Marriage, civil unions, etc
Good for Disney and Marvel.
It's a shame and abject failure where a corporation has to take a stand against overt discrimination. Because that's not what corporations were ever calculated to do.
Alzie last edited by
@Ganymede As long as corporations want me to treat them like people, taking a stand is exactly what they were calculated to do.
TNP last edited by
The list is growing quite large. I wish it happened in every state as more and more are passing similar travesties.
As long as corporations want me to treat them like people, taking a stand is exactly what they were calculated to do.
Corporations aren't people.
They never were.
They were never calculated to be or act like people, and they have about the same rights that the government does. Which is to say, none.
Alzie last edited by Alzie
@Ganymede As a lawyer, I am sort of surprised that you are even suggesting that Corporations aren't treated as persons and afforded some of the same rights as Natural Persons. I mean, this was something decided way back in 1818 that the supreme court has upheld as recently as the 2010 case about corporate election donations. It's actually written in our laws in those exact words even.
Edit: You may just be dissenting because they shouldn't be, in which case sure, they shouldn't be, it's a stupid fucking interpretation.
I mean, this was something decided way back in 1818 that the supreme court has upheld as recently as the 2010 case about corporate election donations. It's actually written in our laws in those exact words even.
That's... not quite how that went, actually. The reason this happened is that under english common law, only a rational person had any agency to enter into a contract, and so when a particular school tried to do it, the court had to treat the school as a person for certain contractual obligations, etc. It was never meant that corporations are people, just that, for certain purposes, they have some of the same rights as people under english common law practices that transferred to the United States.
And people took that way, way too far. So I see where @Ganymede is coming from.
The problem isn't that corporations shouldn't take a stand against discrimination.
The problem is what happens when they take a stand for it. They are fundamentally amoral, so in this case they are following their interests - I can easily see it going the other way.
Thenomain last edited by
It wasn't too long ago that Disney World was trying to discriminate based on sexual preference (i.e. gays). Social change affects businesses who want to stay in business as much as businesses want to direct social change to make more money.
In this case, good on Disney.
Ganymede last edited by Ganymede
As a lawyer, I am sort of surprised that you are even suggesting that Corporations aren't treated as persons and afforded some of the same rights as Natural Persons.
That is because they are creatures of statute. They are regulated by the individual states. There are very few national corporations. So, why would the Constitution have anything to say about them? Corporations largely weren't used or in existence at the time the country was founded.
Citizens United is premised on the idea that shareholders, who are natural people, have property rights that extend to corporations. That is, a corporation is property, and people have the right to do with property as they see fit, including using it to participate in the electoral process. From their perspective, when a corporation spends money to pay for political advertisements, that is simply the speech of their shareholders, largely by instruction to a corporation's board of directors. While this may be true, it does not answer the question as to whether it is reasonable for the federal government to place limits upon a corporation's contributions to or spending towards the campaign of a politician.
It's still a stupid argument. If people want to make a political speech, they should make it. And people are not constrained by election laws when it comes to spending their money to generate their own speech in favor of a particular candidate. What the advocates want to do is allow the same people to anonymously support a corporation that makes the speech, and thereby enjoy statutory protections against liability and culpability that may arise when making that speech, without being subjected to election laws that do apply to corporations, but not natural people.
Corporations have certain statutory rights because it is provided for by statute. For instance, in Ohio, a corporation may sue or be sued pursuant to R.C. 1701.13(A), not pursuant to its constitution or the U.S. Constitution. A corporation may transact any lawful business pursuant to R.C. 1701.13(C). A corporation may take property of any description, or an interest in property, pursuant to R.C. 1701.13(D). In other words, but for statutes, corporations are not cognizable entities under the law. In fact, absent articles of incorporation, the argument may be made that there is no corporation. That corporations may be dissolved and created by contract and law should answer the question: should corporations have the same rights as people?
They answer is, categorically: NO. A natural person may be held liable or culpable for violating the law, but a corporation may not. You can't throw a corporation in jail, and where a corporation may be liable for an act, liability may be shifted to its directors where they act in a manner inconsistent with the rights and interests of the shareholders.
Corporations were intended to allow business owners to vest their workers with ownership interests that would tie them to the success of their ventures. This is why Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill advocated for chancery laws to recognize them, and why the United States became one of the first nations to legislate their existences. But none of these advocates would have ever recognized a corporation as equivalent to a person in the eyes of the law.
So, my opposition is from a legal perspective, and that of someone who has studied economic history, particularly in this area. Corporations are not people, and the more we insist that they are, the more fucking stupid we sound.
Only tangentially related to the current topic, but:
This makes my eye twitch muchly.
Tyche Banned last edited by Tyche
Corporations largely weren't used or in existence at the time the country was founded.
Really? The original colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth were founded by the London company and the Plymouth company respectively. Of course these were fewer corporations in colonial America because they were done by English royal charter, but there is no doubt that English chartered corporations played an extensive role in colonial development and the American revolution. After independence, States chartered them and they were under quite restrictive rules. The fundamental change came in 'Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad' 1886, which was the first time corporations were ruled to be "natural persons" and protected by the bill of rights. So it is what it is. It's been over a hundred years.
I suppose as "natural persons" corporations can marry and can adopt baby corporations too.
You just need to accept that corporations are people too.
But don't hate on them. That's like bigotry or something. ;-)
Really? The original colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth were founded by the London company and the Plymouth company respectively.
Chartered companies are so different from what we consider corporations that I ought not bother responding here. If you ever wondered why Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations," then you can attribute that treatise to the rise of these crown-sanctioned companies.
The fundamental change came in 'Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad' 1886, which was the first time corporations were ruled to be "natural persons" and protected by the bill of rights.
Except that such case did not expressly hold that corporations were entitled to the same protections as natural people under the Fourteenth Amendment. That case raised issues as to whether California could charge anyone differently for operating a railroad in more than one county. The defense's argument applies to both natural persons and corporations. Unfortunately, future justices weren't particularly fastidious about their research, save Justice Black in the 1930s.
But don't hate on them. That's like bigotry or something. ;-)
I don't hate corporations. I oppose turning them into something that they are not.
And they are not natural persons. Period.