Yes, sorry if I was not clear: The point of my posts, both here and on the blog, has been to question whether for-profit entities ever have, or should, *prevail*, especially at the expense of third parties such as employees. That is to say: whether the alternative "holding" in Part III of *Lee* accurately reflected the state of the law, and whether it ought to govern RFRA.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>wrote: > Fair enough. But they have been protected by statute. > > > > If your original question went more to compelling interest than to > for-profit conscience, then I may have misunderstood the question. > > > > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] > *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:52 PM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood briefs -- and an historical > question > > > > For what it's worth, I have never endorsed the argument that corporations, > for-profit or otherwise, cannot exercise religion and are thus > categorically outside the aegis of RFRA. To the contrary, "conscience" or > not, it seems plain to me that either the business or its closely held > owners can exercise religion when, e.g, they run a Christian bookshop such > as Martel. (For other reasons, I don't think there's a corporate claim of > a burden on free exercise here, since for-profit corporations don't have > religious obligations of the sort alleged here -- I think the issue is, and > ought to be (as the HL brief suggests) whether the law burdens the Hahns > and the Greens in their capacity as business *decision-makers. See * > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/hobby-lobby-part-v-whose-religious.html.) > > > But that's not the point of my inquiry in this thread or my post today on > Balkinization. My point is that for-profit businesses, corporate or not -- > and their owners/operators -- *have never been entitled to religious > exemptions from generally applicable laws*. That is to say, until this > litigation they have never *prevailed* under the FEC or RFRA. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
