-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:35 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Rights of corporations and RFRAs
I think that's right, partly because the burden on stockholders
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Rights of corporations and RFRAs
I think that's right, partly because the burden on stockholders of
selling shares in a publicly traded corporation is much less than the
burden of selling shares in a closely held corporation.
Eugene
I've long thought that corporate rights make sense only to the extent
that they are useful for stand-ins for the rights of people. (I support
Citizens United precisely because of that.)
And when it comes to closely held corporations, whose owners claim an
objection to
of corporations and RFRAs
I've long thought that corporate rights make sense only to the extent
that they are useful for stand-ins for the rights of people. (I support
Citizens United precisely because of that.)
And when it comes to closely held corporations, whose owners claim
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Rights of corporations and RFRAs
I think there is considerable force to Eugene's argument about closely held
corporations (although I'm
