• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporations Aren't People

in general and in most cases individual rights > business/corporations

its just that simple

public realm = public rules and they are the same for us all, hobby Lobby doesn't get to have "special" rights :shrug:

What you have stated sounds good, but it is not true. Corporations have huge rights advantages. For example, JPMorgan Chase steals billions of dollars and gets a $23 billion tax deductible fine and no jail or criminal proceedings. It's so severe that they might make JP Morgan give back 10% of what they stole. Now, how about you go ahead and steal a few billion dollars and see what happens to you. Nuclear waste, wholly owned by your friendly nuke utility and it's gonna be hot for half a million years and that Nuke Corporation can file bankruptcy when liabilities exceed assets. Does it require a rocket scientist to deduce what will happen next. It's about money and profit, not liability and responsibility. Superfund sites, CO2, agent orange, DU, thalidomide, and the list is endless. This is why they should not have equal rights or personhood, unless they can legalize responsibility to address liability..
 
1.)What you have stated sounds good, but it is not true. Corporations have huge rights advantages. For example, JPMorgan Chase steals billions of dollars and gets a $23 billion tax deductible fine and no jail or criminal proceedings. It's so severe that they might make JP Morgan give back 10% of what they stole. Now, how about you go ahead and steal a few billion dollars and see what happens to you. Nuclear waste, wholly owned by your friendly nuke utility and it's gonna be hot for half a million years and that Nuke Corporation can file bankruptcy when liabilities exceed assets. Does it require a rocket scientist to deduce what will happen next. It's about money and profit, not liability and responsibility. Superfund sites, CO2, agent orange, DU, thalidomide, and the list is endless. This is why they should not have equal rights or personhood, unless they can legalize responsibility to address liability..

not sure what i said wasnt true because i agree with everything you said

in the end cooperation are not people

but i see what direction you took it


you are saying they do have "special rights" already because of how the law doesnt punish them like they would you and me and i agree

my special rights i was referring to were along the lines of discrimination and religious freedom, i should have been more specific.
 
Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.

I'm fine with that. But then shouldn't the owners of a corporation then be responsible for its debt? After all they are the "people" behind said corporation.
 
Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.

Thought this was worth a view:

Watch The Daily Show definitively prove that corporations are not people

This time, Stewart summed up the fines these banks are paying for their lucrative wrongdoing in his best Brooklyn mobster voice: "I'm sorry I committed systemic fraud for 10 years. How about I give you a cut of it?" The mantra in white-collar banking, he added, is "Don't do the crime if you can't pay the nominal fine."

But banks aren't the only bad actors in the corporate world. Stewart pointed out a recent $2 billion fine Johnson & Johnson paid to settle charges they bribed doctors to prescribe useless drugs to the elderly, the disabled, and infants — "You're not even allowed to do that in Grand Theft Auto!" he protested.

Watch The Daily Show definitively prove that corporations are not people - The Week
 
"We don't do these things because they are easy. We do them because they are hard..."

A quote entirely inapplicable to anything in this thread.


And the addicts say the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

Most on your side of the argument refuse to acknowledge there are any issues at all.

What "side" of the "argument" is that?
 
The business owner is being made to decide between violating their religious beliefs or hurting their business.

Why do you believe that to be the case? Simply making something available to secular and temporal, but civil Persons in our republic, is not violating your religious beliefs as long as you, yourself are willing to abstain.
 
1.)The business owner is being made to decide between violating their religious beliefs or hurting their business.
2.) Individual liberty for the employee is not being damaged in anyway.
3.) If the employer does not purchase it for them, they can purchase it for themselves.
4.) Individual liberty does not include having someone else purchase BC for you. That is the opposite of individual liberty.

