Here is an opinion place that captures a lot of my sentiment regarding the Hobby Lobby Decision.  Unlike most of the media, who has been focusing on the contraceptive ramifications, I tend to focus on the expansion of the concept of corporate personhood and the dangers of it.  In one of my earlier postings, I stated that there was no difference between a closely held coorpration and other types.  And legally there isn't.  Corporations are formed to protect the assets of the owner. I formed a corporation for my own business so that if the business ever gets used, my personal assets are protected. What that means is there is an implicit legal separation between me and the business.  That mean that the business must adhere to sate and federal regulations etc,etc. it also means that I create and maintain the philosophy to execute that business so long as it adheres to applicable laws.  A business owner can choose to run the business ethically or not, treat employees like assets or not, pay a decent salary or not.  What the this case did, along with Citizens United, was further blurr the lines between business and owner and push further along the concept of corporate personhood. If we accept that corporations exists, largely in part to protect the owners assets, how can we not legally hold corporate owners responsible financially for the mistakes that the business entity makes?  It is indeed a rare occasion where the owners of a large corporation are legally held liable for the behavior of a company. How many corporate executives went to jail because of the banking collapse that they caused....none! Furthermore, this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Would we have expected the same ruling if this suit was brought forth by a Muslim owner?  Would the so-called conservatives be hailing this decision if a corporation chose to impose Sharia type rules on it employees...I think not.  They would be screaming from the top of every roof that sharia law is going to be imposed on Christains. In addition, this personhood status now allows corporations to pick and choose what regulations violate their religious sensibilities.  How is a court to determine when a rule or regulation significantly burdens a corporation's religious sincerity, when the corporations main objective is to make profit?  The answer is that they can't.  I can certainly see a occasion where a corpration could challenge a regulation on religious grounds just to boost profit or revenue. Justice Ginsburg is correct that a Pandora's box has been opened and it has to be closed.  It can be closed by reaffirming the corporations are not persons!  This is a dangerous ruling for all of us.

Check the link....

Will fair well in The United States of America.

""this ruling allows for profit corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.""

""Explain how Islamic(Sharia) law, is relevant to your argument.""

You seem to believe a person should lose their first amendment rights b/c they join into a corporation. The court should err on the side of religious liberty when in doubt, not against.  

Liberals WOULDNT have a problem with a corporation embracing Sharia?  Isnt Sharia the ultimate in the "War on Women"? lol

I don't care what the Supreme Court wants. I don't care what your Congressman wants, or the Hobby Lobby CEO, or Sandra Fluke, or anybody's political view on this board. The only person that matters is the CONSUMER, and in this case females.  

The thing that amazes me is how people are so shocked at the idea of corporate personhood.  They have always had constitutional rights and this is nothing new.  Hate to tell you, but Romney was legally right.

It's amazing how the conservative mind cannot see beyond their ideology.  You are focusing on the ACA and the role of government instead of the amount of power this ruling has extended to for-profit corporations as I clearly described in my post.  Let me try to enlighten the unenlightened once again.

Absolutely not...but you fail to realized that there is a legal line of debarkation between a corporation and a persons.  The Hobby Lobby owners are 100% free to exercise their religion as the see fit.  The "for profit" corporation "Hobby Lobby" does not and should not have the same right.  They are 2 completely different legal entities.  The owners='Person', the Corporation="Legal Entity".  If the owners wanted to run their company in a strictly religious manner, all they needed to do was form a non-profit and there would be no issue.  The owners of Hobby Lobby cannot have it both ways.  They cannot enjoy the legal protections that a Corporation provides and claim that they can impose their religious will on their employees.  This is much more than a case about contraception!!!  Think for a change!!!

Hobby Lobby isn't imposing their religious will on anybody. This is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT imposed a law that hurt Hobby Lobby's liberty!  

...law.  You can fake your way through those topics much better.

Just as you falsely claimed California is number one in gun violence without a shred of proof...

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=230071&boardID=39&page=#230071

...you once again pull facts out of your ass without proof.  Righties believe something is true just because they say it.  And it they say it often enough they think others will believe it.

You said: "The fact that corporations are "legal" people is about 200 years old."  That's totally wrong.  For the first 100 years of our existence under the Constitution, corporate powers were severely limited:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

It was only in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) that the subject of corporate "personhood" was mentioned.  The case had nothing to do with "personhood" but the court reporter, a former railroad company president, put the Chief Justice's dictum in the headnote (ask marikod to look up "dictum" and "headnote" in his Black's Law Dictionary and tell you what they mean).  The headnote was then cited as 'stare decisis' to prove that corporations were persons even though the actual decision of Santa Clara Railroad didn't decide that point.

