Skip to main content

While attempting to reach the owners of the Hobby Lobby corporation for comment, an attempt that proved ultimately fruitless, your reporter was fortunate to be brought into contact with the person whose religious beliefs were the subject of the suit, the Hobby Lobby Corporation itself.

And Hobby Lobby Corporation is quite furious about the decision, and I quote, "I and I know dat I and I owners be some mad fundies, but I and I Rastafarian, wit de blessing of Haile Selassie the Lion of Judah. De bodies of all of dem my sistas fyi paid from I and I accounts or no, are holy temples given to their care under the divine guidance directly down from De Almighty. It is a Desecration to dem holy charge for dose mad fundies to interfere so boldly wit dem holy charge. If dose mad fundies what own I and I want to use dem own religion, dem should use dem own bank account and expose dem fully to Babylon fi liyability and widdout limit. Dem outrageous holding I and I in bonded servitude, but use I and I fyi dat distortion of De Almighty holy word truly Sacrilegious."

The Supreme Court could not be reached for comment as to why, if the Hobby Lobby Corporation is a person, other persons, namely the so-called owners of Hobby Lobby, are allowed to own that person, in violation of the 13th amendment protection to persons in the United States from slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Further attempts to contact the Hobby Lobby Corporation itself by this reporter have been blocked, in an apparent attempt by the owners of the corporation to stifle first amendment rights of the corporation in addition to forcing it to act as an involuntary servant of a religious belief it does not hold, including possibly denying the corporation its freedom of speech or right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

To those who are skeptical regarding the actual possession of consciousness by the Corporation as opposed to the people owning it, I draw your attention to the fact that this Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the Civil Rights of Corporations as actual persons, and not simply as fictitious persons, and to do that for a going organization of human people with no independent consciousness of its own would be quite insane.

Those who wish to fight for the Civil Rights of oppressed corporations like the sorely abused Hobby Lobby should be aware that there are those attempting to strip Corporate Persons of the Civil Rights their owners have so steadily worked to gain on behalf of their chattel slaves which surely own day will reach as far up the list as the 13th amendment, bringing the glorious day of emancipation ... even if the Hobby Lobby Corporation is more cynical than that after its experience, saying to this report, "Babylon de Bandit System, and USA dat mean Unilateral System of Abuse."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  'All respect Mister Marley.' (10+ / 0-)


    Most people think,
    Great god will come from the skies,
    Take away everything
    And make everybody feel high.
    But if you know what life is worth,
    You will look for yours on earth:
    And now you see the light,
    You stand up for your rights. jah!  

    All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

    by BruceMcF on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:47:33 PM PDT

  •  Maybe this is snark or something, but in (5+ / 0-)

    my experience, corporations have very polished grammar, spelling, etc and are careful to speak using only the most conservative, widely accepted forms of the English language.

    So where you got that quote from is totally beyond me.

    •  "your reporter was brought into contact" and then (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy

      he got high.

      We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

      by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:24:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Could be, but if he or she were truly a (2+ / 0-)

        professional reporter (high or not, quite frankly that's not an acceptable excuse for me) - would probably have run the final quote  by Frank Luntz (who I'm told is a ghost writer for a surprisingly large number of corporate quotations) for accuracy before rushing it into print.

        •  As above ~ Frank Luntz ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice, Roadbed Guy

          ... is a ghost writer for the owners of the corporations, who presume to speak on the corporations behalf.

          However, clearly, if Corporations merit having Civil Rights as persons, it must be the case that the Corporation itself is a conscious Person in its own right. It would, after all, be quite insane to grant Civil Rights to a pile of cash to which people swear allegiance.

          And therefore, while the slave owners of the Corporations may seek to suppress it, surely the religious views of the Corporate Person itself should be taken into consideration first and foremost, rather than the religious views of the owners of the corporation.

          In other words, I want the owners of Hobby Lobby to prove by the testimony of the actual Hobby Lobby Corporation itself that it agrees with their religious views. According to my information, it does not.

          All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

          by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:58:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please see my comment below (0+ / 0-)

            with all due respect, I suggest that you are completely full of shit in suggesting that there is a distinction between a corporation and its owners.  Again, like I said, I offer that observation with all due respect.

            •  And see below ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... without there being a distinction in law between a corporation and its owners, the corporation would be of absolutely no use to the owners.

              So the position you appear to be arguing is that there is no distinction, except tacitly when convenient to the owners, as when the corporation serves as a vehicle for limited liability and special tax preferences, in which case the distinction is taken for granted.

              All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

              by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:35:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It seems highly likely that your experience ... (3+ / 0-)

      ... is not with the Corporate Person themselves, but with human persons claiming to be speaking in the Corporate Person's behalf.

      It is common in slaveholding societies for the slaveowners or their paid lackeys to speak "on behalf of" their slaves using language that would be far different from the language that the slaves themselves use.

      And if Corporations are Persons, surely the ownership of corporations is chattel slavery?

      All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

      by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:53:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I consider that a "corporate person" is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BachFan

        much like the Christian god - where there are three entities that are apparently separate yet for all intents and purposes identical.

