I thought they invented cold-cuts?
I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a sign that indicates that a business will be closed on a non-Christian holiday/Sabbath that’s not a secular holiday, as well.
I mean, I occasionally see signs that a business will be closed for Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July, but that’s about it. If a business is closed for a religious holiday, it’s always a Christian holiday, in my experience, but that’s probably because of where I live.
Then I will post an acknowledgement of my error. “Looks like I was full of shit,” I’ll say, “for seeing no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation’s political expression but not its religious expression. Turns out there was a reason, and I was clearly wrong.”
Sure, why not? A company can contribute to the Sierra Fund and Greenpeace one year, then get a new CEO and contribute to a PAC promoting oil drilling and slaughter of whales the next year. What the company can, or cannot do, is a function of it’s by-laws, not the whim of the CEO, in any event. But assuming it’s by-laws permit the CEO unfettered discretion in these matters…sure.
That will come as a shock to the judges of the Tenth Circuit, who said:
Did I miss a memo which withdrew the Tenth Circuit’s power to create legal precedent?
Or are you (again) full of shit?
I have. Mostly in NYC. Probably the biggest and most famous is B&H Photo the big electronics store near Penn Station. Never open on Saturday.
I wouldn’t. It’s not even accurate. A spark is not a fire, for one thing.
If a corporation really does have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion above and beyond the 1st Amendment rights of its employees… then a corporation could legally compel its employees to practice the corporate faith or be fired.
But doesn’t the Civil Rights Act forbid this? Yes, but it’s a federal statute, which must give way to the Constitution. A statute that requires corporations to hire non-believers is a violation of the corporation’s 1st Amendment right to practice its faith without government interference.
But don’t the employees have 1st Amendment rights? Of course, but, again, it only protects them against government interference, not against the acts of private companies.
Therefore, as Johnny Cochran wouldn’t really have said — “If you work for Chick-Fil-A, you’ve gotta pray!” QED. 
Now, I must say that I don’t really believe this, and I somehow doubt the courts would, either. But what would they say if a corporation actually argued this?
I think the point that is trying to be made is that as a privately held company its not really some faceless corporation. Its a family that is being made to go against their religious beliefs. I think a publicly held company might be looked at differently. We’ll see how the court sees it.
Some businesses in Skokie, Illinois do - “We will be closed on Rosh Hashannah,” for instance.
Conversely, one of my favorite signs was “We will be open on December 25th.”
The problem here is that this isn’t just a company; it’s a corporation, closely held or no. A sole proprietorship or partnership has no existence independent of its owners; a corporation does. Hobby Lobby wants to have its cake and eat it too.
So what?
A corporation has rights. One of those rights, says the Seventh circuit in Korte v. Sibelius, and the Tenth Circuit in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, is religious expression. I suppose you can say that’s “having a cake and eating it, too,” but in what way is that different than other protections provided by the corporate veil? You may as lief say that Hobby Lobby wants to “have their cake and eat it too” because they earn profits for their shareholders but shield their shareholders from financial liability for tortious acts committed by the company.
No shit. That’s what a corporate structure does.
I am not saying the distinction I made is the correct answer. I am saying no family is being forced to go against their religious beliefs. As you say, the right of religious expression is one that must inure to the corporation for this case to go forward. Any rights of Hobby Lobby’s owners are irrelevant.
For what it’s worth, I stand by the principle I pointed out early on in this thread: that the idea that a corporation can hold sincere religious beliefs merits about as much consideration as the idea that a toaster has the right of free expression. But that’s neither here nor there.
IMHO, a much stronger argument is the fact that the corporation has no constitutional right to exist, and thus it cannot have any other constitutional rights. It has what it has by virtue of the enabling statutes, and no more.
Huh. Either I don’t patronize businesses by observant Jews, or they just aren’t very thick on the ground around here. Probably a combination of these two factors.
I go to a deli that won’t carry pork products…but it will happily serve meat and cheese on the same sandwich, and it’s open on Saturdays, closed on Sundays.
I know B&H because they advertise on NYC radio. I don’t know of any that are close by that I would patronize regularly. But then again, there aren’t many businesses that are closed strictly on Sunday either.
Around here, we do have a lot of businesses that are closed on Sundays. We have a large evangelical Christian population, as well as other flavors of Christianity, mostly Catholic (large Hispanic population) and Protestant. I’ve seen a few synagogues, but I don’t believe that I’ve seen a mosque around, though it’s possible that I’ve seen one and didn’t know what it was. After a quick Google, it appears that there are three within about 30 minutes of me, but none of them are in areas that I regularly go to.
Mebbe.
But on the flip side: persons clearly have a constitutional right of assembly. One such method is organizing as a corporation. So when people organize as a corporation, do they vitiate their right to religious expression? “All signs point to no,” as the Magic 8-Ball used to say.
Even so, the cases that have gone forward have, IIRC, relied on the RFRA and not directly on the First Amendment. So even if I arguendo accept your view that corporations have only those religious rights granted by statute, at least two circuits have held that the RFRA protects corporations’ free exercise of religion. (The DC circuit says, confusingly, that the corporations don’t have free exercise rights, but that the contraception mandate fight can be fought by the owners of the corporations on behalf of them, or something.)
But the Seventh and Tenth circuits come down squarely for the proposition that corporations are “persons” within the meaning of the RFRA, the contraception mandate substantially burdens their exercise of religion, and the government fails to meet its strict scrutiny standard to overcome that burden.
Of course, the Third Circuit says the opposite. Which is why the Supremes are going to weigh in.
When I was a kid we had weird blue laws. Most businesses were closed. The ones that were open could only sell certain products. I remember going into a hardware store and seeing large sections roped off. Most of that went away long ago. Really the only places that I can think of that are closed on Sunday are non-chain hair salons and Chik-Fil-A/Hobby Lobby. CFA and HL are not very widespread here. HL recently came into the area with one store. I had never heard of it before. Quite frankly, I don’t exactly agree with their politics but I’m glad to see a store take over for the K-Mart that went under and left the property abandoned.
ETA: Oh and car dealers. Its illegal for a car dealership to be open on Sunday. I really hope that goes away. Most aren’t open too late during the week. It was a real pain in the ass to do car shopping the last time I needed to.
I admit I don’t understand the RFRA claim very well. In a conflict between two federal statutes, the one enacted later governs, no? Given the varying conclusions reached by the members of the 10th circuit, it seems they don’t understand it much either.
Heya Rick, how’s every little thing?
Certainly not as individuals. But as a collective legal entity?
We have decided that business cannot discriminate against certain people. Prohibiting corporate/businesses discrimination against protected classes does not vitiate the individual members’ rights to be racist, but it forces corporations to fall in line.
If I had a hypothetical corporation whose ownership were all Christian Identity adherents, wouldn’t I arguably have a case against the Civil Rights Act for violating my company’s right to religious expression?
Yes, but the conflict there is between the individual rights of employees (and Congress’ 14th amendment power to protect them) and those of ownership.