You guys want to argue about this or no?
If you do:
I don’t want the government telling a privately owned business what to do to this degree. I don’t want the government to force a Muslim store owner to sell bacon, and I don’t want a Christian store owner to have to pay for BC.
Publicly owned… It is technically owned by the shareholders, so the same logic doesn’t apply, so a Wal-Mart can’t refuse to provide plans with BC coverage.
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
I haven’t followed the arguments closely. I tend to agree, however, with the general proposition that a corporation is a legal fiction and that it shouldn’t necessarily be treated as a natural “person” with civil liberties in the same way a natural person has civil liberties/rights under the bill of rights.
I think once you incorporate you get protections of that fiction in things like limited liability and in exchange the corporation becomes a business entity that loses some of the aspects of natural personhood and the rights that go along with personhood. I don’t really agree with the idea that even closely held “corporations” should have 1st Amendment rights in the same way natural people do, although sometimes it is tough to separate the rights of owners from the rights of the business.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible. [/quote]
It depends.
Wal-Mart is the worlds largest public corporation, yet the Walton family in aggregate own more than %50 of the shares. If they, en masse, object upon religious grounds to providing BC in their health plans, how would you deny their objections yet uphold the right to deny BC to an LLC comprised of 20 members, each owing %5?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible. [/quote]
Shareholders “own” the business and can change corporate policy in general ways through the Board of Directors, but management technically controls the operations of a business. Shareholders don’t have rights to control the business directly in exchange for limited liability.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
I see your point; however, it is a state recognized stand alone entity that anyone can own a piece of.
I think the uniqueness of the situation warrants a discussion on what a publicly traded C Corp can and cannot provide (like BC).
My point is, any line we draw will be arbitrary.
The mandate should either be upheld for every form of ownership, or struck down. Trying to find some Solomonic ideal is going to lead to one messy baby.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible. [/quote]
It depends.
Wal-Mart is the worlds largest public corporation, yet the Walton family in aggregate own more than %50 of the shares. If they, en masse, object upon religious grounds to providing BC in their health plans, how would you deny their objections yet uphold the right to deny BC to an LLC comprised of 20 members, each owing %5?
[/quote]
Because in order to at least attempt to take some of the arbitrary issue you mention out of it, I was speaking in an “all or nothing” way. This was assumed on my part, and I wasn’t clear.
As in all of ownership has the religious issues, or none of it does. 100% agreement.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible. [/quote]
It depends.
Wal-Mart is the worlds largest public corporation, yet the Walton family in aggregate own more than %50 of the shares. If they, en masse, object upon religious grounds to providing BC in their health plans, how would you deny their objections yet uphold the right to deny BC to an LLC comprised of 20 members, each owing %5?
[/quote]
I’m not sure percentage of ownership is the right way to look at it. Wal-mart is it’s own being. Ownership in a pass through entity like your LLC and ownership in the stock of a C Corp is pretty different, imo.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My point is, any line we draw will be arbitrary.
The mandate should either be upheld for every form of ownership, or struck down. Trying to find some Solomonic ideal is going to lead to one messy baby.[/quote]
But C Corps are a unique form of business unlike your LLC’s, Partnerships, Sole Proprietorship, etc…
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible. [/quote]
Shareholders “own” the business and can change corporate policy in general ways through the Board of Directors, but management technically controls the operations of a business. Shareholders don’t have rights to control the business directly in exchange for limited liability.
[/quote]
No, but they elect the people that do. And you (the courts) can’t allow upper management to make this type of determination without consent of the owners.
If a corporation fails to pay its franchise taxes it Texas, it loses its right to operate and isn’t even allowed to defend itself in court. It basically ceases to legally exist and must be wound down unless the taxes are paid before its wound down. It seems odd to me to then simply assume that a corporation has 1st Am. rights when it has no corresponding right to “life.”
