SB1062, Hobby Lobs...Religious Exemptions Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

[dblack]

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?

Do families have religious beliefs? Organizations? Clubs?

That isn't the question being asked today before the Supreme Court. It is Are Corporations 'persons' that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

Corporations are groups of people, as such, yes, they can have sincerely held religious beliefs. Just as any other groups of people can.

 

[paperview]

Can a corporation yell fire in a crowded theater?

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

 

[paperview]

Do families have religious beliefs? Organizations? Clubs?

That isn't the question being asked today before the Supreme Court. It is Are Corporations 'persons' that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

Corporations are groups of people, as such, yes, they can have sincerely held religious beliefs. Just as any other groups of people can.

Yes, and those groups of people religious rights are protected as persons, individual persons - because they are literally flesh and blood people.

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

That isn't the question being asked today before the Supreme Court. It is Are Corporations 'persons' that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

Corporations are groups of people, as such, yes, they can have sincerely held religious beliefs. Just as any other groups of people can.

Yes, and those groups of people religious rights are protected as persons, individual persons - because they are literally flesh and blood people.

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate personhood is an extraneous legal concept that has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are, in fact, groups of people. And people have rights.

 

[paperview]

Corporations are groups of people, as such, yes, they can have sincerely held religious beliefs. Just as any other groups of people can.

Yes, and those groups of people religious rights are protected as persons, individual persons - because they are literally flesh and blood people.

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate personhood is an extraneous legal concept that has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are, in fact, groups of people. And people have rights.

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

 

[paperview]

Live Blog: Contraception Cases at the Supreme Court -- Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Q. Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

A. [Romney beliefs Corporations are people] Some people are moral, others immoral and still others amoral.

Let's consider Enron, can anyone deny it was conceived and dedicated to fucking over its employees and entire states? Thus it was immoral by the standards of all but the callous conservatives who too are immoral, who put profit over people.

Next, let's consider Exxon Mobil, clearly a mega company which puts profit over people and our environment; then, look at the behavior of Koch Industries and the two (at least) members of the Supreme Court who cozy up to them; the senators and members of the H. of Rep. who deny global warming and fail to look into the future and support green and renewable sources of energy to protect big oil, big coal and the Keystone Pipeline.

You're a lo-lo moron cocksucker. We get it. You don't need to prove it with every post.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, and those groups of people religious rights are protected as persons, individual persons - because they are literally flesh and blood people.

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate personhood is an extraneous legal concept that has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are, in fact, groups of people. And people have rights.

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

That's called "religious exemption." Try looking it up sometime when you aren't busy spreading ignorance and hate on this site.

 

[dblack]

Yes, and those groups of people religious rights are protected as persons, individual persons - because they are literally flesh and blood people.

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate personhood is an extraneous legal concept that has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are, in fact, groups of people. And people have rights.

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

As much as any other groups of people is afforded that right, yes. For what it's worth though, I think the Hobby Lobby case is an improper application of the first amendment. It's not a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue and applies to everyone equally. The state simply has no business telling companies what kind of insurance the must offer.

 

[paperview]

Corporate personhood is an extraneous legal concept that has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are, in fact, groups of people. And people have rights.

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

That's called "religious exemption." Try looking it up sometime when you aren't busy spreading ignorance and hate on this site.

I must say, we've come a long way from conservatives puffed out with Creeping Sharia law in America...


to Yay! Sharia!!!

 

[paperview]

Corporate personhood is an extraneous legal concept that has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are, in fact, groups of people. And people have rights.

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

As much as any other groups of people is afforded that right, yes. For what it's worth though, I think the Hobby Lobby case is an improper application of the first amendment. It's not a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue and applies to everyone equally. The state simply has no business telling companies what kind of insurance the must offer.

You should tell Hooby Lobby & Conestoga Wood that. They are arguing their case on religious grounds.

They are arguing that for-profit corporations should be exempt from generally applicable laws on the basis of their 'sincerely held religious beliefs.'

 

[dblack]

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

As much as any other groups of people is afforded that right, yes. For what it's worth though, I think the Hobby Lobby case is an improper application of the first amendment. It's not a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue and applies to everyone equally. The state simply has no business telling companies what kind of insurance the must offer.

You should tell Hooby Lobby & Conestoga Wood that. They are arguing their case on religious grounds.

They are arguing that for-profit corporations should be exempt from generally applicable laws on the basis of their 'sincerely held religious beliefs.'

I doubt they care about what I have to say. But in my view, the issue has nothing to do with religious freedom, or corporate personhood, and everything to do with the ridiculously broad interpretation of the 'Commerce Clause' that grants government far too much power to interfere in our personal affairs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as Corporations as taxed as persons, then they have the rights afforded them as persons.

Their personhood is a legal fiction that was invented to be able to tax them.

The shareholders of a corporation, who effectively comprise the corporation, cannot be held be criminally liable for crimes committed by the officers/managers of the corporation.

That is at least one reason a corporation is not a 'person'.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are saying then, that you think for-profit Corporations should be allowed to not obey a law based on the fact the Corporation has a religious conscious?

That's called "religious exemption." Try looking it up sometime when you aren't busy spreading ignorance and hate on this site.

I must say, we've come a long way from conservatives puffed out with Creeping Sharia law in America...


to Yay! Sharia!!!

You're such a douchebag lowlife.

 

[paperview]

As long as Corporations as taxed as persons, then they have the rights afforded them as persons.

Their personhood is a legal fiction that was invented to be able to tax them.

The shareholders of a corporation, who effectively comprise the corporation, cannot be held be criminally liable for crimes committed by the officers/managers of the corporation.

