Well, it makes it meaningful, but it also makes it immediately false (and I had warned you this would be the case, so I guess you just wanted to be wrong).
You already know that the satellites are not geostationary, and that therefore this velocity cannot be constant - the figure you provided is likely an average or estimate. You should have been able to put 2 and 2 together there, really.
Funnily enough, the document you quoted (but forgot to read) confirms this. The first FAQ in supplementary information reads as follows (emphasis mine):
Q - At different positions in its orbit, a GPS satellite will have differing speeds relative to different GPS receivers. Given this, do we need to adjust the speed used in the equation for time dilation to account for this variation?
A - In principle, we do need to use a different value for v in Equation 1 depending on the precise speed of a given satellite relative to a particular receiver. However, the speed of the satellites (3874 m/s) is much larger than the speed of a GPS receiver as it moves with Earth’s rotation (465 m/s at the equator). Differences in the values of the relative speed between a satellite and a receiver result in variations in the amount of time dilation of just 1% at most and so are insignificant for the current accuracy of the GPS.
You also know that, in RET, they orbit the Earth, and are thus subject to acceleration. You'll really struggle to find one without the other...
Your claim that they do not accelerate is amazingly nonsensical, and you'd do well to fix it. The answer above might provide you with a less terrible claim to make. I would strongly suggest reading it before citing it again - it actually has some good ammunition for your position once you've understood it. Plus, it's generally good practice not to quote-mine papers for something you think agrees with you without reading them and checking that it actually does.
Finally, I missed this gem earlier:
It does not depend on your assumptions or anyone else's.
Of course. After all, it's not like these would look differently in different inertial and non-inertial FoR. We can just ignore that. Oh, wait...
BillO, remember my usual advice: if you didn't understand what someone has said, simply ask them to clarify. No need to go on a tirade about how right you think you are.