Could a corporation not be clothing optional?

[Plane]

[Xavier_Onassis]

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

But no, Jains are considered pagans.

[Plane]

    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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

Sure you have!

Next time you are in a burger joint take notice, uniforms.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

  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

[Xavier_Onassis]

The employees are dressed, but I was referring to the corporation itself.   

What was Cargill wearing the last time you saw it?

[Plane]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

  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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They have rights as citizens, but their corporation should not have the same rights, because it is simply not a human or a citizen.

[Plane]

  So you understand that a group of humans is not "a" human but that they loose no rights thereby?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.