1.)This is simply not true at all, it doesnt violate thier religious beliefs they are still free to have them
2.) yes it is they are forced to see coverage elsewhere BECAUSE of the owners religion so the owners religion, this directly effect their liberty and liberties that are not effect for any other reason except the owner make the decision based on his religion regardless of how it effects others. You have it completely backwards
not to mention the employer isnt purchasing anything
3.) the employer isny buying it and see #2
4.) see 2 and 3 you have it completely backwards.
the employee will have to do something different than other employees and something outside of the rule based on the owners religion.

again Hobby Lobby simple doesnt get special rules for it, its not a church its a company and it must play by the same rules as us all
 
Thought this was worth a view:

Watch The Daily Show definitively prove that corporations are not people

This time, Stewart summed up the fines these banks are paying for their lucrative wrongdoing in his best Brooklyn mobster voice: "I'm sorry I committed systemic fraud for 10 years. How about I give you a cut of it?" The mantra in white-collar banking, he added, is "Don't do the crime if you can't pay the nominal fine."

But banks aren't the only bad actors in the corporate world. Stewart pointed out a recent $2 billion fine Johnson & Johnson paid to settle charges they bribed doctors to prescribe useless drugs to the elderly, the disabled, and infants — "You're not even allowed to do that in Grand Theft Auto!" he protested.

Watch The Daily Show definitively prove that corporations are not people - The Week

Sigh..I don't watch the daily show and I don't plan to start now.
 
1.)This is simply not true at all, it doesnt violate thier religious beliefs they are still free to have them

Being forced to pay for something that is against your religion, is being forced to violate your religion. It is one of the reasons abortion is specifically excluded from federal funding.

2.) yes it is they are forced to see coverage elsewhere BECAUSE of the owners religion so the owners religion, this directly effect their liberty and liberties that are not effect for any other reason except the owner make the decision based on his religion regardless of how it effects others. You have it completely backwards
not to mention the employer isnt purchasing anything

The employer is purchasing and providing coverage to the employee. Not receiving free birth control paid for by another, is simply not a violation of individual liberty of the employee.

the employee will have to do something different than other employees and something outside of the rule based on the owners religion.
Doing something different then other employees is not a violation of liberty. Some employees prior to the ACA, had to seek BC outside of their plan. Some didn't. Some employees are paid differently then other employees. There are many things that some employees of one firm have to do differently then other employees of another firm. Just because they have do do "something different", is not a violation of individual liberty.

The SC will ultimately decide. I suspect it will be 5-4 decision whichever way. We'll see shortly.
 
If government is not there as a force to control large powerful billion dollar corporations, who is going to do it?

the people who should

the shareholders
 
Being forced to pay for something that is against your religion, is being forced to violate your religion.

No. That's an issue of moral convictions, not subjection of your religious freedom. BIG difference.

It is one of the reasons abortion is specifically excluded from federal funding.

Wrong again! That's an issue of tax dollars being spent on a personal choice.

The employer is purchasing and providing coverage to the employee.

It's a joint venture. If the employee chooses NOT to participate in the employer-sponsored insurance plan, the business owner is not harmed. Thus, we're right back to my standing position: If the employer doesn't want to provide insurance to his employees under the law, pay the fine and be done with it!

Not receiving free birth control paid for by another, is simply not a violation of individual liberty of the employee.

Agreed considering there are other avenues whereby the employee/individual could obtain needed birth control, i.e., local public health department.

Sigh..I don't watch the daily show and I don't plan to start now.

I watched the Daily Show clip and it's spot on!

If corporations really were people, then they'd be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law when they, in fact, violate the law. But few corporations face "jail time" or are forced to close their doors because they committed a criminal act. In fact, few corporate exec. ever see jail time. The last big corporation exec. I recall to ever face prison time was ENRON's President, Jeff Skilling.

If a corporation does do harm to the public, generally speaking the worse penalty they face to atone for their misdeed is pay a fine and usually said fine is far less than the actual cost of the wrongdoing that was committed. Moreover, the corporation doesn't even have to admit to committing any wrongdoing. A slap on the wrist is generally all they get and they get to walk away relatively unscathed. But if a real person commits a crime, that individual very likely will go to jail and pay a fine. Seems to me, WE, THE PEOPLE, should be the ones feeling victimized here, not the corporation.
 
