One more step closer to The Handmaid's Tale.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Next stop:

Comments

[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?)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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

That's not the case with many of these home aides, which was part of the issue. They were not exclusively government employees funded exclusively by Medicaid, but many (most?) were at least partially/indirectly funded by it. The argument that they should be public employees based on that was lacking.

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

The suit was against the government's classification. That's a fact.

The employees were being required the adhere to the tenets of the employer's religion.

Not at all. The employees were free to do whatever they wished. The only difference was that the employer was not going to provide contraceptive coverage. They were still free to purchase the contraceptives on their own, there was no change in access.

You're really stretching.

What you call stretching, the rest of us call the root of the case. Without the contraceptive mandate, there's no case here.

And are you also arguing, ipso facto, that corporations are not people?

Corporations are "people" in a legal sense. They're not people in a real sense, but groups of people in practice. Whether or not they're people is irrelevant to the First Amendment's religious protections.

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?

Not at all, as Hobby Lobby Inc is directed by the owners/board of directors.

(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?)

Starbucks is also directed by its owners/directors. No one is forced to do anything, as those who may have a problem, like with Hobby Lobby, can disassociate themselves.

Try doing that with the government.

[joiedumonde.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: 1/2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You seem to always miss the point that they don't *have* to run the business

Conversely, the employees don't have to work at a religiously-oriented organization. Besides, the regulation comes from the government, who cannot infringe on religious beliefs by law. So the "you don't have to do it" argument doesn't hold weight here like it would if it were a private group imposing this.

If providing government mandated protections to their workers is against their religion then they can make a *choice* between their religion and their business.

That directly violates our Constitution, just so you know.

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

No, the religion is not forced on the employees. The employees are still able to purchase and consume contraceptives to their heart's desire.

[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.