Problems with the Hobby Lobby Decision

Other than the bizarre Citizens United, I'd like to see SCOTUS decisions indicating corps have all the rights of individuals. Although I'd like to see some of them put to death.

 

So overturning a 60 day ban before an election on advertising is bizarre? As far as personhood, corporations have been recognized as persons for quite a long time. The first SCOTUS case involving corporate personhood was in 1819.

 

Quote it. I'd like to read it.

Do you think conservative legislatures will require them to present valid IDs at the voting booth? "I'm Exxon. I'd like to cast my vote now."

 

The point is that corporations have been given personhood for the purpose of law for over 100 years. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

 

For the purposes of discrimination, what gender and race do you suppose GE might claim?

 

Strawman.

 

They don't have ALL the rights of individuals. For instance, they don't have the right to plead the fifth. No "group" of people can plead the fifth. They do, however, have all of the rights that any other association of individuals has, like labor unions for example.

Check out Dartmouth College v. Woodward, and Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific for starters. Allowing individuals their rights even when acting as a "group" or "corporation" is as old as the nation, and rightly so. Why should an individual forfeit their rights simply for exercising another of their rights, the freedom of association?

 

Yeah, I never understood the objection to that ruling. To me, it is a common sense defense of freedom of speech. The only thing that I can figure, is that the opposition is rooted in abject partisanship and the mantle is taken up by those used to being handed their opinions.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"...it doesn't say, "unless the speech is uttered by a group of individuals."

 

Corporations have rights under a concept called corporate personhood. According to the supreme court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one outside of the cave.

 

There's another one for you to peruse, domer76, courtesy of Tram's cut and paste:

Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 1888, the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.​

Exactly what I've been saying. Associations of individuals do not forfeit their rights merely because they choose to form an association. This is very old law and why Citizens United shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

 

I believe artificial persons can have no subjective moral values. No one is prohibiting the owners or corporate management from abstaining and just saying "no" to any product available in our secular and temporal markets.

- - - Updated - - -

not a strawman on his part but a diversion on yours without explaining why claim what you do.

 

I read some of the references. That corporations have certain rights for equal protection under the law (14th Amendment). As you quoted "do business". That's all good and fine. But to extract that decision and apply that to religious rights is, as the article you pulled your quote from, "legal fiction".

 

Good. We can agree that they don't have ALL the rights of individuals. That would include religious exemptions.

 

Have you read the 14th Amendment? Are you trying to say that freedom of religion is not covered by the 14th? Sorry, but the Court decided a long time ago that the 14th does in fact include protections for the 1st Amendment. Look up "First Amendment incorporation" for more information on that particular topic.

 

They have all of the rights that can be extended to any other group of individuals. Pleading the fifth is an exception because a "group" of people cannot plead the fifth. It just isn't in the nature of that particular protected right. Individuals within that group, however, DO have the right to plead the fifth even when operating as a member of that particular "group" or corporation.

No. You may wish that it did, but it does not. The SCOTUS has already decided that point of law. If you want to change that then you need to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment.