General Discussion

bigtree

(85,996 posts)

10. right, they should have relinquished their corporate personhood

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:14 PM

Jul 2014

. . . before expecting for the individual owner's religious beliefs to be recognized. They are assuming religious characteristics about corporations, within their own definitions of corporations, that don't actually exist as essential or necessary for them to conduct business. There is no way to define religious beliefs of a corporation; nor is it essential to the existence or functioning of that collection of business interests to make such a definition. The Supreme Court is assuming religiosity but can't define or measure it, outside of the belief of the owner of Hobby Lobby.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Big flaw in Hobby Lobby decision is in assuming 'corporate personhoods' can hold religious belief [View all] bigtree Jul 2014 OP

Brilliant cerveza_gratis Jul 2014 #1

This seems a step toward sovereign corporations HereSince1628 Jul 2014 #5

granted two sets of speech rights bigtree Jul 2014 #6

That's the essential double dipping nature of corporate personhood HereSince1628 Jul 2014 #11

but the courts have long held that corporations have such rights unblock Jul 2014 #2

Religion is a belief. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #8

I assume God looks like a giant Walmart sense she made us in her image. Johonny Jul 2014 #3

If the owner's religion "extends" to the corporation ... dawg Jul 2014 #4

Exactly - ohheckyeah Jul 2014 #7

There's going to be a lawsuit about just that. Count on it. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #9

right, they should have relinquished their corporate personhood bigtree Jul 2014 #10

They were in such a hurry to grab a victory... Xolodno Jul 2014 #12