• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

What do you think the result would be if Muslim family owned company would use this ruling to protect their company?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I understand what you're talking about RJ I'm legitimately curious what types of lawsuits are going to have the corporate veil pierced from this case?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what might happen. Of course, millions of Americans and even a bunch of lawyers never dreamed that a for profit, non-religious corporation would ever get this kind of a decision. It's utter insanity.

Even the Justices for this saying, "It's very narrow" came out 2-3 days later and said it's not as narrow as they portrayed initially. This is a very, very radical decision.
 
Deacon923 said:
Fine. I don't think Neuborne knows what he's talking about. There is no chance that the owners of a company like hobby lobby would be held personally liable for the obligations of their corporation merely because of these contraception decisions. That is like saying that because the owners of Ben & Jerry's, before they sold out, decided to run their business based on their personal environmental and social justice ethics, should be held liable for their company's debts.

Piercing the corporate veil varies by state, but generally requires a finding that the corporation itself was a sham and an alter ego of its owner (a finding that generally requires commingling of the corporation's assets with the owners), and generally also requires the further finding that the corporation was intentionally used as an instrument to perpetrate a fraud or other bad act. It's really, really hard to do, and I find the idea that the owner's beliefs on contraception (which have been blessed by SCOTUS itself) are going to even be considered seriously in the analysis.
Click to expand...

Agree with this completely. Hobby Lobby is still a huge operating company. While many (including me) feel like the personal religious views of the owners have no place in circumventing the laws it's still a far cry from most PCV cases. I'm wondering what you think the actual results from a PCV standpoint are. I just don't see this meaning anything in that case. If anything it basically says it will be harder to prove PCV in my opinion since SCOTUS basically said closely held corporations can have some sort of religious identity.
 
I think one very important point is that this case dealt with one federal law (RFRA) being applied to limit another federal law (ACA). PCV is almost completely a state law concept, often in an equity type claim. They are two very different bodies of law and it is hard to see how one has any applicability to the other.
 
I just don't understand how this could possibly be used to pierce the corporate veil. I mean I understand the concept: remove it for religious views, so it should be pierced for everything. I completely sympathize with this and I think it's absurd that a corporation is able to draw in the benefits of the religious exemption AND the benefits of the corporation while really suffering no consequences, but I just don't see how the Court granting religious rights to a corporation indicates in any way that the relationship between the closely held corporation and the founding individual would change in any way.

One deals with the corporation's relationship with the government (in this case the ACA) while the other deals with the relationship between the corporation and the founding individual(s). So I don't really understand, maybe I'm overlooking something though.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I just don't understand how this could possibly be used to pierce the corporate veil. I mean I understand the concept: remove it for religious views, so it should be pierced for everything. I completely sympathize with this and I think it's absurd that a corporation is able to draw in the benefits of the religious exemption AND the benefits of the corporation while really suffering no consequences, but I just don't see how the Court granting religious rights to a corporation indicates in any way that the relationship between the closely held corporation and the founding individual would change in any way.

One deals with the corporation's relationship with the government (in this case the ACA) while the other deals with the relationship between the corporation and the founding individual(s). So I don't really understand, maybe I'm overlooking something though.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are missing anything at all - to try and say that the HL decision opens the door to pierce the corporate veil generally is pretty much ludicrous in my opinion. I think the only people saying it are pie in the sky academics that like to deal in hypotheticals (I don't mean that in a derogatory manner - my boss and I love to take those kind of paths, but always come around to the fact that we're not law professors and we have to deal with the real IRS. Sometimes I wish I did teach and could write law review articles about the ridiculous theories that come from our banter.) and people with an agenda.
 
You forgot to add people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
 
Interesting read from The Atlantic about the executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians. This order appears to hedge on the exemption issue:

"The order Obama is to sign Monday seeks a middle ground. It maintains the narrow exemption already in federal law, which states that religious groups that contract with the government can make religion a condition of hiring. Some gay-rights and civil-liberties advocates had called on Obama to eliminate that provision. But the new order will not include a broader religious exemption that would allow nonprofit contractors to refuse employment to gays if they viewed it as inconsistent with their faith. Some progressive faith leaders had asked Obama to include such an exemption. "The president, and the American people, firmly believe that all Americans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in the workforce," the White House official said Friday."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...plit-the-left-and-set-back-gay-rights/374721/
 
An opposing article on the issue, including this gem:

"In June, Gordon’s president added his name to a public letter asking President Obama to not force religious organizations into hypocrisy. Obama plans an executive order that would be the equivalent to many organizations of forcing Human Rights Campaign to hire adherents of Westboro Baptist Church. It would force anyone who receives federal funds to hire people whose sexual conduct disgraces all the world’s major religions."

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/18/whats-happening-to-gordon-college-is-just-the-beginning/

Warning: don't wade into the comments if you aren't a right-winger who hates gay people, it gets rough.
 
Judges have ruled against bakers, florists, and wedding photographers who boycotted same-sex weddings on religious grounds. Any feel for if and when any of those cases will make it to the Supreme Court?
 
Thos federal contracting guidelines are bullshit anyway, as they approach it from the wrong angle, as has been apparent with Affirmative Action. In order to bid the contract, it doesn't really matter if your workforce is diverse, just that you have the AA plan in place in somebody's desk drawer that you can whip out if asked. I imagine that this will Executive Order will be similar - you just need some statement in your office that says that you don't discriminate against gays. Not too hard to type something up. Whether the AA plan actually does anything is irrelevant, just as whether this discrimination actually happens will be irrelevant.
If they really want the cause to be promoted (whether AA or gays or whatever), then they should get rid of the plan requirements and open up the bidding to everyone with no discrimination-based requirements. But, as part of the bid process, make the bidder disclose their workforce demographics. Then the bid recipient can weigh the demographics as much as it feels are necessary to promote whatever the cause of the day happens to be. It would be easier for the bidder because the government has easier access to the target demographics than the bidder does anyway, so let the government judge whether the target is actually being hit, not just mentioned by the bidder in a booklet that nobody reads. The requirements now simply push useless paper.
 
awesome, looking forward to moving on and not hearing about the ACA and Gay Marriage ever again. Right?
 
TownieDeac said:
CIbpL95VEAE8FI1.png:large
Click to expand...

#headshot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top