One more step closer to The Handmaid's Tale.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Next stop:

Comments

[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?)