hire scabs, or make the scabs pay into the union that got them the current deal".

And the Supreme Court, rightfully, noted that these people were not "scabs," and had no relationship to a union that didn't really represent what they did or how they operated given the laws surrounding them.

The ruling favoured the scabs who wanted to benefit from the collective bargaining but didn't want to pay for it.

No. First, there were no "scabs." Second, they wanted nothing to do with the collective bargaining. So there's no issue here for the union to be involved in.

It ALSO favoured the government who didn't want to pay for the outcome of the collective bargaining and wanted to hire unqualified scabs.

No. The government was not hiring these home aides. In some cases, they may have indirectly been funding some of their fees, but that's it.

The ruling disfavoured the UNION, which is why I called it "union-busting", and why I was so confused when you were all about "FACTS FAVOUR GOVERNMENT" when they obviously don't.

So any time a union loses in court, it's "union busting." You are arguing in favor of the government here, who are the ones who classed these people as public employees and why the governor of the state, rather than the public sector union, was the lead defendant.

Try "You're a corporation of a certain sort, you're legally required to treat your employees in a certain way, you cannot force your employees to conform to the religion of the owners".

The employees were not being forced to conform to any religion. The employees were merely not able to be more important than the religious freedoms of the owners, per statute.

Combined with the owners "but we don't WANNA obey the law, even though we offered all that coverage before it was legally required"

Which isn't relevant to anything.

and the concomitant "now that it's legally required that we not enforce our religion on employees, we want to force our employees to obey the restrictions of our religion."

Not obey the restrictions of their religion, merely not be forced to ignore their religion when offering state-mandated benefits.

This is a fact issue you're missing here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

hey're not providing government services, though. They're providing in-home services for individuals

Provided for by medicaid, mandated by medicaid, paid for by medicaid.

Which is to say: A government service provided by government, required by government, paid for exclusively by government.

any time a union loses in court, it's "union busting." You are arguing in favor of the government here,

Your weird counterfactual counterhistorical pathology of "UNION=GOVERNMENT", which is entirely ungrounded in any facts at any time ever, is once again noted.

The employees were not being forced to conform to any religion.

Stop being silly. The employees were being required the adhere to the tenets of the employer's religion. They were not being forced to adhere to ALL the employer's religion, but when their religion and their employer's religion conflicted in regards to the employers' legal obligations, the employers' religion was given precedence, requiring the employee to embrace the employers' religion regardless of the employers' legal obligations.

Which isn't relevant to anything.

It's ENTIRELY relevant. It shows motive: the employers had zero complaint about allowing employee religious freedom UNTIL they were informed that they were required to allow their employees religious freedom. As soon as they were required to allow religious freedom, they were suddenly against it.

Not obey the restrictions of their religion, merely not be forced to ignore their religion when offering state-mandated benefits.

You're really stretching.

First, the First Amendment is not limited to people when it comes to religion.

REALLY?

And are you also arguing, ipso facto, that corporations are not people? Because that's WAY fucking farther than the idiots in Hobby Lobby are willing to go, with way more negative consequences.

I don't see why we need to, unless there's some sort of corporate enslavement plan in mind.

Hobby Lobby (inc) is being FORCED to obey the religious restrictions of the owners of the person "Hobby Lobby (inc)". Isn't that a violation of Hobby Lobby (inc)'s religious freedoms, being inflicted by their owners?

(For an example you'll actually pretend to give a shit about: Starbucks, and gays. Isn't Starbucks being "FORCED" to adopt the gay-friendly agenda of their management, CEO, customers, and board? What if Starbucks-the-person is actually a CATHOLIC?)

Re: 1/2

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You seem to always miss the point that they don't *have* to run the business. If providing government mandated protections to their workers is against their religion then they can make a *choice* between their religion and their business.

They are *choosing* to*force* their religion on their employees. I'm pretty sure people left England for the Americas for precisely this reason.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, tell me, if a corporation is a "person" with constitutional rights, what rights does it have to disagree with the owner?

First, the First Amendment is not limited to people when it comes to religion.

Second, Alito addressed this directly, and he says it nearly perfectly:

It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.

How do you reconcile "corporate personhood" with the 13th Amendment?

I don't see why we need to, unless there's some sort of corporate enslavement plan in mind.

