- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are corporations people?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:36 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:36 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I've chartered three corporations. One is Hindu, one is a Jew, and one identifies as Christian. So many options to challenge secular laws and regulations.
You should send this to Jon Stewart, it would go over well with the simpleminded liberals who riot over words like "****rdly."
LINK
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:41 pm to texashorn
I've talked about this ad nauseum here and I'm on a phone so I won't rehash it, but SCOTUS made a mistake with Hobby Lobby and the answer that didn't lead to absurd consequences lies in business entities 101.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:45 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
SCOTUS made a mistake with Hobby Lobby
Nope
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:46 pm to imjustafatkid
Link to corporations in the Constitution?
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:50 pm to boosiebadazz
Don't kid me. If Hobby Lobby was a Muslim corporation, you'd be fawning all over giving them a degree of religious rights.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:55 pm to texashorn
That comment right there tells me this conversation is above your pay grade. Come back when you have something substantive to offer...
Like a contemporary writing showing the Framers saw juridical entities as simply alter egos of their individual owners. Or literally anything showing they contemplated the interplay between juridical entities and their constituent individual owners. That's assuming you're a true patriot and an originalist, right?
Like a contemporary writing showing the Framers saw juridical entities as simply alter egos of their individual owners. Or literally anything showing they contemplated the interplay between juridical entities and their constituent individual owners. That's assuming you're a true patriot and an originalist, right?
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:56 pm to texashorn
quote:Ahhh your go to "if you don't support the Christian based exception, you must support the Muslims." You're a broken record.
Don't kid me. If Hobby Lobby was a Muslim corporation, you'd be fawning all over giving them a degree of religious rights.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:57 pm to boosiebadazz
If a Muslim corporation didn't want to employ women or Christians, I'd have no problem with that.
Or homosexuals.
Or homosexuals.
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:59 pm to texashorn
What if my corporation subscribed to a religion that dictated I donate all revenue to charitable causes.
Would I then be exempted from paying taxes?
Would I then be exempted from paying taxes?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:04 pm to boosiebadazz
Your scenario would give corporations MORE religious rights than people and is absurd.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:08 pm to texashorn
You've already got a legal fiction practicing religion so how much further can we go?
How bout the religion that smokes peyote? Can my corporation identify as that religion and traffic a Schedule 1 drug?
How bout the religion that smokes peyote? Can my corporation identify as that religion and traffic a Schedule 1 drug?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:11 pm to boosiebadazz
That's also been decided as a religious right (versus a privilege) not available to people.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:18 pm to texashorn
That's objectively wrong. It absolutely is something protected for individuals under religious freedom.
But do you see how absurd this is and where the slippery slope leads? Do you really want the government deciding what is a legitimate religion and what exceptions should therefore be allowed?
Or the Supreme Court should have given us a treatise on the history and reasons why we create juridical fictions and treat them differently than their individual constituent owners under the law.
Even the majority in Hobby Lobby sought to limit their ruling to that specific case. Tell me how that comports to precedent and the concept of originalism.
But do you see how absurd this is and where the slippery slope leads? Do you really want the government deciding what is a legitimate religion and what exceptions should therefore be allowed?
Or the Supreme Court should have given us a treatise on the history and reasons why we create juridical fictions and treat them differently than their individual constituent owners under the law.
Even the majority in Hobby Lobby sought to limit their ruling to that specific case. Tell me how that comports to precedent and the concept of originalism.
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Do you really want the government deciding what is a legitimate religion and what exceptions should therefore be allowed?
Happens all the time. Just yesterday, your boy buckeye_vol was bending over backwards to allow something illegal (separate religious facilities for Muslims in public schools) to comport with a closely held religious belief.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:23 pm to texashorn
I don't care what buckeye said. It's bad long-term policy.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:25 pm to boosiebadazz
But yeah, you're right, I turned around the classic peyote religious ruling
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:I said that I didn't care of a school provided a room for a Muslims to pray, so long as it was available to anyone.
I don't care what buckeye said. It's bad long-term policy.
And it was in the thread about Texas suing for a bible quote. So if they want religion, they can have it.
In the end, I see it as all or nothing. Either everybody can have an accommodation, to privately pray (no more or less) on their own accord, or nobody can have it.
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:27 pm to texashorn
quote:
Justice Marshall seemed to be pretty positive on corporate personhood, too.
I'm about to go to bed, but link? I'd like to read it in the morning.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:28 pm to Masterag
Corporations are people.
Almost no corporation is a person.
Almost no corporation is a person.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:28 pm to buckeye_vol
Yeah, I saw the distinction. It didn't matter much to what we're discussing here and I didn't want to argue with him about it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News