Oh So Godly Hobby Lobby Holy Hobbie Horse Decision Discussion

[Togo]

they are held liable for crimes'

lol, sure they are.

They are not held liable for crimes. A company can get off scot-free from almost any crime simply by demonstrating that there wasn't a single 'controlling mind', precisely because they aren't held liable for crimes.

 

[Rhea]

It'd be a great graphic - last 150 large corporate crimes and how they fared in court

 

[NobleSavage]

 

[RavenSky]

 

[maxparrish]

lol, sure they are.

...A company can get off scot-free from almost any crime simply by demonstrating that there wasn't a single 'controlling mind', precisely because they aren't held liable for crimes.

Nope, companies can be held criminally liable. Your thinking of the "alter-ego" test to determine if an employee, officer,or shareholder is also criminally liable for company (corporate) actions. "Alter Ego A doctrine used by the courts to ignore the corporate status of a group of stockholders, officers, and directors of a corporation in reference to their limited liability so that they may be held personally liable for their actions when they have acted fraudulently or unjustly or when to refuse to do so would deprive an innocent victim of redress for an injury caused by them.

A corporation is considered the alter ego of its stockholders, directors, or officers when it is used merely for the transaction of their personal business for which they want Immunity from individual liability."

Regardless if employee or agent has immunity, when an employee or agent does something illegal, the company itself may be criminally liable:

Conclusion

A corporation will be criminally liable for the illegal conduct of any employee or agent, regardless of his or her position in the corporation, if the employee or agent is (1) acting within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, and (2) the conduct benefits the corporation. It is not necessary for the corporation to receive an actual benefit from the employee’s conduct, because the benefit element is satisfied as long as the employee intended to benefit the corporation. Moreover, a corporation will be criminally liable even though the individual employee acted contrary to the corporate policy or instructions. An employee also will be personally responsible for his or her criminal conduct if the employee directly acts, instructs, aids, abets, encourages, or conspires with another employee or subordinate to engage in criminal activity. Corporate officers also can be liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine if the officer is in a position to prevent the criminal activity, and the involved statute does not require a finding of mens rea in order for a criminal violation to occur.

1. See United States v. MacDonald &
Watson Waste Oil Co., 933 F.2d 35,
42 (1st Cir. 991) (citing Unites
States v. Cincotta, 689 F.2d 238,
341-42 (1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied
459 U.S. 991, 103 S.Ct. 347

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alter+ego

http://www.bafirm.com/docs/General Coporate Criminal Liability.pdf

 

[maxparrish]

NobleSavage;

Mind if I forward your post to the following link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...left-wing-reactions-to-hobby-lobby-so-far.php ?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

one thought is that either way it goes, it shows a need - a desperate need - to get corporations the hell out of the insurance providing industry.

Your employment should not be a prerequisite to insurance access, nor a shackle that binds you to a corporation. When I wanted to go look on the exchange for an insurance policy, I am _prevented_ from accessing those plans because my corporation offers insurance. I am shackled to the corporation and unable to buy independently at any group ("exchange") price

So much this. It would make sense for employers to compensate workers hurt through the work, but why does it make any sense to force employers to pay for health care issues not caused by work?

You can pretend it is a deal the employer struck with the employee (be you either of the two), but it is actually the goverent forcing it on both.

If we declare health of the public as a public good, it should be paid for by the public, ie through taxes.

You can avoid issues like this then.

 

[bilby]

Moreover, since health insurance is part of the employee compensation package, it isn't the employer paying for it anyway.

You don't understand. See, if the employer pays a sum of money to a third party insurance company and that insurance company uses some small fraction of that money to pay for certain methods of birth control as part of a larger employee compensation package, it is a much more direct method of paying for these contraceptives than if the employee just cashed their check at the bank inside their local Kroger and then took the money to the pharmacy counter to buy some Plan B pills.

This is about accountability to God, after all. If you're the Hobby Lobby folks and you wind up at the pearly gates one day, no doubt St. Peter is going to ask if you paid for any sort of maybe abortion providing medicines with the money you made selling cheap Chinese trinkets.

As such, it is very, very important to be able to say "no, we didn't pay any intermediaries any money which people could choose freely to spend in part on nasty abortion stuff...we paid those people directly."

Perhaps a minor distinction to some, but we're talking about souls here.

Ahhh. Souls.

Every last one of them.

 

[Togo]

...A company can get off scot-free from almost any crime simply by demonstrating that there wasn't a single 'controlling mind', precisely because they aren't held liable for crimes.

Nope, companies can be held criminally liable. Your thinking of the "alter-ego" test to determine if an employee, officer,or shareholder is also criminally liable for company (corporate) actions.

Oops! I stand corrected.