Before enforcing 1st Am. rights, I think the courts need to be careful in how they analyze the issue and clearly identify whose rights they are enforcing. Giving a corporation natural-person rights can have unforeseen and undesirable consequences, IMO.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I find your “public owned” logic flawed. It’s a misnomer. What we call a “publicly held” company is owned by…private individuals.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Point still stands though, as that ownership changes hands at such a rapid pace, you likely can’t claim religious violations at any given time or for any substantial period of time, and the burden of collecting the wishes of all the shareholders will be damn near impossible. [/quote]
Shareholders “own” the business and can change corporate policy in general ways through the Board of Directors, but management technically controls the operations of a business. Shareholders don’t have rights to control the business directly in exchange for limited liability.
[/quote]
No, but they elect the people that do. And you (the courts) can’t allow upper management to make this type of determination without consent of the owners.
[/quote]
Can shareholders sue management for waste when they make charitable donations? IIRC, in most states they can’t, because that is a “management decision” under the business-judgment rule.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My point is, any line we draw will be arbitrary.
The mandate should either be upheld for every form of ownership, or struck down. Trying to find some Solomonic ideal is going to lead to one messy baby.[/quote]
Only because there is a moral implication here.
Taxation and liability etc are different for different forms of ownership.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Can shareholders sue management for waste when they make charitable donations? IIRC, in most states they can’t, because that is a “management decision” under the business-judgment rule.
[/quote]
We have to keep in mind this is based on religious grounds. Is establishing a “company religious” policy that is discriminatory (just as a Muslim store own would discriminate against pork products on the shelf) in this manor really a management decision, or an ownership dictation?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Can shareholders sue management for waste when they make charitable donations? IIRC, in most states they can’t, because that is a “management decision” under the business-judgment rule.
[/quote]
We have to keep in mind this is based on religious grounds. Is establishing a “company religious” policy that is discriminatory (just as a Muslim store own would discriminate against pork products on the shelf) in this manor really a management decision, or an ownership dictation?[/quote]
It is not always clear who is driving the ship unless its a closely held corporation. Generally, shareholders can vote in who they want, but once they exercise their vote, management gets to make the final decisions regarding policy and operations. After a mangement makes a decision, the shareholders remedies are limited to “vote, sell, or sue,” and most suits are tough under the “business judgment rule.” Kind of like when you vote in your favorite politician, after the vote, you don’t get to control how your representative actually votes when he gets to congress.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure percentage of ownership is the right way to look at it. Wal-mart is it’s own being. Ownership in a pass through entity like your LLC and ownership in the stock of a C Corp is pretty different, imo.
[/quote]
Are you saying that the sole criteria should be ownership type? So Cargill, with 2013 sales of 137 Billion dollars and 140,000 employees should be able to eliminate the BC mandate, but Central Garden and Pet - a publicly traded company - with sales of $1.6B and a couple thousand employees shouldn’t be able to?
If you are, that’s fine. I’m just trying to get a handle on what you’re suggesting.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My point is, any line we draw will be arbitrary.
The mandate should either be upheld for every form of ownership, or struck down. Trying to find some Solomonic ideal is going to lead to one messy baby.[/quote]
Only because there is a moral implication here.
Taxation and liability etc are different for different forms of ownership.[/quote]
Yep, that’s exactly it.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Can shareholders sue management for waste when they make charitable donations? IIRC, in most states they can’t, because that is a “management decision” under the business-judgment rule.
[/quote]
We have to keep in mind this is based on religious grounds. Is establishing a “company religious” policy that is discriminatory (just as a Muslim store own would discriminate against pork products on the shelf) in this manor really a management decision, or an ownership dictation?[/quote]
It is not always clear who is driving the ship unless its a closely held corporation. Generally, shareholders can vote in who they want, but once they exercise their vote, management gets to make the final decisions regarding policy and operations. After a mangement makes a decision, the shareholders remedies are limited to “vote, sell, or sue,” and most suits are tough under the “business judgment rule.” Kind of like when you vote in your favorite politician, after the vote, you don’t get to control how your representative actually votes when he gets to congress.
[/quote]
I’ll file this as reason #2 I don’t think a publicly held corp should be able to opt out of the mandate, where a closely held corp can.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t think the government has any right to mandate HI companies ONLY offer plans that cover birth control in the first place. I want the government out of a woman’s womb.)