Corporations Aren't People Amendment (Failed)

[DemPGH]

I'm admittedly torn on this and don't know enough about the legal implications - i.e., the things Yankee mentions, like tort. I'd probably have to sit in on a corporate law course to find out. I understand "the press" to mean "the press," so I don't know if that's a red herring or not, but what's happened IRL in the USA is that the concept has been pushed way too far - way over the line. It's been used to enact measures that are not healthy, like the effective end to campaign finance reform.

I'll look into how this concept plays out in Europe, or maybe one of our Europeans can enlighten us.

I would like to drastically limit corporate personhood, I guess.

[DemPGH]

Religion as well, Yankee. Small corporations (and I think private colleges) can now invoke religious rights to deny contraception - and hard to tell what else. The coming years will tell. That is despicable. How it applies to Atlasia can be debated, but it's personhood is now being extended to religion.  

[DemPGH]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80715630/

The concept is being carried too far, there is precedent to carry it too far, and I will likely vote in favor of the amendment if presented with a take-it-or-leave-it choice.

However, I still want to check how Europe treats this issue and I would also support leaving personhood in place but severely limiting it.

[DemPGH]

It's about exploitation, dear Yankee. The rights granted to natural persons should not be extended in every instance to a corporation so that the corporation can completely and utterly dominate under the guise of "freedom."

What I'm able to ascertain is that for an exceedingly long period of time there has been a distinction made between a "natural person" and an "artificial person." An artificial person would be a corporation, a church, etc. So, extending the exact same rights of natural persons to artificial persons would be a mistake, IMO, and could lead to the very thing we're seeing IRL.

The people who make up the corporation, for e.g., already have freedom of religion. It's unnecessary and undemocratic to say that the corporation has freedom of religion so that it can deny its employees an important branch of healthcare. See?

Plus, I don't like this right wing notion I'm reading that "Well, I don't like the Hobby Lobby decision, but. . ." But nothing. The exploitation of rights granted to natural persons by artificial persons should be curtailed is what I'm saying.