Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

Posted Jul 5, '14 at 4:48pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Hobby Lobby has rights through the legal principal of corporate personhood. This has been a facet of US law since the early 1800s and the fact that HL is even listed as the defendant in the case citation is evidence of this


I know, and it's a load of insane crap. A corporation is not a person.
 

Posted Jul 5, '14 at 6:56pm

EnigmaX

EnigmaX

101 posts

Hahiha: [url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/justices-take-companies-cases-challenging-contraception-rule.html?src=recg&_r=0]Paragraphs 7-9[url] In turn upheld by SCOTUS

Kasic: It's a precedent that's been established and upheld time and time again for the last two hundred years. The fact that corporations can enter and exit from contracts, have to comply with state amd federal law, and can be taken to court and sued are benefits of being persons. Corporations are just collections of people who all have indovidual rights - this is just an extension of those rights. There are some drawbacks to it (RE campaign financing) but they're outweighed by the benefits

 

Posted Jul 5, '14 at 7:41pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Hobby Lobby Ruling Issues

Corporations are just collections of people who all have indovidual rights - this is just an extension of those rights.


Yes. Those individual people have rights. The company does not. Or at least, should not, under any sane application of law. The company is simply a collection of all who work there. The decisions "it" makes are the decisions made by those people. If "the company" does something wrong, in reality, it's the people who were working there that did something wrong, and that's who gets tried/punished. Except we don't treat it that way because how we treat corporations is crazy.
 

Posted Jul 5, '14 at 8:26pm

EnigmaX

EnigmaX

101 posts

Interesting video, though I'm not a big fan of AA - I tend to think he can a tad too facetious at the most unnessasary times, and some of the "issues" he raises are slightly ridiculous.

Six Reasons You Should Like Corporate Personhood Point 5 wassomething I didnt know previously, and Point 6 discusses briefly how

Let's suppose then you buy a new laptop from Apple. You take it home, turn it on, amd it bursts into flames and gives you third degree burns. So you decide to sue Apple to pay for your skin grafts and give you compensation for them skrewing up and making a bad product. I think we both can aggree that you would be entirely justified in doing so and that Apple should be punished.

The problem is that without corporate personhood you couldnt actually sue Apple - you'd have to sue the owners of Apple. And since Apple is a publically traded multinational corporation that is one of the most valuable companies ever, the owners are the people who own stocks. Which likely number in the hundreds of thousands, and you're stuck taking them all to court in a logistical nightmare.

Do I think Citizens United is a good thing? No; Corporations already are made of people who can contribute and I think the jjstification given in the majority is weak at best. But by and large, corporate personhood is a good thing that has beem around for the last two hundred years, amd it's not going anywhere. That the liberal judges in dissent didnt even talk about removing it as a legal principal shows you how important it is today.

And on an unrelated note, how does one go about editing posts?

 

Posted Jul 5, '14 at 8:43pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,232 posts

Knight

The government believed there was a compelling reason that contraceptives should be mandatory provided by corporations and companies, hence it introduced the law.

We have already clarified the point about the 16 contraceptives - simply put, they are not cost effective, compared to those being excluded, and they do not serve the same purpose as the other four. That is also why people are angry. Why would you need a condom, or some preventive contraceptive when you're accidentally pregnant? Even if the women can actually get those last 4 contraceptives through health exchanges, it still leaves the serious question of the extent of corporate personhood. Just because a corporations is granted the legal recognition of an individual, does not mean it should hold all of the rights attached to that. The Fifth Amendment has not been recognised for a corporation for example. So why should the First? I find it prudent that companies should of course have all legal rights so that they are able to perform commercial activities, such as entering contracts, owning property, to be sued, to be held liable under both civil and criminal law. But I find it absurd that a company can claim to be of a certain religion, when its actually just the board. If corporations truly should be considered as people, and hence can hold a religion, where are the employees and their own religious views in the mix?

I disagree with the vaccine example. The right to a person's physical health is not overruled by a right to someone to practice their religion. A similar example to HL would be something along the lines of a clinic somehow refusing the vaccinate a person because it doesn't go according to their dogma. The religious people in this case have made the choice that they refuse to be vaccinated. But the choice has already been offered.

I am saying that your argument (that SCOTUS decided upon it), cannot be used as a justification for the end result (That SCOTUS passed such a decision). I fundamentally do not agree with the decision, and that's the bone of contention.


PS: You can only edit posts once, and only after the first ten minutes. It's a bummer. :|

 

Posted Jul 5, '14 at 9:45pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

though I'm not a big fan of AA


If by AA you mean The Amazing Atheist, the video I linked was not him.

I think we both can aggree that you would be entirely justified in doing so and that Apple should be punished.

The problem is that without corporate personhood you couldnt actually sue Apple


Fair enough. Except, that doesn't mean we have to consider them people. That's simply corporate liability for the product they are selling. That is an entirely different thing than saying the company as a whole has a religion and that the company owner can dictate what parts of the law they wish to comply with based on religious belief.
 

Posted Jul 6, '14 at 12:07am

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Sorry for the double post, I just want to make something clear.

The issue here isn't that businesses shouldn't be able to dictate their own policies - they should. It isn't whether women "need" (literal definition as pertaining to continuing to live) those 4 specific kind of birth control methods that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide.

The issue here is that Hobby Lobby (the owners of it) are not having their religious rights infringed upon by having to provide the full range of healthcare services to their employees. It's the employees who are being discriminated against by the owners; the owners, who are pushing their religious beliefs onto their employees.

The employees work for the company. They are who make the money for Hobby Lobby. They are entitled to compensation for their work. The owners do not get to use their religion as an excuse to not provide parts of that compensation, which the government had previously mandated that they must provide. The precedent this sets and what further objections "companies" can make on religious grounds to not provide something they do not want to is a very troubling prospect. That is the issue here.


last edited Jul 06 2014 12:09 am by Kasic
 

Posted Jul 6, '14 at 5:44am

09philj

09philj

1,761 posts

The universal declaration of human rights Article 3 is "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Right to freedom of worship comes in at Article 18 and states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Thus:
Security of person is more important than freedom of worship.
It is not a universal right to make others comply with your religion.

 

Posted Jul 6, '14 at 11:54am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

Sorry if this was brought up, I only had the chance to gloss over the last 5 pages here. I thought what was said in this video had a good point.
Theft and Compensation

Basically the video is saying the health insurance came as part of your pay for working for this company and until now that has included covering birth control. So by taking this away they are taking away part of the pay the employees are receiving. This makes sense as now (unlike before) those employees will have to get birth control out of pocket, where they didn't before.

 

Posted Jul 6, '14 at 1:41pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Thus:
Security of person is more important than freedom of worship.

The order in which things appear in the constitution do not imply importance/superiority of said article.

 
Reply to Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

You must be logged in to post a reply!