|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 12:09:18 GMT -6
Blah, blah, blah. You know what's way more dangerous than that? The government concocting a fucking 900 some page bill that they had to vote on before they saw what was inside the bill. Can you at least explain to me then, in legal reasoning, why a corporation is not separate from an individual and his/her/their beliefs? For instance, one incorporates to protect themselves, legally separate their person, from any liability the business incurs. For instance, if I work at Hobby Lobby and, through negligence of the business owner, the roof collapses on me and makes me a quadriplegic. I am not able to sue the owner of the company for damages, because they are separate from the corporation right? I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I cannot sue the person who owns Hobby Lobby? Honestly, I don't know if I'm correct here, so stop me if I'm wrong. However, if that reasoning is correct, I can only sue Hobby Lobby for the money that they're worth, right? Suppose (this isn't an actual scenario in the HL case, but for argument's sake) the damages I am awarded are greater than the value of the corporation. I am not allowed to then sue the controlling stock owners for additional damages right? Again, because the owners are a distinct legal entity from the corporation as a whole? I ask this because it seems to me that a corporation exists to facilitate commerce. As a separate "person" from the investors, the corporation is extended certain rights the individual is not offered, mainly protection from liability. That is the whole point of a corporation, is it not, to protect investors from losing all of their money? I guess my question is who decides where the individual ends, and the corporation begins? I just don't get it how religious beliefs can be jointly shared by two legal entities, one of which is not a person. If you successfully sued Hobby Lobby for say $10 million and they weren't insured for the loss or rendered insolvent, ultimately the Green Family's net worth drops by $10 million. It is a closely held corp and as such, it is very easy to trace the ultimate payor of a damage claim like that. Even if you sued Hobby Lobby for an amount that rendered them insolvent, you may still have a claim against the owners despite the corporate ownership. There is a concept called piercing the corporate veil and it has for instance an alter ego theory, i.e., that a corporation or LLC can become merely the alter ego for the shareholders or members. Under the case law in that space, if you were injured by Hobby Lobby and Hobby Lobby went bankrupt and was not observing corporate formalities, didn't carry insurance, the shareholders were siphoning out all of the profits without leaving adequate reserves in place, etc., you could sue the shareholders personally. As a corporate lawyer, I would add that if I were a Delaware chancery judge I would absolutely hold the shareholders permeation of religious practices in the company's dealings as a very negative inference against them if they were ever a defendant in a piercing the corporate veil action. So if I am ever asked by a client about doing something like this, I would advise against it because it could cause a gigantic chip in the liability shield. Ultimately, the courts decide where a corporation's interests begin and end, but close corps are often highly intertwined with their owners and that is why the court limited its opinion to close corporations. McDonald's could not use the same argument.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 12:12:25 GMT -6
Maybe this is a way that we finally can get single payer pushed through. That way NO companies religious views will ever be violated since healthcare is no longer tied to your employer. So, congress, get started on this shit, immediately.
I wonder, would the SCOTUS approve of say a racist who refuses to serve black folks because it's against his religious views?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 12:22:15 GMT -6
Can you at least explain to me then, in legal reasoning, why a corporation is not separate from an individual and his/her/their beliefs? For instance, one incorporates to protect themselves, legally separate their person, from any liability the business incurs. For instance, if I work at Hobby Lobby and, through negligence of the business owner, the roof collapses on me and makes me a quadriplegic. I am not able to sue the owner of the company for damages, because they are separate from the corporation right? I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I cannot sue the person who owns Hobby Lobby? Honestly, I don't know if I'm correct here, so stop me if I'm wrong. However, if that reasoning is correct, I can only sue Hobby Lobby for the money that they're worth, right? Suppose (this isn't an actual scenario in the HL case, but for argument's sake) the damages I am awarded are greater than the value of the corporation. I am not allowed to then sue the controlling stock owners for additional damages right? Again, because the owners are a distinct legal entity from the corporation as a whole? I ask this because it seems to me that a corporation exists to facilitate commerce. As a separate "person" from the investors, the corporation is extended certain rights the individual is not offered, mainly protection from liability. That is the whole point of a corporation, is it not, to protect investors from losing all of their money? I guess my question is who decides where the individual ends, and the corporation begins? I just don't get it how religious beliefs can be jointly shared by two legal entities, one of which is not a person. If you successfully sued Hobby Lobby for say $10 million and they weren't insured for the loss or rendered insolvent, ultimately the Green Family's net worth drops by $10 million. It is a closely held corp and as such, it is very easy to trace the ultimate payor of a damage claim like that. Even if you sued Hobby Lobby for an amount that rendered them insolvent, you may still have a claim against the owners despite the corporate ownership. There is a concept called piercing the corporate veil and it has for instance an alter ego theory, i.e., that a corporation or LLC can become merely the alter ego for the shareholders or members. Under the case law in that space, if you were injured by Hobby Lobby and Hobby Lobby went bankrupt and was not observing corporate formalities, didn't carry insurance, the shareholders were siphoning out all of the profits without leaving adequate reserves in place, etc., you could sue the shareholders personally. As a corporate lawyer, I would add that if I were a Delaware chancery judge I would absolutely hold the shareholders permeation of religious practices in the company's dealings as a very negative inference against them if they were ever a defendant in a piercing the corporate veil action. So if I am ever asked by a client about doing something like this, I would advise against it because it could cause a gigantic chip in the liability shield. Ultimately, the courts decide where a corporation's interests begin and end, but close corps are often highly intertwined with their owners and that is why the court limited its opinion to close corporations. McDonald's could not use the same argument. So how far do the interests of the closed corp owners extend? Say I enter a contract with Hobby Lobby to lay asphalt at the parking lot of their headquarters. The day after I start, the local paper publishes a letter I wrote where I claim to give money to Planned Parenthood. Hobby Lobby fires me that day, violating their contract, based on religious grounds. Is that likewise their right as a closed corp exercising freedom of religion?
