5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

[K1052]

But it can be interpreted differently by different people right? Much like "viable outside the womb"

.

Not really, just a glance at the equity structure pretty much tells the story.

 

[HomerJS]

Not really, just a glance at the equity structure pretty much tells the story.

Did u know Comcast is one of those "closely held private corporations"

 

[fskimospy]

Because that's what a corporation is: a group of people acting collectively by creating a separate legal entity (person) that saves the government and the public from having to interact with each stake or shareholder individually.

Right. Presumably you are aware of the case law that does not grant a corporation ALL rights enjoyed by people, yes? Therefore we all know that corporations lose SOME of the rights enjoyed by individuals when they act collectively. That is very different than thinking people lose their rights when acting collectively.

The idea that an enterprise created for the sole purpose of generating profit comprised of numerous people of varying religious beliefs, has a definable religion, is abject silliness. As Ginsburg's dissent mentions, the separation of the corporate entity from its owners/founders seems to be employed only when convenient.

 

[boomerang]

Did u know Comcast is one of those "closely held private corporations"

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ticker+symbol+comcast&safe=off

CMCSA Publicly traded on NASDAQ

 

[theeedude]

Right. Presumably you are aware of the case law that does not grant a corporation ALL rights enjoyed by people, yes? Therefore we all know that corporations lose SOME of the rights enjoyed by individuals when they act collectively. That is very different than thinking people lose their rights when acting collectively.

The idea that an enterprise created for the sole purpose of generating profit comprised of numerous people of varying religious beliefs, has a definable religion, is abject silliness. As Ginsburg's dissent mentions, the separation of the corporate entity from its owners/founders seems to be employed only when convenient.

The Roberts court isn't thinking ahead. They are just winging it. They probably know their 5-4s are going to be in the trash in the not too distant future, so they are just using them to make political statements while they still can. Do you think Scalia cares about anything other than pontificating his opinion on others?

 

[fskimospy]

The Roberts court isn't thinking ahead. They are just winging it. They probably know their 5-4s are going to be in the trash in the not too distant future, so they are just using them to make political statements while they still can. Do you think Scalia cares about anything other than pontificating his opinion on others?

The trick to understanding how Scalia will vote is a pretty simple one:

"Is the item in question helping gay people, women, minorities, or the poor? If so, VOTE NO."

"Is the item in question helping white people, the rich, or mainstream religion? If so, VOTE YES."

 

[Knowing]

Right. Presumably you are aware of the case law that does not grant a corporation ALL rights enjoyed by people, yes? Therefore we all know that corporations lose SOME of the rights enjoyed by individuals when they act collectively. That is very different than thinking people lose their rights when acting collectively.

Why would an absence of laws granting rights indicate that we should assume that entities don't have rights? Can you square your opinion with the 10th amendment?

The idea that an enterprise created for the sole purpose of generating profit comprised of numerous people of varying religious beliefs, has a definable religion, is abject silliness.

I love this argument. "sole purpose of generating profit" if true (I doubt I'll see evidence) what difference would it make?

As Ginsburg's dissent mentions, the separation of the corporate entity from its owners/founders seems to be employed only when convenient.

When is it inconvenient?

 

[PokerGuy]

but from a political perspective it was pretty obvious that the conservative justices were looking for a way to appease the right wing and "rule against Obamacare" in some way.

That's plain BS. If the ebil "right wing" wanted to, they could have completely sunk the mandate back when that case came up. Last I checked, Roberts voted with the majority in that case, isn't he one of the evil right wingers?

 

[HomerJS]

Why would an absence of laws granting rights indicate that we should assume that entities don't have rights? Can you square your opinion with the 10th amendment?



I love this argument. "sole purpose of generating profit" if true (I doubt I'll see evidence) what difference would it make?



When is it inconvenient?

One of my problems is corporate right trumping individual rights. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to comply with law based on religion. Muhammed Ali was jailed for not enlisting in the military for guess what, religious objections.

 

[xBiffx]

One of my problems is corporate right trumping individual rights. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to comply with law based on religion. Muhammed Ali was jailed for not enlisting in the military for guess what, religious objections.

Big difference. Biggest is that that law existed before Muhammed Ali. Not the case here. Also, the Ali decision was overturned by, guess what, the supreme court. He was never jailed either.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My basic problem is mainly that an entity that has no body, mind or soul can have religious belief's. As long as its only about women's birth control.
Come on what could go wrong with this decision?
(sarcasm)

 

[theeedude]

My basic problem is mainly that an entity that has no body, mind or soul can have religious belief's. As long as its only about women's birth control.
Come on what could go wrong with this decision?
(sarcasm)

What about other religious beliefs? What if they decide they want to fire all non-Christians? Under the Roberts court reading, they are "persons" and have a freedom of association right to do that.

 

[TerryMathews]

What about other religious beliefs? What if they decide they want to fire all non-Christians? Under the Roberts court reading, they are "persons" and have a freedom of association right to do that.

You obviously didn't read the decision...

 

[fskimospy]

Why would an absence of laws granting rights indicate that we should assume that entities don't have rights? Can you square your opinion with the 10th amendment?

It is unclear to me where you are getting this argument, so there's no real point to answering it. Corporations do not have all the same rights as individuals. For example, they cannot invoke the 5th amendment. (for example as shown in Curcio v. United States)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/118/case.html

So my answer to you would simply be: because the Supreme Court explicitly said corporations don't have all the same rights as people.

I love this argument. "sole purpose of generating profit" if true (I doubt I'll see evidence) what difference would it make?

