DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 02, 2014, 06:56:02 AM
-
(http://amultiverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/x2014-07-02-Peoples-Court.jpg.pagespeed.ic.-zikZXKqAT.jpg)
-
I doubt that even Alito would not swallow that.
If there were some mainstream Christian sect that preached nudity (as do some members of the Indian Jain religion) and the Corporation "believed" in this religion, oit might have half a chance.
http://capro.info/World_Religions/Jainism/Jainism.html (http://capro.info/World_Religions/Jainism/Jainism.html)
But no, Jains are considered pagans.
-
I was imagining IBM with nudity instead of the dark suit uniform.
Ha.
Every corporation has a corporate culture , some are laid back, some are driven, some are always on casual Friday, some are tribal.
I suppose that it is quite possible for a Nudist Camp to be a corporation ,probable even.
-
I wonder if one could turn the Hobby Lobby in for running about nekked.
I can't say I have ever seen a clothed corporation.
-
Sure you have!
Next time you are in a burger joint take notice, uniforms.
-
The workers are clothed in all corporations that I know of. Some wear their own clothes, others wear uniforms.
But the corporation itself is pretty much buck nekked, unless you count building as clothing.
-
That is something I never have seen, I expected it as a feature of an incorporated Nudist colony, but you say that the usual condition of a corporation is," buck necked"?
All the corporations I have ever met were fully clothed , you obviously live in a more interesting , and perhaps tropical , area.l
-
The employees are dressed, but I was referring to the corporation itself.
What was Cargill wearing the last time you saw it?
-
The corporation itself should all wear clothes , when it is seen in the public.
It would be a shame to arrest a corporation for lewdness.
-
The point is that a corporation is just a legal construct. It is not a human being.
The purpose of a corporation is to protect the shareholders from being sued by consumers and others for the deeds and liabilities of the corporation.
Ford can build a Pinto knowing that the gas tank will explode in a collision and incinerate the drivers and other occupants, but you can only sue the Ford Motor Co. You cannot sue Henry Ford III or any shareholder. There was a memo stating the comparative cost of settling lawsuits vs. installing a shield that would have added $15 to the cost of each Pinto sold. So the court awarded penalties to Ford, but no shareholder had to pay. I suppose the price of the stock went down for a month or so, but that is hardly the same.
The Mafia is prohibited from using a corporation in the same way. Otherwise they could contract a hit on you and Don Coroleone could not even be sued by your widow, or even prosecuted. In the Ford Pinto case, no one went to jail.
The purpose of a corporation is to protect it from being treated as a human being. In this aspect, corporations have MORE rights than we citizens do. Now the moronic court says that the corporation can claim that it does not wish to have its religious sensibilities offended. That is just bullshit, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thoas are just bullshitters.
-
A corporation can indeed be a person , or a few persons , or a large number of persons, and it must be so, there are no corporations of horses , of meerkats or jellyfish, rocks even trees.
There is incorporation of imaginary persons , but these are necessarily imaginary corporations. A real corporation requires real persons to exist.
Incorporating is a means of shielding persons from certain kinds of loss and indemnification , but you state and I agree that being incorporated does not protect the persons of the corporation from enforcement of laws such as murder , so that if IBM kills there will be persons from IBM put on trial , not anything intangible .
So why should the Supreme court find that those who join corporations should loose the rights due them as persons or citizens?
-
They have rights as citizens, but their corporation should not have the same rights, because it is simply not a human or a citizen.
-
So you understand that a group of humans is not "a" human but that they loose no rights thereby?
-
A corporation is not just a group of humans. It is a specific type of artificial entity created to limit the liability of the individual membersto the amount they invested.
So the corporation actually GAINS rights by its formation. Should not its shareholders expect to LOSE some rights in return?
The purpose of a corporation is to facilitate innovation and economic development, however. Its purpose is NOT to impose the religious standards of the corporations on its workers. That was not the intent of the laws regarding the formation of corporations.
-
It is not just a group of humans , but it is necessarily a human or a group of humans.
These humans should not be stripped of their human rights for having joined a group for business purposes.
-
They are given EXTRA rights, a major extra right, the right to limit their liability, not to the damage that their corporation might have, but to only the amount they have invested.
A corporation does not have the rights of a person intentionally and by definition. It cannot vote, for example. A corporation cannot receive food stamps. So it is already "stripped of the some of the rights of a citizen". Are you going the demand that corporations be given the right to vote? Shall we send food stamps to Cargill if it claims it is hungry?
The citizens that belong to the corporation do not forfeit their personal rights, ever. It is just that their corporation does not have the same rights as the individual citizens do. This is because the purpose of a corporation is not to impose religious beliefs on employees. The purpose of a corporation is to facilitate innovation, production and the creation of goods and services. A corporation cannot have beliefs. It is an artificial entity. Just as my refrigerator cannot claim to be an Adventist and refuse to cool my food on Saturdays, a corporation does not have religious rights. Like my refrigerator, it was created for a specific purpose and has no rights other than to fulfill that purpose.
-
The citizens that belong to the corporation do not forfeit their personal rights, ever.
Stop!
That is the entire point and you get it perfectly.
-
But said personal rights do NOT extend to what they want a corporation to which they own can do.
