Citizen's United, Hobby Lobby Decision: A Breakdown Of How We Got Here

HOW WE GOT HERE

1) Citizen’s United, 2010’s WORST Supreme Court decision (which still ranks up there in the top two, in my opinion), imbued the corporate entity 
with “personhood.”


The purpose of this decision was to allow for unlimited political donations by corporations to political candidates, PACs, and political parties.  Unlimited.  Since America’s corporations have been doing very well, thank you, for many years, this resulted in money being the equivalent of speech. 

The more money I give you, the more profound and important my speech is.  

If what I say is more important, especially to the politician I employ, then I get my way more often than other, lesser donors to the politician.

The outcome of Citizen’s United can now been seen clearly.  Not only have we personified the corporate entity, we are now granting the entity with rights that have previously been held only by individuals.

2) The Hobby Lobby decision on June 30, 2014, did just that.  By granting a corporation the right to exert it’s religious preference on employees, the Supreme Court has now legalized the concept of corporate religious freedoms and liberties, thus invalidating the personal liberties and freedoms of the unfortunate individuals who work for them.


But a corporation does not go to church.  And it should not have a “right” to impose its “religious” beliefs on its workers.

Until a corporation can attend church, until it can be sentenced to jail for its wrongdoings, until it can go to the ballot box and vote like a person, there is simply no way for it to be considered a person, deserving of religious freedoms and liberties.

Unless a corporation tithes 10% of its income to the church, like a very religious person might tend to do, why does it count as a religious believer?  And if a corporation having very religious ownership (the closely-held standard we've heard so much about lately) were expected to tithe 10% of its income to the church in addition to paying corporate taxes, do we think that corporation would gladly do so, for the good of the church?

Or, do we think that corporation would petition the court to be exempted from “personhood” altogether?

When we consider that Hobby Lobby’s entire case was based on the fact that it got its FACTS wrong about what is, and is not, an abortifacient, it boggles the mind that the Supreme Court bought into the legal theory at all.

A court of law traditionally does not allow mistaken beliefs to properly establish the case in chief.  Historically, if someone has held a false belief, it was the false belief that was addressed, not the value of the belief as it pertains to the petitioner's religious freedom.  

In other words (and as an example), just because many, many white people did not want to send their children to school with black children because they were misinformed about the consequences of segregation (uncleanliness, lesser intelligence, disease, etc.), the Supreme Court did not decide to forego integration because of the sincerely held beliefs of white folks.  NO!  The Supreme Court, taking facts into account, insisted that integration was to be the new standard, because it supported the civil rights of ALL people (Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S.483, 1954).

And yet THIS Supreme Court did essentially just that.  They decided that the misinformed, incorrect beliefs of the ownership of a corporate entity were so sincerely held, that their beliefs are deserving of protection from having to abide by federal law.

What’s worse is that the Supreme Court used this decision to further establish that a corporate entity is to be personified with religious freedom, at the expense of the many people it employs.

3) A corporate entity is desirable as a business structure for the liability protections the entity provides.  It can also be desirable because of the various tax implications relating to the corporation's profits.  A corporate entity allows individual owners to keep separate their personal assets and debts from those of the entity.

A business owner who incorporates is not compelled to create a board of stockholders, per se. Rather, the owner can appoint family members to hold the required corporate positions needed to maintain corporate structure.

Sister Sally can be the Corporate Secretary, and be responsible for taking minutes of the required ONE meeting per year.  Brother Bob can be the Corporate Operations Officer, and simply maintain his responsibilities as manager of operations.  Big-dog Don can assume the title of Corporate Executive and Financial Officer by just doing what he’s done since opening the doors on day one - put up the money to start the business and handle the accounts payable and receivable.

The essence of incorporation is not necessarily so different than the essence of small business.  The major difference is the protection incorporation offers it’s ownership from being held personally responsible for liability.  

The decision to incorporate is NOT a religious decision.

It is a business decision.  People are religious (or not).  People go to church, they tithe, they pray.

Has a corporation EVER been in a prayer circle?  NO!

Has a corporation ever lit a candle?  

NO!

Has a corporation ever prayed to God, or repented, or been baptized?  

NO!  NO!  NO!

It is for these reasons that a corporation is not deserving of protected religious freedoms or liberties.

On a brighter note, by "breaching the wall" between corporations and their shareholders, the Justices may have allowed for the future reversal of corporate protection of the personal assets of its owners in cases where the corporation is found to be at fault, or in debt.  Wouldn't that be something to see?  Shareholders held responsible for the damage their corporation does to real people?   We do live in interesting times...

Overturn Citizens United meme credit:  Daily Kos
Hobby Store/Holy Bible meme credit: Democratic Memes