Hobby Lobby Triumphs over its minion workers

[Old Hippy]

Breaking this down.

1) Artificial construct - obviously (and redundantly) true
2) Designed to protect people - not really
3) From their own actions - way off base nowThus
4) Not at all a legal person - completely backward

You started well.

Corporations are designed to allow a (sometimes large) number of people to enter a joint venture. This is a good thing. Some projects are beyond the scope of non-corporate business.
J

it also protects a sometimes large number of people from any bad results of their own actions... the could always form a partnership for large projects, as it is most companies still borrow money to finance large projects, rarely are they financed by the shareholders capital, the original reason for incorporating being to protect smaller share holders from taking on responsibility ( to protect investors)and to raise capital...

 

[Antilogic]

So much for the Supreme Court saying the ruling was only limited to certain types of birth control:



Man, it didn't take long at all for the Supreme Court to expand the definition of their ruling did it? Maybe by next year "honor killings" will be perfectly legal here in the good ole' USA.

Link

Man, I hate saying it, but check out post #34 upthread.

 

[Commodore]

Man, I hate saying it, but check out post #34 upthread.

I know I saw that post. I just thought they would at least space it out a bit, not expand the definition and scope of the ruling the day after they made it.

 

[onejayhawk]

it also protects a sometimes large number of people from any bad results of their own actions... the could always form a partnership for large projects, as it is most companies still borrow money to finance large projects, rarely are they financed by the shareholders capital, the original reason for incorporating being to protect smaller share holders from taking on responsibility ( to protect investors)and to raise capital...

No. They cannot always form partnerships for large projects. Don't be silly.

Of course corporations borrow money. That was one of the points of making a a corporation a legal person. That is not a bad thing. forming a corporation to raise capital is also not a bad thing.

You finally get somewhere close to a valid point when you talk about limiting liability, though you still phrase it incorrectly. Protecting "share holders from taking on responsibility" makes no sense. Corporations are a way to limit investment risk. The so called veil can be pierced, but it requires strong evidence. That said, a corporation has never been a shield against prosecution for criminal misconduct.

J

 

[Antilogic]

I know I saw that post. I just thought they would at least space it out a bit, not expand the definition and scope of the ruling the day after they made it.

Same here. I was thinking this would be expanded over the course of a year or two, or even a more general contraception case that would appear before the Court in a couple years that referred to this as precedent.

But it happened in the space of a week.

 

[Old Hippy]

No. They cannot always form partnerships for large projects. Don't be silly.

why not, oh of course they would be responsible personally for any debt, silly of me

Of course corporations borrow money. That was one of the points of making a a corporation a legal person. That is not a bad thing. forming a corporation to raise capital is also not a bad thing.

and partnerships can not borrow money, silly me, then they would be personally responsible for any debts, I'm starting to see a pateren here...

You finally get somewhere close to a valid point when you talk about limiting liability, though you still phrase it incorrectly. Protecting "share holders from taking on responsibility" makes no sense. Corporations are a way to limit investment risk. The so called veil can be pierced, but it requires strong evidence. That said, a corporation has never been a shield against prosecution for criminal misconduct.

J

and partnerships, Oh, of course it dose not limit investment risk, and they would be responsible for any debts arising from failed investment decisions, it all makes sense, partnerships are not a shield against failed business ventures.

I knew their was a reason I had a company structure for my business, thanks for reminding me...

 

[metatron]

Since when is a college education a right society should pay for?

UDHR 26.1

Money =/= merit.

Why? Life is a biological process, and we terminate biological processes all the time. You've probably taken an anti-biotic or at least cleaned a toilet, which involves the termination of thousands if not millions of lives. Life is not, in itself, independent of conciousness, morally consequential.

The term you want to use in abortion debates is sentience, not consciousness.

 

[Hygro]

That said, a corporation has never been a shield against prosecution for criminal misconduct.

Oh J, you crack us up.

 

[Traitorfish]

Come on Traitorfish, you're a good enough materialist to know there's nothing in this argument unique to an embryo.

That's true. But, I never said that I think Bshup's appeals to "innocent human life" are a solid argument against killing people to begin with.

The term you want to use in abortion debates is sentience, not consciousness.

Fair point.

 

[onejayhawk]

why not, oh of course they would be responsible personally for any debt, silly of me

Not really. Many people make the same mistake. The silly part is think this is always a bad thing.

and partnerships can not borrow money, silly me, then they would be personally responsible for any debts, I'm starting to see a pateren here...

I give you silly on this one. Twice.

and partnerships, Oh, of course it dose not limit investment risk, and they would be responsible for any debts arising from failed investment decisions, it all makes sense, partnerships are not a shield against failed business ventures.

Says who? The stock holders in Enron lost everything.

I knew their was a reason I had a company structure for my business, thanks for reminding me...

Why are you pretending that partnerships do not become unworkable when they grow too large? That ownership is the same as control? That there are not valid answers to all your sarcasm?

If you start from the position that corporations are evil, you can prove that Greenpeace is an Illuminati front.

J

 

[Farm Boy]

We are talking about birth control here, not abortions. This issue has nothing to do with the protection of life and you damn well know it. This is about the religious nut jobs trying to subvert the rule of law and create a society where their ridiculous beliefs have more authority than the laws that govern this nation.

It's people like you that make me seriously reconsider my decision years ago to stop being a militant atheist.

Everything else aside, random church going aside. Even when I didn't attend for pretty much 10 years straight I would have always slapped plan B into the abortive technology sector instead of the contraception one. If I lose whatever faith I have tomorrow, that's unlikely to change. Be a militant atheist such as you want all you want and I hope you pick something that makes you better and happier. But if that's your ideal path try and do it for a good reason ya'know? Not this one.

 

[JollyRoger]

States should make laws that strip limited liability away from the owners of for-profit companies that choose to claim religious exemptions.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd be cool with that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you start from the position that corporations are evil, you can prove that Greenpeace is an Illuminati front.

"As a friend of mine from Texas says, he will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." Bill Moyers

 

[JollyRoger]

If corporations were people, you would think there would be criminal charges for killing a corporation:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=434252

(Wish I still wrote OPs like that)

 

[Light Cleric]

Good lord it actually had PARAGRAPHS

 

[JollyRoger]

But no tags.

 

[Old Hippy]

Says who? The stock holders in Enron lost everything.

J

true, but lucky they did not have to pay out to non Enron debt (credit?) holders, as owners of the company they were protected from risk and their own personal assets (like their house) were safe ....
so all of the profit and non of the risk

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Cancer cells will not naturally develop into a human being. An embryo will, barring natural loss through miscarriage, etc. And I specified innocent because I am one of those barbaric people who have no problem with the death penalty for people that willfully chose to forfeit their right to life by committing such horrific crimes that forfeiture is warranted. I am not sure what willful act an embryo could perform that would warrant that, therefore I just assumed all embryos are innocents.

Why is it that the "natural" path then, is morally superior? We can clone embryos via skin cells and fertilize them and make human babies if we wanted. But you kill those skin cells whenever you scratch or take a shower, thus killing potential life. Which again leads me to ask, why is the "natural" cause so fundamental to the objections of abortion? The end result - a human baby - is the same.

 

[JollyRoger]

The stockholders in Enron lost the money they put into Enron. They did not lose everything. Given that corporations have religion now, perhaps the investors in Enron are risking eternal damnation.