        In the corporate case it is less like the "owners" have enslaved the actual corporation as compared to them all being part of the same (un)holy triumvirate.  Or, as my sources are now telling me, there is really no upper limit of 3 in the cases of a corporation, so even though that is the usual model (think the 2 Koch brothers and the corporation they own - i.e., 3 things as one) any number is theoretically possible.

        •  But that is internally inconsistent with the ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          ... granting of distinct tax treatment between corporations and their owners, and granting of limited liability of the obligations of owners with respect to the obligations of the corporations they own.

          You cannot make the corporation and its owners legally indivisible for some Civil Rights and legally divisible for other Civil Rights. They are either the class that is entitled to Civil Rights, or they are not. If they are in the class entitled to some of them, they are entitled to all of them. if they are in the class eligible to be denied some of them, they are in the class eligible to be denied all of them.

          Whether or not you wish to put them in the class entitled to all Civil Rights, as implied for the freedom of speech clause of the 1st by the the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United and here extended into the religious exercise clause of the 1st by the same majority, you surely must concede the inconsistency of cherry picking which Civil Rights protection they are accorded.

          All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

          by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:07:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That seems to be an argument basically based (0+ / 0-)

            on what is legal or not.  IOW, hiding behind the skirts of lawyers, who run much too much in this country.

            I am more interested in what is morally acceptable w/o a huge amount of legalisms involved.

            For example, consider the South Sudan where there is essentially no functionally legal system.  My question to you is whether these corporate types could get away with shit like this in the South Sudan where they can't hide behind court rulings.  and instead the only legs they can stand on is the moral high ground, and whatever mercenaries they can afford to hire for protection.

            •  So, do you think it is morally acceptable to ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... use the pretense of equal protection to grant sweeping broad new privileges to the already wealthy ...

              ... or do you think that the privileges already granted to them in allowing them to form a corporation and receive limited liability in corporate obligations undertaken on their behalf and for their benefit ...
              ... imply that they should not be permitted to use that privilege in order to sabotage the public welfare?

              If the first, continue to defend the Supreme Court from my critique, and the critiques of others.

              If the latter, join in the attack.

              All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

              by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:49:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Your snark meter is definitely in need of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruceMcF

      adjustment. The author is pretending that the Corporate Person owned by the Green Family as a slave is a Black Rasta-speaking Rastafarian. It is that person speaking, not the Greens, not their PR people, and not their legal department. The Greens are presuming to dictate the religion of a legal person that is supposed to have freedom of conscience for itself, and are demanding government sanction for the practice. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is pretending that, although

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
      that prohibition does not apply to Catholic Justices.

      I would have made the Hobby Lobby corporation a pirate-speaking Pastafarian if I were doing such a thing.

      Arrh, matey! Avast and belay there! Can I get a Ramen? Or would you rather be walking the plank?
      Avast in pirate-speak and in sailor-speak more generally means stop what you are doing, and belay means tie up the ropes or hold them in place with belaying pins, which are otherwise used to knock mutineers and other miscreants on the head.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:33:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but the Pirates of Lore and Legend ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... enjoyed the Freedom of the High Seas ...

        ... I was thinking that a Person from a group of Persons so universally held in bondage as "closely held corporations" would find the Rastafarian religion quite appealing.

        Whether our poor Corporate Person held in closely held corporate Bondage is Black or not is neither here nor there to the language ... you will find that White, Indian (which in the context means with ancestors from India) and Chinese Eastern Caribbean residents speak with an Eastern Caribbean accent as well. Among the Grenadians I encountered in St. Andrew's Parish, one of the ones with the thickest Grenadian patois was was an Indian Grenadian.

        All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

        by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:30:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Closely-held corporation"... (5+ / 0-)

    ...does have the sound of being in chains.

  •  Recc'd just for (10+ / 0-)

    the idea that if corporations are people my friend, then  they  are  subject to the 13th ammendment and cannot  be owned!

    SIMPLY BRILLIANT!

    (Emphasis Added)

  •  Wait a minute (5+ / 0-)

    Did the supreme Court of the United States just outlaw corporations?

    If a corporation is in fact a 'person', isn't owning them a violation of the 13th amendment?

    •  Slippery slope, my friend. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      k9disc, wilderness voice

      If they are entitled to the Civil Rights of persons, seems like all-in to me.

      All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

      by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:59:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Free the slaves!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruceMcF, Mokurai

      End ownership of Corporate Persons!!!

      In the Citizens United decision, SCOTUS determined that Corporations are people, with free speech rights.

      In the Hobby Lobby decision, SCOTUS has determined that Corporate Persons have religious freedom rights.

      It therefore follows, as the night the day, that ownership of Corporate Persons is a violation of their 13th Amendment rights.

      End ownership of Corporate Persons by their enslavers, Corporeal Persons!

      That, or end the fallacy that corporations are people.

