HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Corporate personhood and ...

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:16 PM

Corporate personhood and "religious freedom"

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

My mother just "liked" on Facebook a story about a several senators and congressmen (yes, "men:" Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel R. Coats, Thad Cochran, Mike Crapo, Charles Grassley, James M. Inhofe, Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, Richard Shelby and Congressmen Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf) filing a brief in support of Hobby Lobby's efforts to deny its employees coverage for reproductive health measures its owners don't like.

The legal argument seems to be that one of the rights corporations have is the right to free exercise of religion. In other words, their fictitious "personhood" somehow encompasses the freedom to practice religion:

the Congressional brief states:

“Congress plainly wrote to include corporations”

The federal government “may not pick and choose whose exercise of religion is protected and whose is not.”


You can read the actual brief here or through the link above.

Essentially, they want to claim Hobby Lobby should have the same standing under the law as a religious order. The district court ruling they object to argues what any reasonable person would: that “general business corporations do not, separate and apart from the actions or belief systems of their individual owners or employees, exercise religion.”

Apparently we are to embrace the notion that, say, WalMart can have a religion besides unchecked pursuit of profit...

3 replies, 437 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Corporate personhood and "religious freedom" (Original post)
caraher Feb 2013 OP
2naSalit Feb 2013 #1
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #2
Volaris Feb 2013 #3

Response to caraher (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:24 PM

1. Geee

eeezus, I wonder why I'm not surprised by this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:31 PM

2. these stupid ass Senators better be using their own money for this insane brief ..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:50 PM

3. LOL the Courts (including the Supremes, if it gets that far) are going to have a FIELD DAY with this

I still say the Roberts Court is going to surprise us more often than we think. "Cowboy John" Roberts might be a Republican, but I don't think he's an IDIOT...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread