Q::Companies are legal fictions in that they are not natural persons, like humans. It is a convention as to which rights they have and which rights they don't relative to person-hood. What is the legal argument for why a company should have the tight to speech but not a right to vote?
In his response Lynn highlight a very important point: ",,,we allow people in business to set up a corporation for the purpose of getting certain legal rights and avoiding certain legal responsibilities."
Lynn explains this by use of a slip and fall lawsuit. In general, if you are set up as a company and your company is sued, it is not the individual owner(s) as such that are being sued but the company (corporation) they set themselves up as to protect themselves. [In other words direct personal responsibility is removed from the mix.]
Lynn continues, "Now when it becomes convenient for those same people who set up a corporation (for their benefit) to now all the sudden want to talk about their INDIVIDUAL rights as the guy who runs the company; they really want to have it both ways."
Basically what Lynn is saying, they want corporate protections (when convenient for them) and to be able to use those protection to cover their individual asses (ie bankruptcy). But when things don't quite go the way they want, on a individual basis, they want to throw the title of corporation out the window. Eat cake much?
Lynn does submit that corporation do have some free-speech right; the right to advertise for example. But when it comes to exercising religious activity not so much.
Q::How does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act figure into all this?
[Lynn's response did not seem very clear to me so I will be paraphrasing and clarifying were possible.]
The RFRA (1993), which is supported by a large number of groups including the ACLU, was brought into effect for the purpose of protecting religious INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS against government interference with the practice of their faith.
The example Lynn used is as follows: You are a male, Muslim, (city paid) firefighter who wants to grow a beard. [For clarity, Muhammad wanted his Muslims to look different from infidel Christians and Jews, he ordered them to trim closely the mustache and grow the beard. The beard is a dictate of religious adherence.] The (city) fire department you are employed by has a "no facial hair" policy. Under the RFRA you can bring a lawsuit if that law (or other "governmental" action) substantially burdens your religious practices. It is then up to the government to demonstrate that its actions served a compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive ways to accomplish its goals.
Lynn continues by pointing out that during the years that the RFRA was being discussed no one ever thought that the RFRA applied to FOR PROFIT companies. What this law implies is that "churches could make some decisions on their own, church autonomy, like where to put an alter in a building. The government can't come in and say, 'put it on the right side' if you want it on the left side. It is this kind of very modest protections for the right of people to worship as they choose. That is what this statute is all about."
"There is not a shred of legislative history that suggests that this was for Hobby Lobby, for the Mennonite furniture company or for other groups of people who are out there agitating for why they should be exempted from the ACA's provision of insurance coverage of contraception for women employees."
"Some of these companies are huge. Hobby Lobby employs thousands of women around the US and they will be dictators of the CONSCIENCE RIGHTS of these employees if they prevail with the SCOTUS."
No comments:
Post a Comment