helpful here.
MAG
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:03 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Simple Hobby Lobby question
I was respondin
Religion-in-employment cases should not be one-sided or even two sided — there
are at least three parties with serious interests that come into play–the
employer’s religious exercise; the employees’ interest in employment, in the
benefits required by law, in the employee’s (singularly or collect
; University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Road
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> 434-243-8546
>
>
>
> *From:* James Oleske [mailto:jole...@lclark.edu ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:02 AM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Cc:* D
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Graber, Mark
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:54 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Simple Hobby Lobby question
Doug Laycock writes:.” Any burden on the employe
Doug Laycock writes:.” Any burden on the employees is economic. They are not
forced to adopt Hobby Lobby’s religious views, live by Hobby Lobby’s religious
rules, or violate the rules of their own religions. But if Hobby Lobby is
forced to pay for contraception coverage, the burden is religious.
the
> LLC, but they have the protection of limited liability. What about close
> corporations (which, under the laws of some states, may be managed directly
> by shareholders)?
>
>
>
> Does a corporation’s status as for-profit or not-for-profit matter? If so,
> why?
>
&
l of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
Prof. Greenwood overstates the protection corporation law gives to officers and
directors from civil liability, whether or not
Without attempting to address the various corporate law issues being
debated in this thread, I did want to ask a more intuitive question about
this argument:
"[An exemption for Hobby Lobby] is not an imposition of the Greens'
religion on the employees. No employee is forced to live by Hobby Lobby'
u]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:49 PM
To: Daniel J. Greenwood; Douglas Laycock; 'Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics'
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
Sorry, but now you have shifted to a completely different argument. The alleged
imposition on employees has
issues for Law Academics
Cc: Daniel J. Greenwood; Douglas Laycock
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
While we're on the topic, I'd like to know Prof. Greenwood's views on Howard
Schultz, who regularly "imposes" his values -- moral values -- on his employees
and cu
rom: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:09 PM
>To: Daniel J. Greenwood; 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>Subject: RE: Simple Hobby Lobby question
>
>In the RFRA context, moral responsibility is what we’re talking abou
e that the
corporation doesn’t really exist at all – to pierce the corporate veil and
disregard corporate form.
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:23 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Daniel J. Greenwood
; 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Simple Hobby Lobby question
In the RFRA context, moral responsibility is what we’re talking about. The
Green’s religious exercise is burdened because they are being required to
violate the moral obligations of their faith.
esn’t really exist at all – to pierce the corporate veil and
disregard corporate form.
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:23 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Daniel J. Greenwood
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby
: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Daniel J. Greenwood
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
Lord knows Doug and I have plenty of differences on this case, but on this one
we agree, at least roughly speaking. The directors may have a duty to ac
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Simple Hobby Lobby question
I think this is not a correct statement of corporate law.
The owners of a closely held corporation are morally responsible for the
corporation's actions. After all, the shareholders (or the trustees) are th
issues for Law Academics; Daniel J. Greenwood
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
The thoughts below may well be right for a corporation with religiously diverse
ownership. But Hobby Lobby is closely held, with a voting trust created in part
to ensure that the business would be run consist
I would add that it is likely that Hobby Lobby is acting in the interests
of the corporation in this instance, including the fiduciary interest;
scores of people shop at Hobby Lobby because they like what it stands for.
Take that away, or make it seem as if they have abandoned it, and it can't
hel
ast corporate law
> does not become a part of First Amendment law. But it is still quite
> implausible that the Congress meant to nationalize a traditionally state
> law area without explicit consideration of the implications.
> >From: Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
> >Se
irst Amendment law. But it is still quite implausible
>that the Congress meant to nationalize a traditionally state law area without
>explicit consideration of the implications.
>From: Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 5:52 PM
>To: L
explicit consideration of the implications.
From: Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 5:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
I actually think the "can corporations exercise religion?" que
I actually think the "can corporations exercise religion?" question is a
red herring. As is the "shareholder right-to-sue" question. The gist of
the claims in these cases are that the individual plaintiffs, the Hanhs and
the Greens, have had their religious exercise burdened in *their capacities
Ah. Silly me. Thank you.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Greg Lipper wrote:
> The question isn’t only whether Hobby Lobby (and other for-profit
> corporations that sell secular goods/services) are persons, but rather
> whether they are persons that “exercise religion.” If they are not
> exercis
The question isn’t only whether Hobby Lobby (and other for-profit corporations
that sell secular goods/services) are persons, but rather whether they are
persons that “exercise religion.” If they are not exercising religion, then
RFRA is not triggered, no matter how much personhood they have.
24 matches
Mail list logo
