03 Jul 14
Originally posted by SleepyguySo in a public corporation their religious rights would be only 1/1,000,000th violated whereas in a closely held one they'd be 1/5 violated? How about if one of the individual shareholders of the public corporation owned 20% of the stock? Could his religious rights be violated but not the other 999,999 because they don't own enough stock?
Damn. You keep adding to your posts 30 seconds after I start a reply.
So to your edit. I think you can easily make the case that in a large publicly traded corporation individual shareholders are so far removed from control of the corporation that imposing a duty on the corporation effects the individuals too minimally to be an issue. But you can't m ...[text shortened]... ment when the shareholders are 5 or fewer specific people with sincerely held religious beliefs.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderGood question. But why is it relevant if all of the companies involved in this case are of the closely-held variety? Isn't that why they call it a "narrow" decision?
So in a public corporation their religious rights would be only 1/1,000,000th violated whereas in a closely held one they'd be 1/5 violated? How about if one of the individual shareholders of the public corporation owned 20% of the stock? Could his religious rights be violated but not the other 999,999 because they don't own enough stock?
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by SleepyguyBecause there's no logical reason the result should be different for a closely held rather than a public IF you are simply relying on the wording of the statute as Alito claims. And read the excerpts you cited to; all the reasoning there is just as applicable to a publicly held corporation as to a closely held one.
Good question. But why is it relevant if all of the companies involved in this case are of the closely-held variety? Isn't that why they call it a "narrow" decision?
That makes the reasoning subject to the objection I just gave; stockholder A owns X percent of Acme Corporation; he isn't X percent of it. Pretending that corporations are just a collection of individuals is contrary to every principle of corporate law.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderOK I see that point, I think.
Because there's no logical reason the result should be different for a closely held rather than a public IF you are simply relying on the wording of the statute as Alito claims. And read the excerpts you cited to; all the reasoning there is just as applicable to a publicly held corporation as to a closely held one.
That makes the reason ...[text shortened]... rporations are just a collection of individuals is contrary to every principle of corporate law.
But aren't you trying to have it both ways?
On the one hand, it seems you want to say a corporation is an intangible, fictional entity, existing solely for practical legal purposes, and as such, it does not have rights. It's not like it's an actual person. Note I think Alito agrees with this view, which is why he allows that at least in the closely-held scenario, placing a burden on this intangible non-person thingy is really just burdening a few actual people.
On the other hand, you want to say a corporation is so separate and tangible, so like a real person in effect, that the burden placed on it is completely absorbed by it, and effects no real people at all.
Which is it?
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderWell you are the one who has "filed the paperwork for hundreds of incorporations and operated [your] own business for decades." I shouldn't have to teach you the basics of business law.
Assume whatever you want. If there is a point lurking somewhere in your hypo, why don't you explain it to us lesser mortals?
03 Jul 14
Fifty years ago, Norman Hahn started a wood-workingbusiness in his garage, and since then, this company,Conestoga Wood Specialties, has grown and now has 950employees. Conestoga is organized under Pennsylvania law as a for-profit corporation. The Hahns exercise sole ownership of the closely held business; they control its board of directors and hold all of its voting shares. One of the Hahn sons serves as the president and CEO. The Hahns believe that they are required to run their business “in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral principles.” 917 F. Supp. 2d 394, 402 (ED Pa. 2013). To that end, the company’s mission, as they see it, is to “operate in a professional environment founded upon the highest ethical, moral, and Christian principles.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The company’s “Vision and Values Statements” affirms that Conestoga endeavors to “ensur[e] a reasonable profit in [a] manner that reflects [the Hahns’] Christian heritage.” App. in No.13–356, p. 94 (complaint). As explained in Conestoga’s board-adopted “Statement on the Sanctity of Human Life,” the Hahns believe that“human life begins at conception.” 724 F. 3d 377, 382, and n. 5 (CA3 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is therefore “against [their] moral conviction to be involved in the termination of human life” after conception, which they believe is a “sin against God to which they are held accountable.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group-health-insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods that they consider to be abortifa-cients. Id., at 382.
-----------------------------------
Some lower court judges have suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the pur-pose of such corporations is simply to make money. This argument flies in the face of modern corporate law. “Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implica-tion authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business.” 1 J. Cox & T. Hazen, Treatise of the Law of Corporations §4:1, p. 224 (3d ed. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher,Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §102 (rev. ed. 2010).While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporatelaw does not require for-profit corporations to pursueprofit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval,support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not atall uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
03 Jul 14
The reason Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is considered a narrow decision is because only closely held corporations were before the court. Other corporations or business associations were not before the court. Article III of the US Constitution limits the court's jurisdiction to cases and controversies. The court's judgment is limited to the facts of the case or controversy before it. Therefore, the court did not decide whether or not other corporations or business associations may bring RFRA free exercise claims.
Applying Burwell's reasoning to other legal entities, it is conceivable that other legal entities could bring RFRA free exercise claims. However, it would require the principals of the legal entity to agree to run a for-profit business consistent with religious principles. Such a limited arrangement is likely unpopular to general investors. Among other things, there is a lot of revenue to be had by being open on the sabbath.
03 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguylLet me see if I can explain his position:
OK I see that point, I think.
But aren't you trying to have it both ways?
On the one hand, it seems you want to say a corporation is an intangible, fictional entity, existing solely for practical legal purposes, and as such, it does not have rights. It's not like it's an actual person. Note I think Alito agrees with this view, which is why ...[text shortened]... en placed on it is completely absorbed by it, and effects no real people at all.
Which is it?
A corporation is a tool like a shovel. If you choose to use a shovel, then you can only do so with the understanding that you must give up all rights given to you as a person and accept being treated as if you are actually the shovel.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIt may very well prove quite popular now that the principle is established that by doing so you may evade laws of general application.
The reason Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is considered a narrow decision is because only closely held corporations were before the court. Other corporations or business associations were not before the court. Article III of the US Constitution limits the court's jurisdiction to cases and controversies. The court's judgment is limited to the facts of the cas ...[text shortened]... nvestors. Among other things, there is a lot of revenue to be had by being open on the sabbath.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by SleepyguyIt is the owner of the corporation who want it both ways not me. For the purposes of debts, for example, they want to say that even though I was the one who signed the instruments creating the debt, I have no legal responsibility for it as I was acting solely for the corporation. But if the government wishes to impose an obligation on the corporation I don't like, my personal beliefs should be considered the same as the corporation's and should shield it from compliance with laws of general application. That's a "cake and eat it, too" position.
OK I see that point, I think.
But aren't you trying to have it both ways?
On the one hand, it seems you want to say a corporation is an intangible, fictional entity, existing solely for practical legal purposes, and as such, it does not have rights. It's not like it's an actual person. Note I think Alito agrees with this view, which is why h ...[text shortened]... en placed on it is completely absorbed by it, and effects no real people at all.
Which is it?
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I said, if you use a shovel you are a shovel.
It is the owner of the corporation who want it both ways not me. For the purposes of debts, for example, they want to say that even though I was the one who signed the instruments creating the debt, I have no legal responsibility for it as I was acting solely for the corporation. But if the government wishes to impose an obligation on the corporation I d ...[text shortened]... d it from compliance with laws of general application. That's a "cake and eat it, too" position.