Posted on 03/28/2014 12:32:00 PM PDT by absentee
In an exclusive interview for Heritage, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green very reasonably and calmly articulates a perfectly rational, good faith, and justified point of view that is the underlying motivating fact of this case. [video]
Do we lose our ability to have religious freedoms that the founders put to paper on our behalf merely because we have opened a business? That's the real question of the Hobby Lobby case, and it is a good one.
Green points out that there are 20 contraceptive methods required, 16 of which the company provides. There are four that are abortifacients, says Green, and it is those mere four the Hobby Lobby "cannot provide."
This is what the hysteria on the left is all about, and it is a perfect example of the all out assault on values that the left has undertaken. The position of the modern American liberal democrat is simple. You are either with us, or you are against us. No quarter shall be given.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
That is NOT the real question, because it has nothing to do with a business - it has to do with a CORPORATION. All businesses are NOT corporations, and this ruling has ONLY to do with corporations. THAT is the key issue, and without understanding it, you simply will not understand what the Justices are discussing - or how they could even think of denying religious freedom in the first place.
To be this deep into this case and not make this specific legal issue clear is indefensible.
Liberals generally believe that corporations are evil, legal fictions totally bereft of Constitutional rights.
Pretty much defines the argument.
Nearly all businesses these days are “corporations.” Operating as a sole proprietorship is almost unheard of today in our way overly litigious society.
Hobby Lobby is one of the lowest forms of corporation. It is an LLC, privately-held corporation in which all the shares belong to one family and are held under one name. That is the next level above a sole proprietorship.
So in effect, whether they are a corporation or not, as the shareholder is one family - all related, the only benefit from incorporating is to avoid double taxation and provide some protection against losing personal assets as a result of legal action. The corporation IS the family. Period.
This is not at all like a publicly held corporation with many shareholders and the lawsuit points out the difference. If SCOTUS rules on this, public corporations would still have to comply with Obamacare.
The following is the legal definition of a corporation. Simply put, it is an entity created by law to act as a person for the purpose of doing business or some sort of commerce. In effect, it is the same as a human.
corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital. One benefit is that a corporation’s liability for damages or debts is limited to its assets, so the shareholders and officers are protected from personal claims, unless they commit fraud. For private business corporations the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Secretary of State of the incorporating state must include certain information, including the name of the responsible party or parties (incorporators and agent for acceptance of service), the amount of stock it will be authorized to issue, and its purpose. In some states the purpose may be a general statement of any purpose allowed by law, while others require greater specificity. Corporation shareholders elect a board of directors, which in turn adopts bylaws, chooses the officers and hires top management (which in smaller corporations are often the directors and/or shareholders). Annual meetings are required of both the shareholders and the Board, and major policy decisions must be made by resolution of the Board (which often delegates much authority to officers and committees). Issuance of stock of less than $300,000, with no public solicitation and relatively few shareholders, is either automatically approved by the state commissioner of corporations or requires a petition outlining the financing. Some states are considered lax in supervision, have low filing fees and corporate taxes and are popular incorporation states, but corporations must register with Secretary of States of other states where they do substantial business as a “foreign” corporation. Larger stock offerings and/or those offered to the general public require approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission after close scrutiny and approval of a public “prospectus” which details the entire operation of the corporation. There are also non-profit (or not for profit) corporations organized for religious, educational, charitable or public service purposes. Public corporations are those formed by a municipal, state or federal government for public purposes such as operating a dam and utility project. A close corporation is made up of a handful of shareholders with a working or familial connection which is permitted to operate informally without resolutions and regular Board meetings. A de jure corporation is one that is formally operated under the law, while a de facto corporation is one which operates as if it were legal, but without the Articles of Incorporation being valid. Corporations can range from the Corner Mini-Mart to General Electric. (See: articles of incorporation, bylaws, board of directors, close corporation, public corporation, de jure corporation, de facto corporation, shareholder, stock, securities)
It is not the same as a human - it is the same as a human acting in a corporate capacity.
Human beings have God-given rights acknowledged by the Constitution. Corporations have no rights - they have a limited set of privileges granted to them by the State that created them.
