Skip to main content

If corporations are people, and have free speech rights and now religious freedom, how can the Supreme Court discriminate between a 'closely held' company and a publicly traded multinational? The Equal Protection Clause requires all persons to be treated equally under the law. But the Supreme Court seems to be saying this kind of corporation has rights but that kind doesent. This is untenable and obvious.

ExxonMobil and Walmart are legally created business entities/human beings just like Hobby Lobby.

Let us dispense with the notion that there is any difference between a corporation and a living, breathing person. Im all in favor of making all corporations get the same exact treatment from the government as human beings get.

Lets wee what that does for the stock market.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You might want to change that wee to see? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, 84thProblem
  •  When corporations can be convicted of crimes (15+ / 0-)

    and be sentenced to jail or capital punishment, then I will believe.

    But I am now convinced that corporations have more rights than I as a woman do.

    The road to excess leads to the palace of Wisdom, I must not have excessed enough

    by JenS on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:35:49 PM PDT

  •  the Supreme Derp jumped the Shark (8+ / 0-)

    they are just going to kill the GOPbaggers for this November, so I'll bet they get their Federalist asses sent to the corner for now.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:49:03 PM PDT

  •  there is one big problem with this reasoning (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChasMac77, Lujane

    and that is that small corporations are treated differently than large corporations already. In fact the whole definition of a "small corporation" is so that it can qualify for tax-free treatment and have the income reported and taxes paid at the individual level.

    They created the whole fiction of a "Small Business Corporation" for  this reason.. then the GOP started to warp its usage when for instance they started including stats of all of these kinds of corporations in their "small business" numbers even though this definition can include companies like Mars candy that is closely held. Very closely held morphed into small business to suit the propaganda needs of the GOP and their economic "policies".

    The next logical step was for the Supremes to buy into as well.. after all they bought into the idea of a corporation being a person when that too was "accidentally" brought into being.

    So "Small Business Corporations" were twisted into this now - an excuse for the Supreme court to carve out this bizarre ruling.

  •  In theory you are correct; in practice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Lujane

    publicly traded corporations will have difficulty showing the requisite belief and will worry about impact to their stock price.

    •  It only takes one. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Eric Nelson

      All one corporation needs to do is assert its religious and other freedoms, in a situation to which such a position proves financially advantageous. They sue and then the theory becomes the basis of law.

      Thats what Hobby Lobby did. Why do you think its impossible for a publicly traded corporation to do? You can only speculate as to the practice. But if the theory is correct, reality will bend towards it.

  •  Technically (7+ / 0-)

    The Court's decision did not discriminate between a closely-held corporation and a publicly traded one.  It declined to rule on whether or not there is a difference worthy of discrimination and asserted that it was unlikely that the diverse shareholders of a publicly traded corporation would come together in agreement to run such a company according to religious principles.

    In other words, it punted.  One possibility is that there were only four votes for a decision affecting all corporations and a fifth vote would materialize only if the decision was limited in scope to only speak about closely-held corporations.

  •  It seems to me by now that it is painfully obvious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that the SCOTUS really went beyond itself this time in sheer stupidity and boneheadedness. For a group that supposedly prides itself on deep thought, and thinking things through from end to end (wallowing in minutia) before taking any action, they fall tragically short of any of that this time. Rather, they willfully indulged in the basest knee-jerk reaction, plummeted headlong into their awful decision because they were and are hell bent on preserving partisan politics and every other agenda item that their "high" court is supposedly above...what a travesty. This Band of Merry Men should have a thoroughly enjoyable time together for all eternity when they fall into the Ninth Circle. Lucifer himself, however, may try to boot their sorry asses out and who would blame him?

  •  Lets wait a bit, I expect several corporations to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Lujane, a2nite, Eric Nelson

    declare themselves to be "Christian Scientists", and refuse all medical insurance mandates.

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:50:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm too snarky for this topic (0+ / 0-)

    So, I'll just blurt the first past -- Exxon Mobile is international and geo-positioned in such a way that it and doesn't need the population to continue to grow to have its markets expand.

    The rest are all vying to own the uterui of the world.

    Be glad you don't have one -- and don't have to beat the CorporaChristis off with a stick for the rest of your life.

    Conscious evolution is a human right. Demand your rights, today!

    by Pluto on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

  •  How can they? Because the SCOTUS says so. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The SCOTUS doesn't need to show consistency in logic anymore, they just make it up as they go along. Kind of like what they do in Pokemon.

    "It's no measure of health being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

    by buckshot face on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:34:56 AM PDT

  •  You ask a key question: How is this not a.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..violation of the equal protection clause?

    Cornell Univ. Law:

    laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
    The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws
    Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

    A distinction Hobby Lobby decision clearly makes in addition to overriding the establishment clause

    Hobby Lobby's dangerous precedent: The court gives no principled reason why religious exemptions cannot be claimed all over the place

    A question that is already making its way around:

    First, the court gives no principled reason why large publicly-traded companies could not bring similar claims for religious freedom exemptions from economic regulations.

    What if a company objects to the minimum wage, or to employment discrimination laws? The court says that such challenges are unlikely as a practical matter, but it provides no legal bulwark against them.
    A big part of the reason that the court has never granted religion exemptions in the commercial realm before today is that they are hard to cabin.
    As the dissent points out, there is no good way for the court to distinguish between good and bad religious beliefs without favoring one religion over another, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution

     - emphasis added

    Business friendly Reuters:
    Is Justice Ginsburg wrong that this is “a decision of startling breadth”? Only time will tell. On its face, Justice Ginsburg is incorrect. But on the decision’s logic, she may well turn out to be right.

    For example, given the opinion’s claim that a corporation is “simply a form of organization,” why not extend Hobby Lobby to publicly-traded as well as closely-held corporations? Indeed, Justice Alito imagines what this might be like in his opinion, and seems not to mind it. That would remove one important limitation.

    There is no question of whether Justice Ginsburg is correct on "its face" and on the logic of it. And as for "time will tell", it's happening now. Hundreds of cases already in the works.
  •  Great questions. I also ask if a corporation can (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    hold different beliefs than its owners.
    Let's say I want to save on health insurance?
    Can't my corporation be 'born again' and realize that denying women their basic rights is god's plan, while I continue to support equality and liberty from all of the hateful made-up dogmatic crap?

    If a Corp can't hold different beliefs, then that makes the corporate veil total bunk.

    Thanks as always, BBB.

    "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

    by mungley on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:14:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site