Yet it’s inconceivable to think Congress didn’t intend to extend protections to the tiny Christian bookstore or the tiny Jewish deli that are nonetheless organized as for-profit corporations. They would have emphatically said that they were passing this law just so the owner of that Jewish deli would have recourse against his exercise of religion being burdened.
You agree that the RFRA reaches non-profit corporations.
So what you’re asking is that the word “persons” as used in the RFRA be construed to mean natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations, even though that distinction isn’t written anywhere, and even though Congress would certainly have agreed that their broad, sweeping law, which includes the command that the law be construed as “…a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution,” must protect poor Avi Cohen’s tiny corner kosher deli.
You think Congress meant to exclude poor Avi Cohen’s deli simply because Avi organized it as a for-profit corporation?
Some religious non-profit corporations, yes. Because, as Ginsburg points out: " The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations. See 42 U. S. C. §§2000e(b), 2000e–1(a), 2000e–2(a); cf. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 80–81 (1977) (Title VII requires reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious exercise, but such accommodation must not come “at the expense of other[ employees]”). The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.
And Alito would take the word “persons” as used in the RFRA to be construed to mean natural persons, religious corporations, and closely held for-profit corporations, but not to larger, or perhaps publicly traded corporations, even though that distinction isn’t written anywhere.
Yet I don’t see you using the same language to attack Alito. Funny how that happens.
As I’ve already said: “You don’t get to bitch about people drawing a line between for-profit corporations and religious organizations when you’re drawing a line between closely held and not closely held corporations. Both sides are drawing lines. The one drawn between for-profits and non-profits is the much better, more reasoned, and more in line with the clearly stated intent of RFRA.”
Because he explains that what stops larger, publicly traded corporations from is the intrinsic difficulty of unanimity of religious direction from a large, publicly traded company. He does not claim the law magically contains his limitation; he points out that the very structure of a publicly-traded company prevents it from happening.
Nah. Not true.
And what about Avi Cohen Deli, Inc? No answer for Avi?
Because publicly-traded large corporations won’t have any unanimity of religious purpose. The board won’t propose any such issue; the shareholders won’t vote in favor of it. I’m certain.
Only if you don’t think religious people should be allowed to run businesses in accordance with their faith. I guess religious folks should be limited to just being worker bees for non-religious(the only kind allowed) corporations?
As a practical matter, it won’t happen, but it could. Our shareholders vote (or get the opportunity to) on all kinds of things. Technically, I think the most logical conclusion would be that all corporations get RFRA protection, including non-closely held corporations in the extremely unlikely event that they demonstrate such a unanimity of religious purpose.
But I agree that’s pretty academic. Even if the typical board permitted such a vote, there would be about a 2% response or some other small number. If Alito was inconsistent, it was in choosing “this can’t possibly occur” over “it is tremendously unlikely to occur” regarding unanimity of purpose for non-closely held corporations, if that’s what he did.
Seems to me that the ownership of a corporation tells us more in regards to how religious freedom protections apply than whether the corporation exists to make a profit or not. Last I checked, there are no religions that forbid making money, so religious people will naturally seek to make money in ways consistent with their religious beliefs. When the government bars religious people from doing so, they leave them with the choice to either violate their religion or take a vow of poverty. I’d say that’s a pretty substantial burden.
I’ve searched this and I can’t find a reference to “unanimity”, let alone a requirement for it. Is it described elsewhere or under a different name? I see this:
…and while I can see this vaguely implying unanimity, is it actually a requirement? Could four of the owners be claiming sincere belief while the fifth is silent? For that matter, were all the owners of Hobby Lobby called to testify before SCOTUS and if so, will this be the norm for all future corporate religious claims?
Questions of fact are resolved by testimony at the trial court. People don’t testify before courts of appeal.
The only time anyone would testify before the Supreme Court would be in a case involving the Court’s original jurisdiction. (Even then, it doesn’t happen, for reasons I will explain if anyone actually cares).
But for any disputed question of fact, the way it gets resolved with via evidence at the trial court, which certainly would include testimony from owners of a company that was claiming a burden on their religious exercise.
Well, SCOTUS must have somehow gotten the idea that unanimity existed, or you have on SCOTUS’s behalf. At what point (if any) did unanimity become a requirement?
The government is not attempting to bar religious people from making money. Even if Hobby Lobby had lost religious people would be free to continue making money however they saw fit. They just wouldn’t be able to do so using the corporate form.
Well, they wouldn’t be able to use a corporate form different from non-religious people using the corporate form, i.e. a form partly immune to laws about corporate behaviour.