Where do you get the idea that a corporation is “property”?
Is The Sierra Club “property”?
Read the wikipedia article on CORPORATION and you will see the word “property” used exactly twice. Both times in the context of the corporation owning property, not being property.
Yeah, remember, we fought a costly war to free the corporations!
They’re generally owned by someone, aren’t they?
Is reproductive health some special category of health care, inherently suspect, and therefore subject to restrictions that do not apply to blood pressure medication or vaccinations? And what “burden to religious practice” are we talking about? The dreadful burden of knowing that other people do not adhere to my religious opinions?
Ah! So we are going to submit all of these disagreements to trial by jury, then?
Though i was not aware that the “state of mind” of the accused had any bearing on a murder trial. The question is whether or not he actually committed the action he is accused of committing. True, he may be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but can he be found not guilty by reason of religious opinion?
Perhaps we are better served by restricting ourselves to the actual matter at hand without drawing in inferences from entirely unrelated legal issues.
A corporation is a legal entity that itself can own property, like a building. How can a piece of property own a piece of property? How can you sue a piece of property?
If you and I incorporate to buy a building, then Miller-Mace Development, Inc. owns the building. Neither you nor I own the building. We own shares in the corporation that entitles us to a share of the profits generated by the corporation or by the sale of the corporation’s assets. We ARE the corporation. Or, rather, the corporation is US, acting as a separate Legal Entity.
It’s an important legal distinction, even if we might say, in the vernacular, that you and I “own” Miller-Mace Development, Inc. It’s not that we OWN it, it’s that we ARE it.
Whoa! Existential! You are it, but it isn’t you?
It’s a zen thing.
Seriously, though, to say a corporation is a piece of property, like a house, simply isn’t correct. If you want to call it “property”, you have to create a different class of property that distinguishes it from all other types of property. If you don’t believe me, try suing my house sometime.
I think we’ve already done that.
We call it a “corporation.”
Let say, for the sake of argument, that is true. Then you agree that elucidator’s argument, which led to this discussion, is bunk right?
IOW, comparing a corporation to a piece of land is a logical fallacy. Because the one is NOT like the other.
I don’t know. As a general policy, I try to avoid reading elucidator’s posts whenever possible.
You could have your corporation do it for you.
Elucidator, you asked the question:
I answered:
Your response to my answer:
I have no idea. I don’t know why you asked the question.
One way to read your question is that it’s rhetorical, and suggests that this is a new thing, this idea that corporations are imbued with the religious exercise rights of their owners. If that’s what your line meant, then my response rebuts the notion that it’s new.
Another way to read your question is as a straightforward factual inquiry. If that’s the case, then my post answers the inquiry.
And of course I always leave room for the possibility that it was a “joke” of some kind. But if it is, I don’t get it.
No, roughly contemporaneously. A corporation’s creators are the initial owners.
Lacks the personal touch of a gratuitous insult. Without that sharing, its like a Valentine from a celibate.
Well, the RFRA applies to all acts of Congress.
Reproductive health is certainly singled out as a special category by the Affordable Care Act.
The burden to religious practice arises from the requirement by the ACA that companies must pay for insurance coverage for twenty different contraceptives. Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs inform that that four of these contraceptives can act to prevent a fertilized eggs from implanting, which their faith regards as morally wrong.
The “substantial” calculation arises from the fines the ACA imposes upon companies that fail to comply with the regulation to cover all twenty contraceptives.
Sure. It will be a tiny fraction of the things are that are submitted to trial.
Not at all correct. Virtually every crime requires proof of both a guilty act, as you say (the actus reus) and proof of a guilty state of mind (mens rea). I mentioned first degree murder above; to convict on first degree murder we must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill.
Insanity is also an example: the court must find that the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect that either left him unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act, or left him aware the act was wrong but unable to resist the impulse to commit the act anyway.
I could even craft a hypothetical in which religious opinion did make a difference in the criminal liability for an act, sure.
Well, you suggested that the concept of placing a mental state or belief at issue before a court was difficult or impossible. It seems very relevant to rebut that suggestion by reminding you, and others reading, that it is uncontroversially done every day in courtrooms across the land.
Related question, what is the bare minimum required to be deemed a ‘religion’ in the United States? Cause people, if we work together we can get some good shit made legal.
Why not. There’s some seriously stupid shit out there already.
So how about that “corporate veil” thing?
Do you suppose the Supremes saw this coming?
[QUOTE=Mother Jones]
In a new court filing, attorneys for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have invoked the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby … ask[ing] the court to bar military officials from preventing Gitmo inmates from participating in communal prayer during Ramadan.
[/QUOTE]
What should they have seen coming?
Back in 2009, an appeals court rejected a claim brought under the RFRA by detained persons at Guantanamo. That court said said that the RFRA did not protect aliens outside the United States:
The current petition tries to suggest that the reasoning in Hobby Lobby somehow should change this decision.
But the problem the Rasul petitioners faced was not a lack of personhood. They faced the problem of being aliens not resident in the United States.
Can you explain what you mean by your question?
What about it?