By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 on 02 July 2014
Edit Thread
burning_phoneix said:

 

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.

For the first part, none of that answers my question. Each of those individuals already has full constitutional rights, whether they act alone or as a group. They would in no way be "deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively." Could you please demonstrate how they would be?

 

For the second part: again, not really. Leaving aside how any employer large enough to hire fifty or more people is not going to be a sole proprietorship or general partnership, if the religious conviction is truly held, paying a tax penalty - which can cost less than actually paying for each employee's health plan - shouldn't be too high a hurdle for one's religious beliefs, right? It's already more accomodating than outright government prohibitions which violate some religions' beliefs, such as the ban on polygamy, or the enforcement of the apostasy laws for muslims. The analogy to the conscientious objector which was brought up earlier in this thread is useful here.