Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius -- CU revisited
#6
(04-07-2014, 01:21 AM)shoju Wrote: 3.) I have legitimate concerns about extending things like "religious freedom" and even "freedom of Speech" to a company. I would rather we didn't extend these rights to any company. Even those whose opinions / desires / stances match mine. A company is not a person. It's a group of papers that outline business transactions. It's not a person. It should not have the rights that are constitutionally protected for a person.

I agree, but Just to expand a bit on that, there's a difference between rights and policy. As a policy, i tend to support free speech for corporations. In general the government shouldn't be restricting what corporations say, at least not without good reasons for specific restrictions such as false advertising.

But that is not the same thing as taking such regulation out of the hands of the government and enshrining its non-existence for all time in the constitution. Corporations have no constitutional right to exist at all, and as far as I'm concerned everything they do, from their inception on up, is fair ground for the government to regulate if that is the democratic will of the people. If a corporate regulation doesn't make sense, vote a new government in and get rid of it.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius -- CU revisited - by Jenjan - 04-07-2014, 04:29 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)