That is at least one reason a corporation is not a 'person'.

Exactly.

SCOTUSblog is always an interesting read.

"Allowing the religious values of the individual owners of a company to be passed through to the corporation itself would not only run counter to well-established constitutional law, but it would also run counter to fundamental principles of corporate law.

As a brief filed by corporate law scholars explains, “[t]he first principle of corporate law is that for-profit corporations are entities that possess legal interests and a legal identity of their own—one separate and distinct from their shareholders.”

In fact, as recounted in the brief, this legal separateness is “the corporation’s most precious characteristic,” according to one early American treatise writer, because it creates “limited liability” for business founders and investors, shielding their personal assets. If the Court were to accept attempts by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood to blur the distinction between a corporation and its owners, it could undermine key features of corporate law."

Symposium: Under a straight-forward reading of constitutional text and history and fundamentals of corporate law, Hobby Lobby

 

[Silhouette]

SB1062, Hobby Lobs...Religious Exemptions Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

Citizen's United. What a precedent-quagmire it is... The US Supreme Court ought to be more careful in the future.

 

[paperview]

And from the link in the last sentence of that post:

"Hobby Lobby and its supporters have made much of the fact that a large majority of friend-of-the-court briefs were filed on their side, but the only noteworthy corporate voices to weigh in—the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce—actually came down against them.

These groups in fact urged the justices to see that recognizing a corporate right to the free exercise of religion would wreak havoc in corporate boardrooms across the country. "
​

Doesn't it seem interesting the corporate world doesn't seem to be much in favor of this important SCOTUS case. I think so.

"These two chambers of commerce...explained that recognizing a corporate right to free exercise of religion would hamper, not aid, the efficient organization, management, and operations of American business, embroiling businesses in disputes over what are essentially individual religious beliefs.

The groups pressed the argument that, far from protecting business interests, the act of creating a corporate right to the free exercise of religion would complicate corporate governance and destabilize the market, giving a competitive advantage to corporations that could claim a religious exemption from laws applicable to other businesses. "
​

The business world seems to see the true danger here if Corporations were now given the right to Free Excercise of Religion -- as a natural person would.

These arguments were seconded by a group of corporate law scholars, who argued that Hobby Lobby’s argument would eviscerate the fabric of corporate law, undercutting the corporate veil that protects owners and shareholders from liability for the actions of the corporation.
​

Silence Inc. | Constitutional Accountability Center

 

[The Rabbi]

And from the link in the last sentence of that post:

"Hobby Lobby and its supporters have made much of the fact that a large majority of friend-of-the-court briefs were filed on their side, but the only noteworthy corporate voices to weigh in—the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce—actually came down against them.

These groups in fact urged the justices to see that recognizing a corporate right to the free exercise of religion would wreak havoc in corporate boardrooms across the country. "
​

Doesn't it seem interesting the corporate world doesn't seem to be much in favor of this important SCOTUS case. I think so.

"These two chambers of commerce...explained that recognizing a corporate right to free exercise of religion would hamper, not aid, the efficient organization, management, and operations of American business, embroiling businesses in disputes over what are essentially individual religious beliefs.

The groups pressed the argument that, far from protecting business interests, the act of creating a corporate right to the free exercise of religion would complicate corporate governance and destabilize the market, giving a competitive advantage to corporations that could claim a religious exemption from laws applicable to other businesses. "
​

The business world seems to see the true danger here if Corporations were now given the right to Free Excercise of Religion -- as a natural person would.

These arguments were seconded by a group of corporate law scholars, who argued that Hobby Lobby’s argument would eviscerate the fabric of corporate law, undercutting the corporate veil that protects owners and shareholders from liability for the actions of the corporation.
​

Silence Inc. | Constitutional Accountability Center

The Womyn's chamber of Commerce and The National Gay/Lesbian Chamber are opposed to a conservative Christian organization that doesn't want to provide abortion benefits to its employees. Wow, I'm shocked!
Typical of libs not to see past their immediate self interest. Same reason they backed Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, trashing whatever moral high ground they might have had.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hobby Lobby's position is absurd. They're making a religious objection to being required to provide an insurance policy that an employee can choose to acquire birth control with, but,

Hobby Lobby is also required to PAY their employees, who can just as easily use their PAY to purchase birth control.

Either way Hobby Lobby in exchange for their labor has given them the means to buy birth control, or an abortion for that matter.

Why does Hobby Lobby claim that one is a serious matter of religious conscience and not the other???

 

[The Rabbi]

As long as Corporations as taxed as persons, then they have the rights afforded them as persons.

Their personhood is a legal fiction that was invented to be able to tax them.

The shareholders of a corporation, who effectively comprise the corporation, cannot be held be criminally liable for crimes committed by the officers/managers of the corporation.

That is at least one reason a corporation is not a 'person'.

Exactly.

SCOTUSblog is always an interesting read.

"Allowing the religious values of the individual owners of a company to be passed through to the corporation itself would not only run counter to well-established constitutional law, but it would also run counter to fundamental principles of corporate law.

As a brief filed by corporate law scholars explains, “[t]he first principle of corporate law is that for-profit corporations are entities that possess legal interests and a legal identity of their own—one separate and distinct from their shareholders.”

In fact, as recounted in the brief, this legal separateness is “the corporation’s most precious characteristic,” according to one early American treatise writer, because it creates “limited liability” for business founders and investors, shielding their personal assets. If the Court were to accept attempts by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood to blur the distinction between a corporation and its owners, it could undermine key features of corporate law."

Symposium: Under a straight-forward reading of constitutional text and history and fundamentals of corporate law, Hobby Lobby

The fact that a company is for profit really should have no bearing on its rights.