Hobby Lobby or How I Chose God Over Country

[heironymouspasparagus]

The basic question you asked is why is a corporation allowed freedom of speech but not the free exercise of religion.  (1) The answer is most succinctly stated that  "[a]lthough [the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses] reside within the same constitutional amendment, these two provisions have vastly different purposes and precedents, and we decline to make the significant leap Plaintiffs ask of us without clear guidance from Congress or the Supreme Court."  Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are two separate rights – the same logic does not apply.  Foremost among them:  corporations do not believe - but setting up a separate and distinct legal entity for the purpose of generating profit, protecting yourself from liability, and other benefits of that for-profit-entity you have to accept other things that come with it.  The entity is NOT you.

The dissent lays out the rest of the argument rather well:

(2) Hobby Lobby is not a religious institution. 
The owners may be very religious and the corporation may spend money on religious ads,  "but these alleged facts, though perhaps establishing a sincerity of purpose on the part of the Green family that is rooted in their faith, cannot alter the basic for-profit status of the two corporations, or otherwise place these corporations into a unique class for purposes of RFRA in particular, or federal or state law in general. Significantly, the majority, despite employing the unique characterizations of "faith-based companies' and businesses with 'a religious mission,' does not cite to a single source in support of this new legal category of for-profit corporation. . . . That is because it cannot."   Opinion of BRISCOE, Chief Judge,  at 6-7

(3)  200 Years of Free Exercise and RFRA law making and jurisprudence have consistently held that individuals and religious institutions have free exercise rights.  Not for-profit corporations.  For-Profit corporations  have always had some measure of free-speech and the same is codified in the constitution (freedom of the press, with "the press" a commercial enterprise even at the time of the founders [i.e. how Ben Franklin got rich]).

(4) Corporations are separate and distinct entities and have no beliefs of their own.
"The majority next states that it "cannot see why an individual operating for profit retains Free Exercise protections but an individual who incorporates—even as the sole shareholder—does not, even though he engages in the exact same activities as before." Maj. Op. at 40. The obvious response to this is that, in the latter situation, a new entity separate from the natural individual has been formed. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that 'incorporation's basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.' Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 163 (2001). . . . and as I have noted, the specific purpose for which this new entity is created matters greatly to how it will be categorized and treated under the law. "Opinion of BRISCOE, Chief Judge,  at 18 – 19

(5) The Majority has no support for their argument.  The only citation they offer is O Centra which holds that a non-profit corporation in New Mexico which is owned by a religious sect has protection under the Free Exercise clause.  This is NOT a for-profit corporation.  Absent congressional intent, jurisprudence, or a logical argument – the contention must fail.

In sum, "there is no plausible basis for inferring that Congress intended or could have anticipated" that for-profit corporations would be covered by RFRA.  McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1942 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The majority's conclusion to the contrary thus "amounts to a pure judicial override of the statute Congress enacted." Id.   Opinion of BRISCOE, Chief Judge,  at 14.

Point (4) would seem to be the one most under attack now - trying to change that line of thought.  Just keep picking away until this court or the next dominated by RWRE (radical judiciary anyone?) appointees finally gets the majority it needs - oh, wait...they already have that! - to undo decades or even centuries of precedent.  They already bought a Presidency once, so giving religious beliefs to a corporation shouldn't be any big deal!
 
Rust never sleeps!

[patric]

Hobby Lobby president Steve Green issued an apology Thursday in response to a comment reportedly made by one of his employees to a Jewish customer asking why the store didn't carry bar mitzvah cards.

According to a blogger in the Malboro, N.J., area, the employee told the customer: "We don't cater to you people."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/hobby-lobby-president-issues-apology-after-incident-with-jewish-customer/article_5b03a8be-2d1e-11e3-a577-001a4bcf6878.html

[guido911]

This case was argued to the S.C. yesterday. Patty Murray, the stupidest person in the Senate, weighed in as only she can:

"Sitting in that court today, it was stunning to me to recognize that nine people are going to make that decision -- and will decide for a long time to come -- whether women have to question when they go to work every day what the shareholders of that company's religious views could be." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/sen-patty-murray-stunning-me-9-justices-will-decide-hobby-lobby-case#sthash.u6X1c1yV.dpuf

[TeeDub]

Hobby Lobby president Steve Green issued an apology Thursday in response to a comment reportedly made by one of his employees to a Jewish customer asking why the store didn't carry bar mitzvah cards.

