Hobby Lobby and the Corporate Veil

T

Timshel

New member

It's a good point. If there is no distinction between the owner and the corporation then why should the corporate veil persist?

I would argue that Citizens United is a different matter because the law there was intended to limit political speech and has a significant impact upon it. The law in this case is not intended to limit the practice of religion nor does it have any impact upon it.

Also, this case shows that PiMPle is wrong when he claims that no one gives a fuck about "abortions" within the first five days.
 
ACA demands sin per the dogma so that is very clearly congress making a law inhibiting the free exersize of religion. How money ever came to be free speech i dont understand.
 
Celticguy said:
ACA demands sin per the dogma so that is very clearly congress making a law inhibiting the free exersize of religion. How money ever came to be free speech i dont understand.
Click to expand...

What an employee does with their compensation has no impact on any one else's practice of religion. You seem to be arguing that compensation or money is religious practice.

As for Citizens, the limit was not on money but the promotion of political speech. If they made a law saying that a corporation cannot donate to a church or promote religion in anyway then that would be a violation of the first.

The intent of the ACA is not to limit corporate/union engagement or involvement in religion. The intent of BCRA WAS to limit the corporate/union engagement or involvement in political speech.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
What an employee does with their compensation has no impact on any one else's practice of religion. You seem to be arguing that compensation or money is religious practice.

As for Citizens, the limit was not on money but the promotion of political speech. If they made a law saying that a corporation cannot donate to a church or promote religion in anyway then that would be a violation of the first.

The intent of the ACA is not to limit corporate/union engagement or involvement in religion. The intent of BCRA WAS to limit the corporate/union engagement or involvement in political speech.
Click to expand...
the issue with Hobby Lobby is that ACA required them to have a rider that covered contraception and with no copay. The owner's faith prohibits contraception so being forced by congress to support sinful actions is inhibiting his free exersize. As to citizens united the crux is that money giving is treated as.free speech (that is also in the 1st). Money has nothing to do with free speech. 1
 
Celticguy said:
the issue with Hobby Lobby is that ACA required them to have a rider that covered contraception and with no copay. The owner's faith prohibits contraception so being forced by congress to support sinful actions is inhibiting his free exersize. As to citizens united the crux is that money giving is treated as.free speech (that is also in the 1st). Money has nothing to do with free speech. 1
Click to expand...

That is not the crux of Citizens. The court did not simply rule that "money is not speech." That is a strawman argument. If they had then this case would be settled as it would require a speech act. All other laws requiring or prohibiting an expenditure would likewise be null. The crux of Citizens was that congress may not inhibit political speech by prohibiting the financing of speech related activities which is exactly what they intended to do through the BCRA.

Compensating an employee is not an exercise of religion. If it were then they could force employees to tithe, convert and other things. The ACA and this provision is not intended to limit or require any exercise of religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top