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 12:23:52 GMT -6
Depends Billy, would Hobby Lobby stand to make money on it by firing you? You could probably lay down asphalt on their parking lot that was 35% aborted fetuses and they'd be fine if you saved them a few thousand bucks by using that mixture.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 12:26:27 GMT -6
Depends Billy, would Hobby Lobby stand to make money on it by firing you? You could probably lay down asphalt on their parking lot that was 35% aborted fetuses and they'd be fine if you saved them a few thousand bucks by using that mixture. Depending on the climate, fetuses aren't always a good bonding material.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 12:29:54 GMT -6
I wonder, would the SCOTUS approve of say a racist who refuses to serve black folks because it's against his religious views? Nope. The Democrats tried that back in the '60's to overturn the civil rights laws. Shot down in lower courts and I don't think they even managed to get cert to the SCOTUS. Pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Bill Clinton signed when he wasn't too busy signing the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act and deregulating the banking system by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the federal courts have to apply a constitutional standard known as strict scrutiny to federal laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. In applying that standard to someone attempting to preclude service based on race, the claimant would most certainly lose. Honestly, the only current real world instance I can think of where a business should be allowed to deny service is compelled speech or attendance in connection with gay weddings. You can have your wedding, but don't spike the ball in some Baptist's face by making him paint up a cake with Adam and Steve on it or show up at your wedding to snap photos. Of course, as a hypothetical, I would say a devout X-tian baker should also be free to tell Satanists to pound sand if they asked him to bake a bunch of red pitchfork cookies that said "Hail Satan" or something, but of course, the modern incarnation of broad state civil rights acts would compel the baker to make these.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 12:35:22 GMT -6
So how far do the interests of the closed corp owners extend? Say I enter a contract with Hobby Lobby to lay asphalt at the parking lot of their headquarters. The day after I start, the local paper publishes a letter I wrote where I claim to give money to Planned Parenthood. Hobby Lobby fires me that day, violating their contract, based on religious grounds. Is that likewise their right as a closed corp exercising freedom of religion? [/quote] Of course it is, but the repercussion if they breached the contract is that they would still have to pay you, so you would get paid for doing nothing. Now, if you were an employee rather than a contracted out asphalt layer and you admitted your conversion to The Tribe as you did above in this thread and they fired you for that, they would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and you'd have employment lawyers lined up around the block looking to represent you. But, if you were an employee and they fired you for donating to Planned Parenthood, you probably wouldn't have a case if you were in an at-will employment state.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 2, 2014 12:56:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 12:58:16 GMT -6
Dammit Clinton! It's all his fault!
