Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the distinction (13+ / 0-)

    is that a corporation can adopt any number of positions for its investments, operations, etc., voluntarily, and act on those policies, voluntarily.  What it can't do is adopt a position contrary to law and claim that obedience to the law will conflict with its conscience.   So substitute conscience for free exercise of religion, and the same basic premise still should apply,  the corporation can't claim conscience as an objection to compliance with the law.  By now, I would think everyone at this blog is aware that a corporation has no conscience.  To the extent it adopts specific policies, its owners are definitely imposing their views or the veiws of their consumers to attract the continued patronage of the business by those consumers.  But it is the claim to be able to take those views a step further into avoiding the law based on belief, the exercise of religion when the corporation has no such beliefs, because it isn't human, any more than a whole punch machine has beliefs,  to avoid the law, is when the whole fiction of personhood should be stopped.  

    I do not see the movement to influence progressive policies, be it environmental or moral investments in other companies or countries that abuse civil rights,  at corporations incorporating the idea that corporations are exempt from the law.  Do you have an example of that?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site