Without commenting on the primary point of the Hobby Lobby decision, I really enjoyed seeing this so clearly written in its opinion: [RFRA] employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. The whole What, corporations arent people; this is facially absurd reaction is so knee-jerk and honestly so smugly and pointlessly masturbatory that it rather does a disservice to substantive arguments that might be made against extending rights to corporations. Its just a failure to meaningfully engage with the material.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:45:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015