When a human being acts under the auspices of corporate authority, the surrender their human rights in exchange for corporate privileges. Only then are corporations "the same" as human beings under the law, because the human beings have turned themselves into de facto corporate entities - NOT because corporations have achieved the rights of a non-corporate human being.
Big, big, big difference.
Nope. Simply not true. Wha do you thin the mechanism is that allows Hobby Lobby to modify its taxation and legally indemnify itself? Why should a family that is not incorporated be exposed to threats Hobby Lobby is not exposed to? What do you think that little piece of paper Hobby Lobby has DOES?
It creates a legal fiction - that's what. A separate person under the law that is granted privileges but hs no rights. And that legal fiction is what the family actually works for - the corporation called "Hobby Lobby." You can't sue that family personally because you have to sue the legal fiction called Hobby Lobby. You can't double tax the family memmbers because you have to tax Hobby Lobby.
But the fundamental difference between the family members and the Hobby Lobby corporation is that the family members are actual human beings, and Hobby Lobby is not. So you have to choose - do corporations receive God-given rights under the Consititution? Or do the human family members contract with the State to limit their rights into State-sanctioned privileges through the Hobby Lobby corporation in order to create an indemnification shell around them?
The latter, of course. And so the family is NOT the Hobby Lobby corporation, because the entire reason to FORM the Hobby Lobby corporations is, in fact, to NOT BE the Hobby Lobby corporatation - so that when you want to sue the family, they can say, ""hey, Hobby Lobby is not us - it's it's own legal person. You have to sue IT."
And that's why the Hobby Lobby corporation - alone - is the subject of this lawsuit, and these statutes, and this hearing, and not the family members OF the Hobby Lobby corporation. Because that's WHY those family members formed their corporation to begin with, to NOT be a part of it.
So once again you’ve highlighted the dodge that Traitor Roberts intends to hide behind.
If that is your reading of the law then truly this government and this nation are nearing its end.
Actually, Roberts exposed the dodge so that American could learn about it and change things for the better. Unfortunately, few people even want to learn the truth of the matter, let alone act on it. That's why America is the "Great Experiment." It's not whether a nation built of God-given rights is correct - it's whether people will live up to the requirements of those rights and defend them, or whether they will slide into sloth and neglect and hypocrisy.
For those interested in reading further about what Roberts did:
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
Yes, there are other reasons for incorporating (limiting liability being the main one), but the point is that in a business owned by Christians, how they structure the business should not determine whether they forfeit their right to practice their religion. The end result of finding otherwise will be to force Christians to quit forming businesses. If I had a business that was told to fund abortions, I would close it first. Eternity doesn't just come every April 15.
Further, corporations are created in the various states and not by the fed governement. So what we have here is an administration suing a corp. incorporated in a sovereign state. Any limitations on the rights of that corp. should, by rights, eminate from said state and not the fed.
Clearly I'm not a lawyer, but I think the byzantine logic you've identified threatens the polity in very fundamental ways.
The US Constutuion is not a suicide pact.
None the less, whether corporations have the so-called right of a human or not, they are acting as a human would do in business but with the humans who own shares in the corporation having limited liability.
In addition, corporations do have a responsibility to act in a moral and prudent way. If a person does not meet with the standards of an employer (corporation), the employer doesn't have to hire them.
By the same token, if an employer (corporation) is immoral (sleazy), it doesn't have to hire moral people.
The State is incorporated itself by the federal United States corporation.
That's why, for example, State tax liability is determined by federal tax liability. Look it up in your State income tax code - right near the very beginning, it will declare that dependency.
As for esoteric, yes, it's esoteric, but I didn't make it that way. An as for the Supreme Court - all they hear are corporate cases, including incorporated State cases.
Then you have to come up with a better mechanism for limited liability than a corporation. Otherwise, you own it, you're fully responsible for it.
It's not unfair if there are no corporations. But if some incorporate and some don't, all of a sudden incorporation becomes required for growing a business safely, as you pointed out. But that's the devil's deal, because once it's done, rights are lost - ALL rights, and replaced by privileges and regulations and taxes. That's what the State charges for the indemnification.
No, I'm not a lawyer - if I was a lawyer, I'd charge you for this information.
Well, your information is wrong, so I wouldn’t follow it anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.