Last edited:
the people who should

the shareholders

The shareholders are only interested in money and money knows no Patriotic Allegiance. Money is loyal to the strong currency. It's bean counters, profit , loss, liabilities, and glossy portfolios and don't let them see Nuke Waste that will last half a million years and discuss their operating plans to discharge this liability. It is simple. When liability exceeds profit, it is time for bankruptcy because that is what the vehicle/corporation is designed for. Skip out on the responsibility. Leave that to real persons.
 
The shareholders are only interested in money and money knows no Patriotic Allegiance. Money is loyal to the strong currency. It's bean counters, profit , loss, liabilities, and glossy portfolios and don't let them see Nuke Waste that will last half a million years and discuss their operating plans to discharge this liability. It is simple. When liability exceeds profit, it is time for bankruptcy because that is what the vehicle/corporation is designed for. Skip out on the responsibility. Leave that to real persons.

government bureaucrats are interested only in power. trying to limit corporate power by increasing government power is an idiotic concept.
 
government bureaucrats are interested only in power. trying to limit corporate power by increasing government power is an idiotic concept.

How so? Please provide some evidence for this claim.
 
How so? Please provide some evidence for this claim.

why are those who whine about corporate power the first people to want the government to have more power? its economic vandalism
 
Wrong again! That's an issue of tax dollars being spent on a personal choice.

Not agreeing, but a personal choice.. like if one wants to take BC or not?

It's a joint venture. If the employee chooses NOT to participate in the employer-sponsored insurance plan, the business owner is not harmed. Thus, we're right back to my standing position: If the employer doesn't want to provide insurance to his employees under the law, pay the fine and be done with it!

For the sake of argument, if employee chooses not to participate, you may be right..

but, as already stated, both hiring and retention are improved when a company offers benefits. Not being able to offer the benefit (otherwise contradicting religious beliefs) is harming the company. paying the fine, does not make up for the harm to the employer's retention and hiring abilities. reduced retention and hiring is... is that not harm?
 
why are those who whine about corporate power the first people to want the government to have more power? its economic vandalism

That was your claim - and was unsupported with any evidence or fact. And so was your response asking for evidence.
 
1.)Being forced to pay for something that is against your religion, is being forced to violate your religion.
2.) It is one of the reasons abortion is specifically excluded from federal funding.
3.) The employer is purchasing and providing coverage to the employee. Not receiving free birth control paid for by another, is simply not a violation of individual liberty of the employee.
4.)Doing something different then other employees is not a violation of liberty. Some employees prior to the ACA, had to seek BC outside of their plan. Some didn't. Some employees are paid differently then other employees. There are many things that some employees of one firm have to do differently then other employees of another firm. Just because they have do do "something different", is not a violation of individual liberty.

5.) The SC will ultimately decide. I suspect it will be 5-4 decision whichever way. We'll see shortly.

1.) no body is being forced to buy BC, repeating this fallacy doesnt make it true
2.) no its not because its a fallacy and this has nothgin to do with abortion laws, please stay on topic. Nobody is being forced
3.) yes the employer is buying COVERAGE, thats it.

if the employer now removes something from that overage it is being removed on the employers RELIGION and not the employees hence clearly violating individual liberty

if you disagree please use any fact you think you have to support it, simply answer this question

if employees at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?
after that what else can they choose?

the fact is it would infringe on individual liberty

4.) good thing i didnt say that alone was so that strawman completely fails:shrug:

what would be is interfering with peoples, OTHER PEOPLES, medical coverage based on ones own religion. How could anybody logical ever justify that, what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage? thats laughable and theres no logical or factual backing for something so absurd.

5.) yes they will and id bet the decided that one person doesn't get to decided another coverage based on their own religion

why would there ever be justification for that?

should Hobby lobby get to decided if vasectomy and Tubal Ligation are covered in anyway either? what about coverage for unmarried pregnant moms or bastard kids?

is stupendous to think this is legit in anyway.
 
1.) no body is being forced to buy BC, repeating this fallacy doesn't make it true

Will insurance be more expensive if it covers BC? Of course. The pills are free for the employee, so they are not purchasing it. The cost comes in increased premium, of which the employer is providing a (big) portion.