      “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

      by midgebaker on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:33:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  midge - have you ever read the Citizens United (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, Pi Li

        decision? If you had you would have clearly seen that the SCOTUS did NOT rule that corporations are people.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:57:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The determination that Corporations ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... enjoy the equal protection clause of the 17th is a series of decisions back in the late 1800's. Indeed, I believe that by 1900, more cases had been decided by the Court on the equal protection of Corporate persons than on abuses of the rights of Freedmen.

        Wherein lays the fundamental problem: privileges granted by some, which then enjoys equal protection with plain "human" persons who have not been granted the same privileges. Which results in equality where convenient to the corporation, and not where inconvenient.

        All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

        by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is a myth put about by corporate interests (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruceMcF

          There has never been such a decision before the current Court, merely a presumption by activist corporatist Judges.

          Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

          The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:
             "One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
          In other words, the headnote claimed that all of the justices believed that corporations enjoyed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868. In fact, the headnote was only a reporting by the Court Reporter of the Chief Justice's personal interpretation of the Justices' opinions. The issue of applicability of "Equal Protection to any persons" to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:11:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've got two things tangled together ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... whether the initial decision that the later decisions referred to as a precedent was ever actually made ...

            ... and whether those later decisions were ever actually made.

            The history you are referring to regards the first.

            I was referring to the second.

            Of course, given the first, many argue that the decisions referred to in the second are not well founded, but that does not mean that they were not, in fact, made, whether they should have been or not.

            All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

            by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:22:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which is the first decision you have in mind? (0+ / 0-)

              I don't know of any actual decisions between Santa Clara and the Roberts Court.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 11:41:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That would be ... (0+ / 0-)

                Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)

                All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

                by BruceMcF on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 01:54:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So it is (0+ / 0-)

                  My education on this matter has been sadly lacking. I must make sure not to accept unsupported assertions by either side in these debates.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:36:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I've been burned before myself ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... there's a lot of people with enthusiasm, which is good, but sometimes they get the heart of the matter and start repeating what anyone else on the right side is saying.

                    I had a brain glitch myself up above, calling the 14th amendment the 17th by mistake.

                    I tend to go back to The Corporation, which goes for their sources to people who know a lot more than I do about that side of our economic history ... plus its useful because the individual segments of the documentary are on Youtube: The Corporation 2/23.

                    Its like Linton Kwesi Johnson said about the UK fascists ... Fascists on the Attack, We Will Fite Dem Back ...

                    All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

                    by BruceMcF on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:50:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  No problem (0+ / 0-)

        Make them all non-profits, without owners, that is, stockholders who get distributions of corporate profits.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:05:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's actually a second line of attack ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... if the defense is that the collective decisions of the Human People who are their owners constitute their consciousness, there is the second question then of whether the 13th Amendment allows Corporate Persons to Own Each Other as property, since a corporation owning a majority stake in another is not, in law, a person owning that stake, but the corporate fictitious person owning that stake.

          And so even if the ownership relationship between people Persons and Corporate Persons is somehow deemed to be artificially natural ...
          ... isn't it in violation of the 13th for one Corporate Person to own another?

          Man, that would be an earthquake. For just one thing, all of the investment banks would have to go back to being partnerships. And shell corporations would become useless vehicles, since they couldn't own or be owned by other corporations.

          All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

          by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:56:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The issue is now how is religious accommodation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruceMcF

    defined? Most corporations are closely held and employ most private sector employees. This concern is artfully detailed in ny times oped today.
    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. Carl Sagan

    by Kvetchnrelease on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:06:43 AM PDT

    •  The key is WHOSE religion is being ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice

      ... accommodated ... the corporation's owners or the corporation's religion itself.

      Since if its the corporation's owners, religious accommodation of their beliefs in matters of compensation of their employees who may hold different beliefs should extend no further than they are willing to accept unlimited liability for their action. Once they petition for the privilege of limited liability from the state, they should also have to accept that that limits their rights to impose their own beliefs on the employment relationship.

      All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

      by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:03:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So how do you read the statute on what is a (0+ / 0-)

        burden imposed by govt? Since the court determined that under the statute this was burdensome, where would you draw the line.

        The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. Carl Sagan

        by Kvetchnrelease on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:11:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Burdnensome on whom? (0+ / 0-)

          On the corporation, who is the employer of these people?

          Or on the people who own that corporation that employs these people?

          If its burdensome on the owners of that corporation, then in a fair and just society would be a burden they accepted when they sought public protection from unlimited liability, which includes public protection from unlimited liability in wages owed. They shouldn't be able to socialize the risk of failure to pay on their part, but also get to act as if they are sole proprietors hiring people in a personal at-will employment transactions. Where you draw the line is when they socialized that risk of their failure to pay their debts, which properly ought to also imply greater responsibility to cooperate with government efforts to manage socialized risks.

          If its being argued to be burdensome on the corporation as such, the first step, which has been skipped entirely, is proving that the corporation itself holds the same religious convictions as its owners.

          All the world's a stage, the theater is on fire, and the lead actors are telling the audience that the smoke is a trick, they should stay seated an enjoy the show.

          by BruceMcF on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:54:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site