Did you mean the 14th? If that's what you meant, it already talks about persons, so we don't need to worry about corporate entities and their rights, as those people involved with the corporations are already covered.

And should controllers of a corporation that dissolves be prosecuted for murder?

I don't even know what you're trying to refer to here.

None of that, of course, negates that you're disingenuously claiming that an employer has a fake "first amendment" right to dictate the religious choices of employees

This is not my claim at all. The employer, the company, does have First Amendment rights. This is plain as day. Employees also have First Amendment rights, and these two things are not in conflict. The conflict, instead, was between the company (which has First Amendment rights) and the government that put mandates in place.

Except we're not talking about "receiving public money" in some abstract case. We're discussing EXCLUSIVELY public money being paid to an individual for doing a job that is EXCLUSIVELY a legal obligation of the government.

That's not what Harris was about. This was not a case about every public sector employee in Illinois, but rather a segment of home aide workers who happened to be paid, directly or indirectly, by Medicaid and were told by the government that they were now public sector employees.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The whole point of "subcontracting" and privatising the public workforce has been to remove union protections and employee rights. We now have people here who work for the same person, on the same site, doing the same job *every day*, but are considered a subcontracter. This means they have to pay their own public liability insurance, OH&S insurance, superannuation, do all of their own tax collection and don't get any sick or holiday pay. They can also be dismissed on the spot, whereas an employee in the same position would have unfair dismissal and notice rights. Nearly the entire construction industry has gone that way here.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Being forced to pay Union Dues = Enormously onerous and anti-freedom.

Forcing Unions to negotiate for people who have not payed Union dues = The law of the land.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If we'd just go national Right to Work, this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

How would that help balance the equation? Non-union employees who benefit from Union negotiated contracts can still be free riders on union efforts, and its a cultivated free ridership aimed at undercutting Union power.

If we were truly Laissez-faire, Employees would be free to join or not join Unions, but Unions would also be free to insist on selectively beneficial treatment for their own members over non-union employees, to recoup their organizational costs, or, indeed, use their bargaining power to prevent non-union employees altogether... after all, management doesn't HAVE to enter into such an agreement. If it did, it must be consensual, right?

Interesting that we have an À la carte application of Laissez-faire principle, where we site Laissez-faire economic theory to strengthen management (Employee Choice!), yet abandon it for state compulsion (no agency shop agreements allowed!) when it weakens labor. Tail's I win, Heads you loose.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How would that help balance the equation? Non-union employees who benefit from Union negotiated contracts can still be free riders on union efforts, and its a cultivated free ridership aimed at undercutting Union power.

It would mean that unions would no longer be the exclusive negotiators of these contracts with people, and we wouldn't have the free rider problem or the compelled union payment issue.

If we were truly Laissez-faire, Employees would be free to join or not join Unions, but Unions would also be free to insist on selectively beneficial treatment for their own members over non-union employees, to recoup their organizational costs, or, indeed, use their bargaining power to prevent non-union employees altogether... after all, management doesn't HAVE to enter into such an agreement. If it did, it must be consensual, right?

I'm on board, as long as employers don't need to get involved either.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> It would mean that unions would no longer be the exclusive negotiators of these contracts with people,
> and we wouldn't have the free rider problem or the compelled union payment issue.

In right to work states, Non-union members must be included in the contracts that Unions negotiate. That is a free rider problem. What about right-to-work makes that go away?

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

The ruling stated that this ruling creates no precedent, therefore suits cannot be brought that relate to blood transfusions/vaccines/prayer care/etc.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

More that suits cannot use this case as precedent if they want to bring suits that relate to those things.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

That's what I said.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, what you said was that suits could not be brought that relate to those issues. Suits can absolutely be brought that relate to them, they just can't use this as a precedent.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

As you wish.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

He's right. Other groups can bring suit but this decision can't be used as a precedent. Which is pretty strange when you think about it. Guess some folks sincerely held religious beliefs are worth more than others.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I never thought I'd live to see the SCOTUS rule, in effect, that some Christians are more Christian than other Christians, and that the First Amendment only applies to most Christiany Christians, not those other not-Christiany Christians.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

And I guess Jews', Muslims', Hindus', beliefs aren't worth anything at all. (Not that I think that the religion of the owners of corporations should ever determine health care coverage for their employees).