According to a blogger in the Malboro, N.J., area, the employee told the customer: "We don't cater to you people."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/hobby-lobby-president-issues-apology-after-incident-with-jewish-customer/article_5b03a8be-2d1e-11e3-a577-001a4bcf6878.html

Who would have thought the store manager would still be bitter after all these years.   (Since the Jews killed Jesus and all.)

[swake]

This case was argued to the S.C. yesterday. Patty Murray, the stupidest person in the Senate, weighed in as only she can:

What's stupid is that we are treating corporations as people now.

[nathanm]

What's stupid is that we are treating corporations as people now.

What's stupid is Hobby Lobby wanting to have it both ways. The corporation is not its owners when it comes to liability, but it sure is when it comes to religion, according to them. I can't wait to work for someone who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

[sgrizzle]

What's stupid is Hobby Lobby wanting to have it both ways. The corporation is not its owners when it comes to liability, but it sure is when it comes to religion, according to them. I can't wait to work for someone who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

Blood Banks are vampire pyramid schemes.

[BKDotCom]

The best editorial I've seen on the Hobby Lobby case:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

[guido911]

What's stupid is Hobby Lobby wanting to have it both ways. The corporation is not its owners when it comes to liability, but it sure is when it comes to religion, according to them. I can't wait to work for someone who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

There you have it. Work for yourself, that way you will never have to worry about it. But you will have to worry about opening a business based on your own beliefs, but have some republican Congress/President telling you those beliefs are wrong and you'd better change.

[nathanm]

But you will have to worry about opening a business based on your own beliefs, but have some republican Congress/President telling you those beliefs are wrong and you'd better change.

There is no requirement that you operate a business as a corporation. Sole proprietorships and partnerships still exist. If you want the benefit of corporate personhood, you should not be allowed to disclaim that separation when it suits you.

[guido911]

There is no requirement that you operate a business as a corporation. Sole proprietorships and partnerships still exist. If you want the benefit of corporate personhood, you should not be allowed to disclaim that separation when it suits you.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Repeating internet memes is no substitute for knowledge. Google "corporate personhood", research the court's view on the reasons why it exists and why corporations form, and get back to us in a few weeks. That is how long it should take you to understand the concept.

[nathanm]

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Repeating internet memes is no substitute for knowledge. Google "corporate personhood", research the court's view on the reasons why it exists and why corporations form, and get back to us in a few weeks. That is how long it should take you to understand the concept.

I understand the basic concept fine, thanks. If you disagree with something I say, feel free to rebut it. Dismissive responses aren't helpful to anybody. You might consider checking scotusblog for good arguments on both sides of this particular debate. It's not exactly a fringe opinion amongst corporate law types that a finding for Hobby Lobby could make for some problematic law.

[AquaMan]

The best editorial I've seen on the Hobby Lobby case:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

That was very enlightening. Thanks, and I agree, its the best I've seen.

As one who had a sole proprietorship and a S-Corp, I can say both worked for me just fine at different times for different reasons. An LLC wasn't well known back then except for law and accounting firms.

[Conan71]

The best editorial I've seen on the Hobby Lobby case:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

And here's another. 

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/25/five-false-perceptions-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/

[guido911]

I understand the basic concept fine, thanks. If you disagree with something I say, feel free to rebut it. Dismissive responses aren't helpful to anybody. You might consider checking scotusblog for good arguments on both sides of this particular debate. It's not exactly a fringe opinion amongst corporate law types that a finding for Hobby Lobby could make for some problematic law.

I am exceptionally dismissive when it comes to people speaking so "matter-of-fact" about legal principles for which have no functional understanding. I would expect the same treatment if I were to start talking out of my hoss as to computer/IT matters, engineering, and some other fields that frequenters of this forum are in. In those cases, I tend to LISTEN and learn, rather than engage them as if I am some sort of a peer of theirs.