I asked for some authority that distinguishes corporations with a profit motive from corporations without one, as related to issue of religious freedom. You offer up a case in which the appellants are natural persons, not corporations. In your case, the appellants allege that the Sunday prohibition against selling merchandise is violative of the Establishment Clause and the court disposes of this claim by means of the rational basis test:
Your quoted paragraph only notes the appellants’ religious belief is not relevant – as indeed, it cannot be. They were never alleging an infringement of their own religious belief, but rather an infringement of their economic activity by the state’s religious belief. The Court pointed out that Sunday sales restrictions could be justified quite easily by non-religious rationale.
As for bring unable to identify any authority claiming that corporations have religious freedom – did you read the Seventh Circuit’s grant of an injunction in Korte v. HHS, 2012 WL 6757353 ?
How about Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5817323 ? Tyndale is a for-profit company, and the district court said:
And how is it determined what exactly the religious beliefs are of a corporation with multiple owners are? Is it oficially the belief of the Chairman of the Board, the majority stockholder, or maybe a frankensteinian mashup/blending of all the stockholders?
In the case of Tyndale, the stock was completely owned by four entities which all had statements on the record in agreement with the goals presented.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, they’re a 501(c)(3) that donate half their profits to various faith-based ministries. The stock is held completely by the founder and his three children, and is not publicly traded. This also presents an easy factual determination.
For some other corporation, where the ownership issues were less clear cut, I would imagine the same methods would be in play to resolve any other issues of control. A Board of Directors would be elected by the stockholders, and that board would hire operating officers who would steer the company in accord with the wishes of the Board.
On the underlying substantive question, it’s fair to say there’s no definitive Supreme Court ruling on it, but there’s case law on each side of the proposition. So it’s fair to call the question unsettled, but not to say there’s no authority in support of either proposition.
People give up rights all time when they take certain actions related to government activities - permitting searches of property when at an airport for example or losing the right to bear arms when you commit a felony. When the government has a legitimate interest in requiring all employers to provide insurance, I see no reason why the government cannot require those that choose to employ others in a for-profit venture to give up any rights that the corporation may have with regard to complying with that law that when choosing to engage in that activity (which is voluntary).
I endorse this pit. (but I’m not going to get into the legal mumbo-jumbo)
A Hobby Lobby opened up a few months ago down the street from me. They even mailed coupons to the neighborhood inviting us to try them out and offering 30% off any single item. Cool.
Hubby & I walked over to a local restaurant which is across the parking lot from Hobby Lobby and had breakfast. I took the coupon with me, thinking that we’d wander the store to check it out, and if I found something worth buying, I’d be prepared.
The store was closed. WTF?!? :mad: There are signs all over saying “Hobby Lobby now open!” “Come on in!” “Grand opening”. Smaller signs in the grassy areas lining the parking lot and facing the main streets. We weren’t the only ones to be surprised. Several other people walked up and paused when the automatic doors didn’t open. And then we read the disclaimer about being closed on Sundays.
All the way back home whenever I came across one of those “Hobby Lobby now open” signs stuck into the grass, I pulled it out and laid it flat on the grass. It’s a lie! A LIE!
JoAnn’s is about a 1/2 mile north, and Michael’s is about a mile east. Plenty of alternatives, and not just on a Sunday.
So it’s not only their fault that you failed to pick up on the fact that they close on Sunday, but also they’re lying by having signs out saying that they’re now open for business when in point of fact they are closed during a time they aren’t open for business? Would you have ripped out their signs if you had driven by at midnight and saw they were closed then too?
A Christian and “moral” company playing the mumbojumbo game? In press and with coupons?? This is not surprising. They’re following the example of their storybook: be vague.
I hope you found some good frames and pottery at Michael’s.