4.) what would be is interfering with peoples, OTHER PEOPLES, medical coverage based on ones own religion. How could anybody logical ever justify that, what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage? thats laughable and theres no logical or factual backing for something so absurd.

The difference between BC and other medical procedures, is that BC is a choice and not, in most cases, medically necessary to correct abnormal conditions. In the cases where BC is needed for medical treatment (fibroids, etc) insurance companies are, and always have been, required to cover. To force an employer to purchase the BC for employees when it is not medically necessary is the issue. Employer's have many choices as to what is included in medical coverage (at least related to non-medically necessary treatments) of their employees for whatever reason they want. so... *Shrug*
 
1.)Will insurance be more expensive if it covers BC? Of course.
2.)The pills are free for the employee, so they are not purchasing it.
3.) The cost comes in increased premium, of which the employer is providing a (big) portion.
4.) The difference between BC and other medical procedures, is that BC is a choice and not, in most cases, medically necessary to correct abnormal conditions. In the cases where BC is needed for medical treatment (fibroids, etc) insurance companies are, and always have been, required to cover. To force an employer to purchase the BC for employees when it is not medically necessary is the issue. Employer's have many choices as to what is included in medical coverage (at least related to non-medically necessary treatments) of their employees for whatever reason they want. so... *Shrug*

1.) meaningless to the discussion
2.) no they are not they are buying medical coverage

are you claiming that hobby lobby is buying everything and anything under the coverage then? thats an insane claim see previous posts

3.) also meaningless to the discussion

4.) all the things i named could also be deemed choices so your answer completely fails

so i ask all my questions again

A.) if employees at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?
after that what else can they choose?

B.) what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage?

C.) should Hobby lobby get to decided if vasectomy and Tubal Ligation are covered in anyway either?

D.)what about coverage for unmarried pregnant moms or bastard kids?

there is ZERO justification, logic or facts to support ME deciding what YOUR coverage is
 
1.) meaningless to the discussion
Not really. If the insurance is more expensive, someone is paying for it. *hint* those paying premium (the employer).
2.) no they are not they are buying medical coverage
Who is paying for the medical coverage to cover BC? The individual paying the premium. Who is paying a large portion of the premium? The employer. So, yes. The employer is being forced to provide free BC to their employees or harm their business by not providing medical coverage.

are you claiming that hobby lobby is buying everything and anything under the coverage then? thats an insane claim see previous posts

Hobby Lobby (HL) is buying the expected usage of all medical needs covered under their plan. The expected results can be / are modified based on actual losses. So, the insurance company can (and does) modify rates based on actual usage. When free BC is offered and some of HL's employees are expected make use of that new benefit, Hobby Lobby's premiums will be more - hence they are paying for BC for their employees.

4.) all the things i named could also be deemed choices so your answer completely fails

Not sure what you named, but if they are medically necessary to prevent abnormal medical issues, they are not defined as choice. Again, BC for treatment of a medical condition has to be covered.

A.) if employees at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?
after that what else can they choose?

It's not up to the employee to make a choice of what is in their coverage. The employer makes the choices when he contracts with the insurance company. Part of that contract is to sign and pay the premium. There are many choices that an employer makes when contracting with the insurance company. I assume you believe this is wrong too?

B.) what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage?

When you are providing it to me, you have the right to make certain choices. You can only make choices on things that are not medically necessary.

D.)what about coverage for unmarried pregnant moms or bastard kids?

Nope. If they offer insurance to families, bastard kids of the employees would also be covered. If they offer coverage to employees, they would also have to offer coverage to employees that are unmarried and pregnant. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion of a medically unnecessary (in most cases) BC pill.
 
C.) should Hobby lobby get to decided if vasectomy and Tubal Ligation are covered in anyway either?

Forgot to answer one. Meant to add back to my original reply, and forgot.

Not all insurance companies cover those two procedures. So, yes. The employer would have the choice when purchasing insurance.
 