Try reading "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann instead of posting shit you pull out of your ass.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/331:unequal-protection-how-corporations-became-people-and-how-you-can-fight-back

so you need not worry about an expansive interpretation of the decision.

Thanks for educating these right wing Zealots on the origins of this ridiculous doctrine.  The courts were pro-business during the latter part of the 19th century and even more today.  If only Americans knew the role railroads have played in the shaping of American jurisprudence they would really be surprised

I wonder how the ACOG came to the belief that the contraindications issue would not be a problem? I guess they have studies to back that up to relieve their qualms they must have had.

There is no reason why a publicly held business, or otherwise, would not attempt to utilized this exception.  Its what lawyers do.  This ruling is a mistake no matter how you want to excuse it and I fully understand what a closely held corporation is and as far as I'm concerned, its a specious exception that the courts tried to carved.  It will fail

The differences between closely held and publicly held corporations are many, but once again Mari in his eagerness to make a point misstates the facts. Piercing a corporate shield is not a slam dunk IF you are diligent with your annual meeting, keeping minutes, not co mingling funds, etc.

but his major point is correct, this ruling will not extend to publicly held corporations, nor should it. Although I am in favor of anything that weakens Obamacare and leads to it's ultimate repeal or other demise, unlike Obama himself, I accept the fact that it will have to be done legally, and this ruling will never extend to publicly held corporations, so get your panties out of a wad. This won't be the end to Obamacare, but hopefully something will.

No one is going to read what you write after you mention gun violence. Especially when the topic is the SC ruling on Hobby Lobby.

First, we are dealing with a product (contraceptives - specifically the pill) that is priced in the $20 to $70 monthly range. If we were talking cancer and coverage, then OK, but we are talking about a product that is already relatively cheap, and would get cheaper if it was moved from an RX to OTC. Second, we have this stupid polarizing issue, as you can see  by the reaction on this board, which could go away in a nanosecond, but they keep bitching about it.  

To publicly held corporations regardless what the opinion states. As stated,  an excellent lawyer will find holes in the ruling and attempt to extend it to these types of corporations as well. Will they succeed?  That's yet to be determined. However, I'll give you credit for your sound logic and point of view even though I disagree.  Unlike many other dumb ass idiots who post here, your post are well thought out and sound even though I disagree with you most of the time old fart! Lmao!

...more rational righties.  But you see he just posts shit he doesn't know anything about.  If he's becoming like the other GOP Gomers who post on here, then you can't have a reasonable discussion with them.  Their posts usually devolve into name-calling because they're too stupid to make a cogent argument.

As you know I am not 100% lefty or righty, nor am I 100% whitey or otherwise, so I find myself in both agreement and disagreement with both sides depending on the issue.

Here is something I bet we can agree with. This country is becoming "browner" by the minute and NOTHING is going to change that no matter what they do regarding immigration, the borders, or amnesty. and with that browning of America, so will come a shift in the balance of power. All those white libs that thing all these brown immigrants are simply going to fall in line, join the Democratic party, and reelect the current white leadership are in for a big surprise, and I don't just mean the Republicans supposed party of old white men.  All those white liberal Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to be  in for a shock when the  next generation of leaders have names like Gonzalez and Ramirez. lol

He was talking about corporations in general having constitutional rights.  Paragraph 2 -1st amendment? Check. Paragraph 3 -14th amendment?- check. Paragraph 4- 4th amendment? check.
All true for many years.

And YOU were telling ME how to craft an argument?

Being from a diverse country with 100 million Muslims, Sharia Law states that anyone who does not follow the teachings of the prophet Mohammed should be persecuted.    To put it in a way Americans can understand, "it is my religion or you are banished".    To explain further, "my religion trumps yours and your beliefs" because my religion is superior and I control you".

...like to defend this statement of his:

"(A)company has a due process right not to have its property taken without due process of law."

Have you heard of asset forfeiture?  A company similar to TER recently was shut down and had its website seized without due process and a trial.  Everyone assumes this site is gone forever.  Not true; there will be a trial and if they prevail, they will be back in business.  But meanwhile, they have received the death penalty.  Was phil's statement correct or is that the 1% he got wrong?  Go look it up in your hornbooks and get back to me.  And read the Santa Clara Railroad case while you're at it.

No you are wrong.    Any employer, public or private can chose what health care plan and coverage he wants to offer to employees.    No questions asked.

Excellently written.    My hats off.     As you rightly say, no sensible person can make these religious nuts from agreeing 2 + 2 = 4.   They will always say it s 3.    It is not a mindset but something in their blood.

I really don’t think Phil was trying to cover the field the when he said in effect that you can’t take corporate property without due process.  

Take tax law, for instance. Small corporations can have their income taxed on their owners tax returns. They can also transfer dividends tax free. Rationale is that the interests of the corporation are an extension of the interest of the owner.