should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire

[bullmoose88]

The only reason the Hobby Lobby case is even an issue is because thru the tax code we encourage people to get health insurance from their employers, which leads to them becoming involved in personal details of their employees that should be none of their business.  If a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby causes Democrats to start acting to dismantle the current employer provided system, then in the long run that'll be a good thing, tho whether that would more than offset the short term problems such a ruling would cause depends on how long that long run turns out to be.

I still don't get how a corporation could have religious beliefs, or in the alternative, why the religious beliefs of a majority (or more of its shareholders, I realize HL is a closely held corporation) should really matter given that HL is its own "person."  Are we piercing the veil only when it suits a certain faction here?

[bullmoose88]

Can a corporation be baptized, take communion, or convert? I know what your response to that (admittedly sort of absurd) question is likely to be.  Obviously we haven't gotten into the realm of the wacky yet with say the Jehovah's witnesses or Christian scientists taking over a company and denying certain more well settled medical benefits.  At least yet.

But I guess my point is we're dealing with a very closely held company here. Obviously smaller proprietorships, and other entities are probably too small to be subject to aca and larger (generally c-corp type) entities probably have shareholders who aren't, by definition so close to the company. Ordinarily, corporations are used to shield their shareholders from liability (well one of the main reasons cue the Spanish Inquisition joke) but if basically were going to grant a religious exemption to a corporation, especially a closely held one, because its shareholders have a faith based objection, I get the vibe that perhaps that this corporation is perhaps too closely held and perhaps isn't its own distinct person that deserves the veil. We may not be invoking under capitalization or other of the traditional grounds for piercing but the religious argument here strikes me as one that sort of goes in the direction of "gee, if hobby lobby seeks to refuse and change the law to allow it to refuse to provide certain healthcare benefits because the family that runs it has an objection is it really so distinct from its owners to shield it from liability. Am I completely off base here?  Am I wrong in thinking that money-conservatives should pause before getting on the hobby lobby band wagon?

[bullmoose88]

I don't know whether or not you are missing my main point on this tangent we've taking this thread into.  I'll assume not and run with it, since it does bear on my main point.  Yes, treating corporations as legal persons with a wide array of abilities and rights (those which can be wielded by assembled groups, rather than those solely possessed by individuals) can lead to some apparently bizarre outcomes.  But the potential absurd outcomes with regard to health benefits arise solely because our system of providing individuals with health insurance is already absurd due to its encouragement of inserting yet another party into the health care relationship by not only encouraging people to get their health insurance via their employer via the tax code, but also by essentially requiring employers to provide health insurance.  If employers weren't forced to be a part of the health care system, then whatever beliefs they might have concerning health care wouldn't matter because they would never be in a position to act upon them in a manner that affects the personal health care decisions of their employees.

I didn't miss your main point. For better or most likely worse we've constructed our healthcare system as a by-product of employment. I concede this point to/agree with you on the factual foundation and ultimate value (?) judgment.

I'm looking for a legal or legal like mind to debate/help me explore the corporate side of this. That's all.

[bullmoose88]

Respectfully I don't think the dichotomy centers on profit vs non profit. Rather I think the issue is whether a corporation have religious beliefs imputed upon it by its shareholders. In my opinion a corporate person can't have religious beliefs going back to the deliberately absurd questions earlier.  The harm, if any, is to the shareholders, right?  It offends their conscience/beliefs to have to provide these services.  Well I think the shield of separate personhood regarding liability sort of also means that the corporation doesn't share the stockholder's religion.

It's one thing to have corporate policy within the confines of the law to be congruent with those who vote in the board. It's another in my view to say ordinarily this corporation is a different entity with respect to us, but here the law requires certain benefits that offend us. And if it offends our beliefs it offends the corporation's beliefs. That's the problem I have with this particular challenge. A have their cake and eat it too type deal.