1.)Not really. If the insurance is more expensive, someone is paying for it. *hint* those paying premium (the employer).

2.)Who is paying for the medical coverage to cover BC? The individual paying the premium. Who is paying a large portion of the premium? The employer. So, yes. The employer is being forced to provide free BC to their employees or harm their business by not providing medical coverage.



3.)Hobby Lobby (HL) is buying the expected usage of all medical needs covered under their plan. The expected results can be / are modified based on actual losses. So, the insurance company can (and does) modify rates based on actual usage. When free BC is offered and some of HL's employees are expected make use of that new benefit, Hobby Lobby's premiums will be more - hence they are paying for BC for their employees.



4.)Not sure what you named, but if they are medically necessary to prevent abnormal medical issues, they are not defined as choice. Again, BC for treatment of a medical condition has to be covered.



5.)It's not up to the employee to make a choice of what is in their coverage. The employer makes the choices when he contracts with the insurance company. Part of that contract is to sign and pay the premium. There are many choices that an employer makes when contracting with the insurance company. I assume you believe this is wrong too?



6.) When you are providing it to me, you have the right to make certain choices. You can only make choices on things that are not medically necessary.



7.)Nope. If they offer insurance to families, bastard kids of the employees would also be covered. If they offer coverage to employees, they would also have to offer coverage to employees that are unmarried and pregnant. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion of a medically unnecessary (in most cases) BC pill.

1.) yes really its meaningless the price of the coverage is meaningless to the discussion it has ZERO barring.
2.) repeating this lie will never make it true lol they are paying (depending on the company, so pay a lot some pay very little) for COVERAGE, period.

ALso the employer isnt being forced to do anything, they are choosing to run a business which has nothing to do with religion.

3.) nope just coverage, all the double talk in the world wont change this and you didnt answer my question either you talked around it, ill ask it AGAIN.
are you claiming that hobby lobby is buying everything and anything under the coverage then? thats an insane claim see previous posts

and the reason why i ask this is because i could point out other things that "supposedly" impact religion

4.) its two post back this is just another dodge so your point is moot.
but i simply re-asked again below, oh wait YOU SKIPPED IT!, i wonder why? why did you skip the question "C.) should Hobby lobby get to decided if vasectomy and Tubal Ligation are covered in anyway either?"

doesnt matter ill keep asking thes questions till you answer them

5.) ANSWER THE QUESTION lol
if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?

6.) more double talk and basing things on your subjective opinion and no facts, i will ask again

what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage? (not the packages i buy, what is in your coverage)

7.) my religion doesnt allow me to condone that though? i cant condone unwed mothers, premarital sex and bastard children

so no its 100% relevant because it shines light on the completely BS religious argument

you havent given one logical or factual reason why i should have the right to decide whats in your coverage based on my religion and ignoring yours and your individual liberty and rights, not one

to make it easier ill repeat all the questions:

A.) are you claiming that hobby lobby is buying everything and anything under the coverage then? thats an insane claim see previous posts about examples
B.) should Hobby lobby get to decided if vasectomy and Tubal Ligation are covered in anyway either?
C.) if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?
D.) what gives me the right to choose whats in your coverage? (not the packages i buy, what is in your coverage)
E.) my religion doesn't allow me to condone that though? i cant condone unwed mothers, premarital sex and bastard children so why should i have to buy coverage that covers anything to do with that? i mean they can just buy coverage else where right?
F.) me religion doesn't allow me to condone other gods, why should i have to buy coverage that covers people of another religion, im condoning their sins? i mean they can just buy coverage else where right?

sorry its absurd to think HL's religion can be forced on their employees coverage
 
1.)Forgot to answer one. Meant to add back to my original reply, and forgot.

2.)Not all insurance companies cover those two procedures.
3.) So, yes. The employer would have the choice when purchasing insurance.

1.) i already blasted you for skipping it, guess i have to tak it back not lol
2.) wasnt my question nor does it matter
3.) so you think HL should be able to not cover those things based on religion, thats the question, stop talking around them.
 
Back
Top Bottom