So, tell me, if a corporation is a "person" with constitutional rights, what rights does it have to disagree with the owner?
First, the First Amendment is not limited to people when it comes to religion.
Second, Alito addressed this directly, and he says it nearly perfectly:
It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.
How do you reconcile "corporate personhood" with the 13th Amendment?
I don't see why we need to, unless there's some sort of corporate enslavement plan in mind.
Did you mean the 14th? If that's what you meant, it already talks about persons, so we don't need to worry about corporate entities and their rights, as those people involved with the corporations are already covered.
And should controllers of a corporation that dissolves be prosecuted for murder?
I don't even know what you're trying to refer to here.
None of that, of course, negates that you're disingenuously claiming that an employer has a fake "first amendment" right to dictate the religious choices of employees
This is not my claim at all. The employer, the company, does have First Amendment rights. This is plain as day. Employees also have First Amendment rights, and these two things are not in conflict. The conflict, instead, was between the company (which has First Amendment rights) and the government that put mandates in place.
Except we're not talking about "receiving public money" in some abstract case. We're discussing EXCLUSIVELY public money being paid to an individual for doing a job that is EXCLUSIVELY a legal obligation of the government.
That's not what Harris was about. This was not a case about every public sector employee in Illinois, but rather a segment of home aide workers who happened to be paid, directly or indirectly, by Medicaid and were told by the government that they were now public sector employees.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-06-30 08:40 pm (UTC)First, the First Amendment is not limited to people when it comes to religion.
Second, Alito addressed this directly, and he says it nearly perfectly:
How do you reconcile "corporate personhood" with the 13th Amendment?
I don't see why we need to, unless there's some sort of corporate enslavement plan in mind.
Did you mean the 14th? If that's what you meant, it already talks about persons, so we don't need to worry about corporate entities and their rights, as those people involved with the corporations are already covered.
And should controllers of a corporation that dissolves be prosecuted for murder?
I don't even know what you're trying to refer to here.
None of that, of course, negates that you're disingenuously claiming that an employer has a fake "first amendment" right to dictate the religious choices of employees
This is not my claim at all. The employer, the company, does have First Amendment rights. This is plain as day. Employees also have First Amendment rights, and these two things are not in conflict. The conflict, instead, was between the company (which has First Amendment rights) and the government that put mandates in place.
Except we're not talking about "receiving public money" in some abstract case. We're discussing EXCLUSIVELY public money being paid to an individual for doing a job that is EXCLUSIVELY a legal obligation of the government.
That's not what Harris was about. This was not a case about every public sector employee in Illinois, but rather a segment of home aide workers who happened to be paid, directly or indirectly, by Medicaid and were told by the government that they were now public sector employees.