A corporation's legal duty is to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking since Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. the maximization of shareholder value is a legal duty that the corporation owes to its shareholders. That means the point is to make profits. This may be at odds with the religious beliefs of those who own the corporation. The problems with that should be obvious.

When is it inconvenient?

Clearly if the corporation is being sued or otherwise sanctioned, it's very useful for the owner to treat the corporation as an entity separate from themselves. Apparently when it comes to religious beliefs however, it is convenient for the owners to treat the company as an extension of their religious beliefs.

 

[nehalem256]

What about other religious beliefs? What if they decide they want to fire all non-Christians? Under the Roberts court reading, they are "persons" and have a freedom of association right to do that.

See post 11:

The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.

(1) Not wanting to provide 4 specific forms of birth control.

(2) Firing anyone who isn't Christian.

Need I really explain why one is narrow and one is broad?

 

[fskimospy]

That's plain BS. If the ebil "right wing" wanted to, they could have completely sunk the mandate back when that case came up. Last I checked, Roberts voted with the majority in that case, isn't he one of the evil right wingers?

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Where can I get this free law degree that allows me to make opinions of law superior to the SCOTUS? Would that be the same place as where Internet doctors get their expertise?

 

[networkman]

I'm quite happy with the decision, especially given that the Obama administration has already provided numerous waivers to dozens of other for-profit companies for questionable grounds.

 

[nehalem256]

A corporation's legal duty is to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking since Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. the maximization of shareholder value is a legal duty that the corporation owes to its shareholders. That means the point is to make profits. This may be at odds with the religious beliefs of those who own the corporation. The problems with that should be obvious.

And if the shareholders of the company feel that behaving in a moral matter is in their best interests?

Remember that decision clearly limits the religious belief exception to closely held corporations.

 

[Knowing]

It is unclear to me where you are getting this argument, so there's no real point to answering it.

"derpity doo" lol, okay.

Corporations do not have all the same rights as individuals. For example, they cannot invoke the 5th amendment. (for example as shown in Curcio v. United States)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/118/case.html

So because of one case that went all the way to the supreme court to decide that they don't have one right we should assume that they don't have any others that the supreme court hasn't decided they have? Thusly, you disagree with the supreme court deciding in this case that private businesses have a right?

Seems...inconsistent.

So my answer to you would simply be: because the Supreme Court explicitly said corporations don't have all the same rights as people.

Which doesn't explain the presumption that they don't have any rights that haven't been explicitly granted, or your belief that following the legal process to its conclusion and finding that a private business has a right is somehow the wrong decision.

A corporation's legal duty is to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Generally speaking since Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. the maximization of shareholder value is a legal duty that the corporation owes to its shareholders. That means the point is to make profits. This may be at odds with the religious beliefs of those who own the corporation. The problems with that should be obvious.

Corporate officers having the fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the corporation does not mean that their only concern is (or should be) profit.

Clearly if the corporation is being sued or otherwise sanctioned, it's very useful for the owner to treat the corporation as an entity separate from themselves.

That's the whole point of corporations, it's useful for anyone trying to sue a corporation as well or extract taxes from it. Could you maybe provide another example that more clearly illustrates your point?

 

[Knowing]

Where can I get this free law degree that allows me to make opinions of law superior to the SCOTUS? Would that be the same place as where Internet doctors get their expertise?

I think the sea has been issuing law degrees even longer than the internet.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's plain BS. If the ebil "right wing" wanted to, they could have completely sunk the mandate back when that case came up. Last I checked, Roberts voted with the majority in that case, isn't he one of the evil right wingers?

If a single man stands between Obamacare and "right wing" destruction, what does that really tell you? :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

"derpity doo" lol, okay.

So because of one case that went all the way to the supreme court to decide that they don't have one right we should assume that they don't have any others that the supreme court hasn't decided they have? Thusly, you disagree with the supreme court deciding in this case that private businesses have a right?

Seems...inconsistent.

Again, I have no idea how you are getting this argument. I said that corporations have some of the rights that people have and not others. This is directly upheld by my cited precedent. There is no arguing this. It is a fact.

Since we now know that corporations don't have ALL the rights of individuals, we now have to turn ourselves to understanding which ones they DO have. I find the idea that a for profit corporation could have a religion to be preposterous.

Which doesn't explain the presumption that they don't have any rights that haven't been explicitly granted, or your belief that following the legal process to its conclusion and finding that a private business has a right is somehow the wrong decision.

I've never made such a presumption.

Corporate officers having the fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the corporation does not mean that their only concern is (or should be) profit.

That's the whole point of corporations, it's useful for anyone trying to sue a corporation as well or extract taxes from it. Could you maybe provide another example that more clearly illustrates your point?

That just perfectly illustrated my point. It would be decidedly inconvenient if the corporation and the individual owning it were viewed as a singular entity in those cases.

 

[fskimospy]

Where can I get this free law degree that allows me to make opinions of law superior to the SCOTUS? Would that be the same place as where Internet doctors get their expertise?

Are you trying to argue that people can't think that the dissenters in a 5-4 case were right? If not, what are you trying to argue?

 

[Knowing]

I find the idea that a for profit corporation could have a religion to be preposterous.

Your opinion is incorrect according to today's precedent.

That just perfectly illustrated my point. It would be decidedly inconvenient if the corporation and the individual owning it were viewed as a singular entity in those cases.

If you say so.

It would be inconvenient if the damaged party had to serve the entire executive board in order to bring a lawsuit to the "new and improved" loose affiliation of individuals who only lose rights by acting collectively corporation. Could you please provide an example of how your way would be an improvement?