Dear colleagues, I suppose I am just echoing a point that Eugene made, but it seems to me that -- while it is certainly possible to imagine settling, at the end of the day, if only for pragmatic reasons, on a legal regime that did not extend religion-related exemptions from generally applicable "commercial" or "economic" regulations or did not extend them to for-profit corporations -- the reason or justification for this regime would not be (a) that religious commitments have nothing to say about, and do not often motivate, commercial or economic activity; (b) that business corporations do not have "souls"; or (c) that only laws regulating the activities of natural persons can burden religious freedom or the exercise of religion.
Best wishes, Rick Richard W. Garnett Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Political Science Director, Program on Church, State & Society Notre Dame Law School P.O. Box 780 Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780 574-631-6981 (w) 574-276-2252 (cell) rgarn...@nd.edu To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN page <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=342235> Blogs: Prawfsblawg <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/> Mirror of Justice <http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/> Twitter: @RickGarnett <https://twitter.com/RickGarnett> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com> wrote: > i am not sure; my point is this that Hobby Lobby is NOT about individuals > it is about a company. I agree with Doug (and probably every on this list) > that the owners of Hobby should have religious liberty to avoid doing some > things (but I believe that is true for Smith in the Oregon case). My point > is that Hobby Lobby is a corporation and not a person and so it has no -- > zero -- rights of religious liberty. It should be required to act > according to the law, the same as any other corporation. For profit > corporations (as opposed to an not-for-profit religious corporation) are > not people so I simply disagree that their owners are free to act in the > way Doug wishes. > > So, in that sense, I think Doug's position has to be that the corporation > somehow has a religious liberty. I am not buying it. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> > *To:* Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>; Law & Religion issues > for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; Douglas Laycock < > dlayc...@virginia.edu>; "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 6, 2014 7:11 PM > *Subject:* RE: On a different strand of the seamless web > > Paul: Are you seriously claiming that Doug believes a > corporation has a soul? Or even that he believes it is a person (the > singular of “people”) in the lay sense of the word “person,” as opposed to > the Dictionary Act sense of the person? > > Eugene > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Paul Finkelman > *Sent:* Sunday, July 06, 2014 1:48 PM > *To:* Douglas Laycock; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; > Scarberry, Mark > *Subject:* Re: On a different strand of the seamless web > > > unlike Doug, I do not believe corporations are people, that they have > religious believes or that they have souls (that is of course an > understatement); corporations are legal vehicles designed to make money for > the investors and to shield the investors from having to use their own > assets to cover losses and debts. > > I do not believe any faith thinks Hobby Lobby has an immortal soul, can go > to heaven or hell, or that it prays. So, I guess I am unpersuaded that > there can be an exemption issue for a corporation > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> > *To:* Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>; Law & Religion issues > for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; "Scarberry, Mark" < > mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:36 AM > *Subject:* Re: On a different strand of the seamless web > > Unlike Paul, I think the exemption issues and the government-sponsored > prayer issues are very different. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
