Introduction The term “I can’t, it’s against my religion” has been the argument that many teenagers use to get out of doing what they do not want to do, whether it is homework, cleaning up their room or babysitting their siblings. It could be said that these teenagers are invoking their First Amendment Rights of religious freedom. But what if a corporation, say, New Age Transportation, a family owned company, allowed their drivers to smoke marijuana as part of their daily religious practice? Do the beliefs of the corporation align with the democratic values of this country, specifically of liberty, justice, equality and the common good? This paper aims to explore the meaning of “corporate personality”, “religious freedom” and their consistency …show more content…
It is the idea that there is a relationship between individuals and the groups they belong to. The term corporation comes from a Latin derivative of corpus meaning body, or “body of people” Before deregulation, there were few corporations and they came together for a particular project, like building a park, and it was disbanded after the project was finished. Originally the idea of corporate personality encompasses the concept that the individuals of a group are not separate from the group; that by extension, other group members are encompassed by the actions of each other; and that there is a very real relationship between the group and the individuals of that group (Sang-Won, 2001). In other words, you are known by the “company” you keep. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, defines corporate personality as “The distinct status of a business organization that has complied with law for its recognition a legal entity and that has an independent legal existence from that of its officers, directors, and shareholders” (2008). According to this definition, the corporation has the ability to sue and be sued, buy, sell and lease property in its own name but that it is separate from is officers and shareholders. However, we find that this is not necessarily true, as in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, …show more content…
According to the law, a company is separate from its owners or shareholders. According to the Old Testament, they are not. In the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Obama Administration contends that for-profit corporations are not “persons” under RFRA (Meese & Oman, 2014) and should not be exempt from the ACA. The Supreme Court decision, however, determined that because it was a “closely held” company, it shared the owners’ rights to religious freedom, ergo, the company, Hobby Lobby, is
Corporation – “A business organization that exists as a legal entity and provides limited liability to its owners.” (Longenecker, Petty, Palich, Hoy, Pg. 205) The main advantage of a corporation is that the business liability falls onto this entity instead of the individuals that own it. The disadvantages of this organization are found mostly in its formation. A corporation is expensive to create and requires compliance with state
A corporate owner is an Individual or entity who owns a business entity to profit from the successful operations of the company. Generally, has decision making abilities and first right to
With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American citizens just as it has with American students. While congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, the term “freedom of religion” presents itself to no longer be the definition of “free”, while also having its effects on debates today. According to Burt Rieff, in Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty, “Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates” (Rieff). Throughout the 20th century, many have forgotten the meaning of religion and what its effects are on the people of today. With the nonconformist society in today’s culture, religion has placed itself in a category of insignificance. With the many controversies of the world, religion is at a stand still, and is proven to not be as important as it was in the past. Though the United States government is based on separation of church and state, the gover...
As James Madison, the fourth President of the United States said, “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it is right of every man to exercise it as they may dictate” (Haynes, C...
* McCuen, Gary E. Religion and Politics: Issues in Religious Liberty. Hudson: G.E. McCuen Publications, 1989.
This particular statute allows for corporations and such to obtain several, but not all, constitutional rights as any person or persons. In particularly own property, sue and be sued under criminal and civil law, enter contests. Moreover, because corporations and such are considerate as “person”, business has the legal rights for its debts and damages. On the contrary, persons who are employed by a particular association are liable for their own misconduct and law-breaking while acting on behalf of a corporation. In addition, corporation has rights for its own actions, has rights such as: limited free speech and to advertise their product ("The Rights of Corporations," 2009). Likewise, businesses have the responsibility to elect a CEO, provide continuity; increase profits, social responsibilities, and manages recourses effectively (“Functions & Responsibilities of a Corporation").
In the midst of a diversified society, communities tend to hold individuals to many set standards and stereotypes. One may compare the poor man to the rich, the black woman to the white, and even in the United States of America, the Christian family to the Muslim. Despite the many unique characteristics individuals and communities have, it is the institution of religion that places strongholds on individuality thus harboring conformity. Religious communities expect their members to assume a certain shape, to fit a particular mold; restriction essentially diminishes individuality while accepting conformity. In the twenty-first century, a time period that encourages creativity and individuality, it is the very institution of religion that ultimately shuns individualism by promoting conformity through religious group membership, the coercion of viewpoints, as well as the oppression of “different” views and the ostracism of the individuals who have different beliefs.
The Relevance of the Salomon v. Salomon Case 'Salomon v Salomon is an outdated case with little relevance to modern company law.' Discuss. Salomon v Salomon[1] served to establish the principle of corporate personality that 'forms the cornerstone of company law. '[2] It is my contention that despite various attempts by both the legislature and the judiciary to circumvent the principle, this 'cornerstone' has not been eroded, rather, it forms the very foundations of modern company law.
By definition, ‘legal personality’ means the company is distinct from its members and it is not the agent of those shareholders. When there is an insolvency of the company, the members of the company is not liable for that as there is a separate legal entity. Salomon is a landmark case which first set out this principle and it is mainly about limiting the liabilities of the whole in order to protect the corporate groups by structuring themselves in ways when the company went insolvent. Since then, most of the traders are trying to attain the benefits from the Salomon principle by choosing their company limited by shares. As a matter of fact, the separate nature of the corporation from its members has been recognized in the 17th century and the early example would be seen in Foss v Harbottle. Although the courts were avid to apply this principle, it is notable that they deviated ever so often from that by ‘piercing the corporate
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
Furthermore, I will enter into the question how employers and employees should handle religious discrimination in the workplace. Since discrimination in the workplace cannot only cause costly lawsuits, but also has an impact on the moral of the employees, I will name some preventive measures. After that, I will switch to the employee’s view and give the reader an idea of what an employee should consider when filing a charge because of religious discrimination.
...cker, Murphy, and Friedman questioned the legitimacy of connecting anamorphic characteristics, such as moral and social judgment and duties, to an intrinsic body. This is not to say that they promoted immoral conduct by company employees or owners. Rather, they offered a supplemental, more rational way to oversee their behaviors; they did this by laws and the utilization of professional codes of conduct (Murphy, 2009). Business ethics imply the concept of social responsibility through ideas that remain divergent. The moral analysis of business practices and activities come down to business ethics because in business ethics, businesses consider their actions and decisions as well as take into consideration moral principles and values, while questioning whether ethical motives in business actions could make business more responsible, ethical, or any more successful.
Hicks, D. (2003). Religion and the workplace: pluralism, spirituality, leadership. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion.
Corporate governance is concern about the relationship of the economic and community target and individual person and public goals. The core of corporate governance is stakeholder, the board of directors and the mangers.(tricker, B. 201...