[bullmoose88]

I obviously misread your first sentence, mea culpa.  That said the motivations issue. As I mentioned a corporation can have a pro-environment or pro-community policy...etc assuming said policies (and I can't imagine why they couldn't/wouldn't) conform with the law.

Here the shareholders interests and the law conflict. But it's not the shareholders who are obliged to do anything. It's the corporation. Unless for this purpose only we're treating them as the same entity. And I think we shouldn't.

[bullmoose88]

What does limited fiscal liability have to do with whether or not a corporation can act upon non-fiscal impulses?  The two seem to me to be issues that are completely orthogonal.  Frankly the idea that something is legal if done by an individual yet is illegal if done by an organized group is something that we should strenuously avoid as it can and inevitably will serve as an impediment to free association.

People can associate in all sorts of forms. Some of which offer advantages vis a vis the others right?

Is hobby lobby a sole proprietorship? A partnership? Why do businesses or groups of people, as you say, incorporate? Could it be for relief from financial liability incurred by the separate "new" entity?

And again as much as it sounds absurd the distinction between corporate personhood and real personhood is actually important here no?  A corporation can't really be charged with a crime, go to jail, be executed right?  You or I have a right to a jury trial in at least criminal cases. The right to remain silent, right to an attorney, or protections against double jeopardy.   The rights real people have compared to corporate persons are not the same.

Again are we going to baptize PepsiCo now?  Give communion to Coca-Cola.

One of the big reasons groups of people choose to incorporate, as you know, is to receive limited liability. You've pointed this out. There are other business or associative entities that could have been chosen some that still attach liability to one and his assets.  You create the separate person for the liability shield. Why else really?

A corporation person can't find Jesus. The shareholders can.  The idea of corporate religious freedom is bonkers in my most humble opinion.

So when shareholders are trying to exercise their freedom of religion and say the law runs afoul of that right (not to mention the "right" of workers to healthcare or to control their reproductive futures) it's the shareholders who are injured. Not the corporation which can't go to church, pray, etc. Unless we're saying the corporation is a closely facade for its shareholders and isn't its own separate entity.

[bullmoose88]

Again are we going to baptize PepsiCo now?  Give communion to Coca-Cola.

As for your specific example, I wouldn't baptize the devil and Coca-Cola is already a holy liquid.

Well, fine, but I fully expect you to join me at the Lane Bryant Bat Mitzvah next week.

[bullmoose88]

A corporation person can't find Jesus. The shareholders can.  The idea of corporate religious freedom is bonkers in my most humble opinion.

So when shareholders are trying to exercise their freedom of religion and say the law runs afoul of that right (not to mention the "right" of workers to healthcare or to control their reproductive futures) it's the shareholders who are injured. Not the corporation which can't go to church, pray, etc. Unless we're saying the corporation is a closely facade for its shareholders and isn't its own separate entity.

So people who share a specific set of religious views cannot form a corporation that shares those views?  That the right to associate would be limited for religious views but not for financial views is what I would consider to be a crazy idea that exalts lucre above all else.  Freedom of religion to be complete requires that the religious be free to exercise their religion in groups and furthermore be free to do so in any type of group they choose to form.

The proper way to deny Hobby Lobby the ability to interfere in their employees' health care choices is not by mandating that they provide their employees with specific packages of health care coverage, but by not mandating that they provide health care to their employees.

You are more than free to associate how you wish, but once you give birth to that separate person so that you're shielded, I would suggest that the separate person's injury is no longer your own and your injuries are not "his"..."His?"... (because, erm...well...you're shielded and he, He? in a way is shielded from you).  

I had more thoughts here going back to your reply of corporate execution (a sentiment I agree with on a number of levels), but I would say that Government eminent domaining corporate property certainly hurts you the stockholder in an economic sense, but the legal injury (if there is one) is to the corporation.  Conversely, Microsoft is not the injured party should Uncle Sam decide to take the cash of its majority shareholders (Gates...you get the idea).  Though in the former example, imagine if Microsoft exercised its second amendment rights to keep the gubment's grubby hands off its corporate body.