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 13:33:53 GMT -6
ok4p, has there been, in the period since you turned 18 years of age, a US President that you actually liked? "Liked" as in ability to govern, sound decision making, balanced policy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 13:58:52 GMT -6
ok4p, has there been, in the period since you turned 18 years of age, a US President that you actually liked? "Liked" as in ability to govern, sound decision making, balanced policy, etc. Meh, I had no material beef wif Billay. Dude was greasy, but you knew he was greasy. Didn't have the hardcore leftist rhetoric and had a rudimentary understanding of economics. However, Billay governed at probably the absolute best time to be POTUS. Employment was very strong because the internet was just coming into being and so there were still tons of old economy jobs plus new economy jobs being created. There was also a major glut of oil and it was down to around $12 a barrel for awhile. Hell, put it this way. If there was no presidential term limit, I would have likely voted for Clinton in every election bince I could vote in 1996. Dude was folksy with a firm handshake and a helluva backslap. That's exactly what a POTUS needs to be.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 14:00:22 GMT -6
ok4p, has there been, in the period since you turned 18 years of age, a US President that you actually liked? "Liked" as in ability to govern, sound decision making, balanced policy, etc. Meh, I had no material beef wif Billay. Dude was greasy, but you knew he was greasy. Didn't have the hardcore leftist rhetoric and had a rudimentary understanding of economics. However, Billay governed at probably the absolute best time to be POTUS. Employment was very strong because the internet was just coming into being and so there were still tons of old economy jobs plus new economy jobs being created. There was also a major glut of oil and it was down to around $12 a barrel for awhile. Hell, put it this way. If there was no presidential term limit, I would have likely voted for Clinton in every election bince I could vote in 1996. Dude was folksy with a firm handshake and a helluva backslap. That's exactly what a POTUS needs to be. Plus, he was cool with getting Beejs while signing paperwork.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 14:13:43 GMT -6
I wonder, if a company could use it's religious beliefs to force it's workers to get abortions? I mean, it's to help keep healthcare costs down for everyone in that group, and pregnancy and births are a huge drain on companies, due to the cost of the hospital stay for the birth, the testing along the way, not to mention any time off/maternity leave that a company may have to shoulder or at least deal with someone being out and not working for a couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 15:04:06 GMT -6
pretty certain a majority of currently active Wastelanders weren't borned when Tricky Dick was running the show.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Jul 2, 2014 15:27:39 GMT -6
take it up with The Internet, boss. It ain't my work. My beef ain't wif you friendo, and I am taking it up with the internet. Frankly, 99% of the shit the SCOTUS does makes no impact on muh life, but butchering memes hits me where it hurts. If U don't fall for nothing, you'll stand for anything.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 2, 2014 15:38:07 GMT -6
I wonder, if a company could use it's religious beliefs to force it's workers to get abortions? I mean, it's to help keep healthcare costs down for everyone in that group, and pregnancy and births are a huge drain on companies, due to the cost of the hospital stay for the birth, the testing along the way, not to mention any time off/maternity leave that a company may have to shoulder or at least deal with someone being out and not working for a couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by livingintheusa on Jul 2, 2014 16:13:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by livingintheusa on Jul 2, 2014 16:20:33 GMT -6
That's the hand to use well never mind
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 16:45:43 GMT -6
Imma take my desk outside tomorrow and do some paper work. It looks like a nice way to get some fresh air. Thanks Bubba! It's prolly gonna rain though. Thanks Obama...
|
|
|
Post by livingintheusa on Jul 2, 2014 17:22:02 GMT -6
Sorry about the rain
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 2, 2014 17:32:05 GMT -6
Obama has a deadly outside jumper. He's cash money from 20 ft and in. Y U no liek heem? Dude's a epic failure in that as well. Still bitter that your pal Bin Laden got smoked, eh?
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 2, 2014 17:49:22 GMT -6
Your sarcasm detector is still broken, dumbass. His jumper is as broke as mine. He isn't an athlete and clearly not much of a sports fan it would just be so much easier if he just wouldn't pretend that he was/is.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 18:00:35 GMT -6
Your sarcasm detector is still broken, dumbass. His jumper is as broke as mine. He isn't an athlete and clearly not much of a sports fan it would just be so much easier if he just wouldn't pretend that he was/is. Jesus. Sweet Jesus. I love how the announcer asked him who his favorite Sox player was growing up and instead of saying Carlton Fucking Fisk or maybe even throwing out Minnie Minoso, he had to finally admit that he grew up in Kenya. Can y'all imagine Dubya strolling out to toss the first pitch at that first Yankees game after 9/11 wearing a fucking Rangers hat?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 18:02:09 GMT -6
Your sarcasm detector is still broken, dumbass. His jumper is as broke as mine. He isn't an athlete and clearly not much of a sports fan it would just be so much easier if he just wouldn't pretend that he was/is. Whoa, whoa, whoa...you can't call out a guy's fanhood liek that! This is the internet! I don't know where you get the idea that he's not a sports fan (unless that clip you linked was it, wherein he admits he wasn't a Sox fan until he moved to Chicago, and that's pretty circumstantial), because I've watched his NCAA tourney picks in the past, and I'm all liek "Run the fucking country dude! How are you able to breakdown Louisville's fucking depth?" That being said, that first pitch was fucking sorry as shit. Dubya may have been a shitty chief executive, but he broke the mold for ceremonial first pitches.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 18:04:10 GMT -6
His jumper is as broke as mine. He isn't an athlete and clearly not much of a sports fan it would just be so much easier if he just wouldn't pretend that he was/is. Jesus. Sweet Jesus. I love how the announcer asked him who his favorite Sox player was growing up and instead of saying Carlton Fucking Fisk or maybe even throwing out Minnie Minoso, he had to finally admit that he grew up in Kenya. Can y'all imagine Dubya strolling out to toss the first pitch at that first Yankees game after 9/11 wearing a fucking Rangers hat? Carlton Fisk didn't play for the White Sox when he was growing up, he played for the Red Sox. Some sports fan you are dipshit.
|
|