 

[ksen]

Maybe max can show us the jail they send convicted corporations to.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

Maybe max can show us the jail they send convicted corporations to.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Sabine Grant]

Forcing businesses to pay for what amounts to abortion drugs, day after pill for example, goes far beyond nay reasonable exercise of federal power.

from what is reported the company will still pay for birth control that serves toprevent pregnancy.

The day after pill IS NOT A FUCKING ABORTION DRUG. It prevents a pregnancy. This is their wrong and uninformed argument. It's just all kinds of wrong.

Mifepristone can be used for both purposes. If taken before ovulation occurs, it then acts as an actual contraceptive. However if taken after ovulation occurs, because it is a progesterone receptor antagonist it then prevents the fertilized ovum from implanting. Triggering a miscarriage.

 

[ksen]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...A company can get off scot-free from almost any crime simply by demonstrating that there wasn't a single 'controlling mind', precisely because they aren't held liable for crimes.

Nope, companies can be held criminally liable. Your thinking of the "alter-ego" test to determine if an employee, officer,or shareholder is also criminally liable for company (corporate) actions. "Alter Ego A doctrine used by the courts to ignore the corporate status of a group of stockholders, officers, and directors of a corporation in reference to their limited liability so that they may be held personally liable for their actions when they have acted fraudulently or unjustly or when to refuse to do so would deprive an innocent victim of redress for an injury caused by them.

A corporation is considered the alter ego of its stockholders, directors, or officers when it is used merely for the transaction of their personal business for which they want Immunity from individual liability."

Regardless if employee or agent has immunity, when an employee or agent does something illegal, the company itself may be criminally liable:

Conclusion

A corporation will be criminally liable for the illegal conduct of any employee or agent, regardless of his or her position in the corporation, if the employee or agent is (1) acting within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, and (2) the conduct benefits the corporation. It is not necessary for the corporation to receive an actual benefit from the employee’s conduct, because the benefit element is satisfied as long as the employee intended to benefit the corporation. Moreover, a corporation will be criminally liable even though the individual employee acted contrary to the corporate policy or instructions. An employee also will be personally responsible for his or her criminal conduct if the employee directly acts, instructs, aids, abets, encourages, or conspires with another employee or subordinate to engage in criminal activity. Corporate officers also can be liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine if the officer is in a position to prevent the criminal activity, and the involved statute does not require a finding of mens rea in order for a criminal violation to occur.

1. See United States v. MacDonald &
Watson Waste Oil Co., 933 F.2d 35,
42 (1st Cir. 991) (citing Unites
States v. Cincotta, 689 F.2d 238,
341-42 (1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied
459 U.S. 991, 103 S.Ct. 347

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alter+ego

http://www.bafirm.com/docs/General Coporate Criminal Liability.pdf

As ksen noted, where do they house these corporations if convicted of crimes?

 

[Sabine Grant]

IMO Justice Ginsburg brought up the argument which should be most concerning for all Americans, in her dissent :

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

That of course relates to the notion that Supreme Court Justices can evaluate whether a religious belief is held "sincerely". Placing the responsibility on them to evaluate the "sincerity" of religious beliefs of various religions held by businesses who would appeal to be dispensed from the AHCA coverage mandates or other mandates issued by the Federal Government. The "it does not apply to vaccinations, organ transplants, blood transfusions etc..." reflects denial on their part that by narrowing it down to only contraceptives, they are in fact favoring Christianity OVER other religious beliefs with the character of being "sincerely held".

 

[Playball40]

Ovulation does not equal fertilization, so they are just 'assuming' it acts like an abortion. What percentage of ovulation results in a viable (albeit non implanted) fertilization? My guess, too small to count this medicine as an abortion pill.

 

[Nexus]

Maybe max can show us the jail they send convicted corporations to.

I'm still waiting for him to explain why its ok for people to own corporations as if they were nothing but chattel slaves. No person should be treated like that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ovulation does not equal fertilization, so they are just 'assuming' it acts like an abortion. What percentage of ovulation results in a viable (albeit non implanted) fertilization? My guess, too small to count this medicine as an abortion pill.

And vaccinations don't cause autism, but is the unjustified fear enough to allow an exclusion. It was here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why are big business lobbies within the conservatives, who have a lot of employees, not pushing for tax paid universal health care? It is unreasonable for these employers to be expected to pay for the health care insurance of employees when the health issues have nothing to do with the employment. Other businesses who employ less people and individuals who pay into taxes but don't employ anybody are not paying any share of this. Why do employment heavy businesses tolerate this uneven burden on them? Why not push for universal health care system?

 

[Nexus]

Why do employment heavy businesses tolerate this uneven burden on them? Why not push for universal health care system?

It gives them power over their employees. The fear of bankruptcy due to medical care and not having coverage forces people to tolerate working conditions they might not otherwise accept if not for healthcare issues.