A corporation cannot claim it has a religion and therefore cannot be required to comply with government mandates involving corporations.
-
But said personal rights do NOT extend to what they want a corporation to which they own can do.
How not?
Didn't you just say that individuals do not loose rights by joining a corporation?
How can a group have less rights than the members of the group?
-
A corporation is not a group. It is a fictitious entity created for the express purpose of limiting the liability of the shareholders to the amount invested. A corporation has no vote, has the purpose of making money for its shareholders, or perhaps in the case of a non profit corporation, has the purpose of providing a service without making a profit. A corporation is NOT A GROUP: it is a fictitious entity owned by a group, just as a family might own a refrigerator. Corp[orations ARE NOT PEOPLE they are fictitious entities created by people to limit financial liability.
Do I have to say this again? It is not a difficult concept.
-
I don't own a fictitious refrigerator , nor have I ever joined a refrigerator.
I have seen unwonted refrigerators, unowned refrigerators.
But a corporation that has no owners ceases to exist.
To say that IBM is not people is just as correct as saying that France is not people.
-
France is not people. It is a country and it has a population.
A country is not an entirely fictitious entity, as a corporation is.
A corporation has shareholders, who may or may not be people.
I won mutual funds. I am a person, but the mutual funds are not. The mutual funds own stock in companies, and the companies have shareholders.
I own shares in a fund of funds, which in turn owns other funds as well as bonds and bond funds. The other funds own shares in companies, but I have no right to tell those companies how to run their companies. I cannot vote for or against officers or proposals that the companies owned by the mutual funds I own. I can vote for the officers and proposals of the mutual funds.
-
So when you exercise your rights , these rights are not restricted by your ownership of stock?
-
No, my rights as a person are the same. My rights as a shareholder I clearly understand.
The point is corporations are not people, and a corporation's purpose is not to impose religious views on its employees.
-
Corporations are nothing but people.
What rights do you want to give away when you buy stock?
Suppose that you owned a significant share of Bayer .
And at a board meeting , there was the question brought up of selling contraceptives to a government not your own , and this government clearly intended to give this contraceptive surreptitiously or involuntarily to its unpopular minority.
For the sake of this argument lets assume that you object and vote your shares and proxies against providing this drug.
Then you find that your government wants this to happen , and your vote is mooted.
This scenario is entirely fiction , but I am trying to think of what would offend your sensibilities in a fashion similar to being forced to provide killing drugs to state execution chambers or abortifacients to abortionists is to those people who object to these things.
-
It is totally fiction. Shareholder's meetings only vote on two sorts of issues.
(1) Here is a list of officers. You may vote FOR or AGAINST them. T=It is exactly like the USSR: Joseph Stalin is Chairman. if you are a party member you may vote FOR or AGAINST him. Nearly all corporations fail to provide a list of candidates, as in you get to choose between Hugh Jass and Jack Cass.
(2) Here is a list of proposals. You may vote for, against or abstain. They are written in legalese and are usually not very intelligible.
Management always recommends that you vote FOR everything proposed.
The only exception that I know of is TIAA-CREF, that always has three or four candidates, with their bios and a personal statement of their concerns.
When TIAA-CREF has propolsals, they explain them clearly, with how a PRO and a CON vote might affect the company and the shareholders.
Corporations are NOT "anything but people". They are artificial entities that prefer to be dictatorial in nature and are not respectful of the intellect of their shareholders or their customers most of the time. A corporation many have many shareholders and officers, but the shareholders are normally ignored and only a couple of the officers always speak for the whole shebang.
YOu are never going to convince me otherwise. Hobby Lobby and Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas can shove it, and rotate it until it bleeds.
I know from TIAA-CREF that corporations do not have to suck and treat their shareholders like dummies. They do this because they think we are dummies, apparently.
-
Look: if a woman is pregnant or likely to become pregnant, I believe that the decision to abort or take a pill is ENTIRELY her own. It is not any of my business, or your business or anyone else';s business. If it is an ethical dilemma, since she was the one who knew what might make her pregnant and dealt with that dilemma, I am sure that she can deal with all other ethical dilemmas. The government should have NO ROLE in this.
-
legally it is her decision but it`s not solely her responsibility. the father has no decision but has most definitely responsible
-
The government should have NO ROLE in this.
Why is it not your responsibility to pay for every abortion in Florida?
Supposing that you became the only Floridian willing to pay.
-
When I say that the government has no role in this, I mean the government should have mo right to bar a woman from having an abortion. If she has the money, she will get and abortion and well not be punished. Restrictions on abortions apply only to those who cannot simply go where they can have an abortion and pay for it entirely legally.
Actually, I would be willing to pay for abortions in my taxes, because unwanted children are are far more expensive proposition, and I believe that a women should have the total right to decide. I am also for contraceptives being issued free to those that request them. Population is getting to big, and the people with the most children are precisely the people who do not have the means (or often the desire or the knowledge how) to educate them
Having a child should be the woman's choice alone.
If the state is paying, then all are paying. There is no constitutional way that a state could tax only me. That is simple an impossible and silly comment and you know it.
As for the father, he has the right to plead with the woman to bear the child, but not the right to prevent her from having an abortion. It is her body, not his body, after all. That is the way nature decided to do it.