paperview
Life is Good
Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.
Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?
In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:
See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:
"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."
SB1062 - 512R - I Ver
The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.
Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.
We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.
How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?
Do you think this trend to be something good for America?
Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?
In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:
![sb1062AZ_zpsa5d7d734.jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi6.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy221%2Fwho007%2Fsb1062AZ_zpsa5d7d734.jpg&hash=f129bf4b4cbc4faaa2a8a4f79445eff1)
See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:
"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."
SB1062 - 512R - I Ver
The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.
Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.
We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.
How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?
Do you think this trend to be something good for America?
Last edited: