| kanageddaamen said: I have no problem with the classification of a corporation as a person, or the exercise of human rights by a corporation (free speech for corporations is something I completely agree with). However, it IS purely an abstract legal construct. There is no physical manifestation of a corporation. It's existence is purely a legal matter, and should all the world governments come together collectively and say "Corporations no longer exist" they would all immediately evaporate. I have no problem with a corporation exercising any human rights, even freedom of religion. However, in order to exercise that right, the corporation (which is a separate legal person from the owners) must have a religion to exercise. It doesn't matter if the owners collectively have a religion, it does not transfer to the corporation. Saying it does is like saying I am automatically a Christian if my parents are. This is what separates the religious organizations, like churches, from for-profit corporations. The religious organizations are constructed for religious purposes. The corporation is constructed to provide legal protections to the owners If we are classifying corporations as their own person, then they must be treated as such, not as a mouthpiece for their owners. If business owners want to wield their company as a tool for their religion then they should lose the legal protections of a corporation.
Forcing Hobby Lobby to "pay" for contraceptives (which they were NOT, they were providing health insurance as compensation to their employees,) IS NOT the same as forcing its shareholders to. The two are not interchangeable (because the corporation is its own person.) The corporation is the employer and the one providing the insurance, the shareholders are the ones who divide the profits of the corporation. They are two very distinct things. |
The corporation does not provide legal protections to its owners or shareholders. Only financial protection in terms of limited liability.
The board of directors/owners etc are still responsible for any and all offences a corporation makes. Senior management is considered to be the decision makers in regards to a company's culpability in an offence.
Your use of the analogy of parents and Christianity does not apply. Under United States law, a corporation is an organization of several people. You are not a collective of your parents but rather a separate concious entity. A corporation is simply a convenience to manage the affairs of several (sometimes thousands) people. It DOES have a physical embodiment: The corporation's owners/shareholders.
A corporation doesn't conduct business, own land, commit crimes in a void where an abstract concept can kill a person or commit manslaughter: A corporation is represented by the people who are associated with it.
For example, can we agree that Fox News is a conservative news network? It's corporation, it doesn't have a political opinion....but because it is owned by conservative Rupert Murdoch and he employs conservatives to run it, it becomes a conservative news network. You support freedom of speech and religion for corporations but go on to say that since corporations cannot have religions, how can corporations exercise that right? Well...how can corporations have the right to free speech? They can only speak what their owners/employees say. How can a corporations own land? Because owners/employees go out and buy that land. How can corporations be sued? Because senior management takes responsibility for the corporation's actions.
|
noname2200 said: A corporation, simply put, is not an individual in any real sense of the word: why should it be granted the protections intended to safeguard individuals? Each of the people making up the corporation already has each of those rights, so what need is there for extending the protection for individuals to the fictitious entity which most of its members have little to no control over? |
Because A:) A corporation is a collection of indivuals acting collectively to do business. Therefore, defining a corporation as a legal person is simply a legal fiction used to simplify the complex tasks of trying a group of thousands of people at the same time and B) Shareholders have direct control in proportion to their share in the company. Even a 1% share owner is directly part of this group.
Therefore, they should not be deprived of their consitutional rights when they act collectively.
|
noname2200 said: You are not. Businesses with under 50 employees do not have to offer any healthcare plan, and those over can opt to pay a tax penalty instead of offering any plan. So... yeah. |
So he's correct. He's forced to pay for healthcare if he is coerced into doing it.
