[mailto:jole...@lclark.edu jole...@lclark.edu]
*Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:02 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Cc:* Daniel J. Greenwood; Douglas Laycock
*Subject:* Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
Without attempting to address the various corporate law issues being
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
is that 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 responding to Professor Greenwood’s
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 consistently with the family's
religious
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 the
voters
: 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 act
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 Lobby question
The thoughts below may well be right for a corporation
; '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.
I agree about
@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question
Prof. Greenwood overstates the protection corporation law gives to officers and
directors from civil liability, whether or not they are shareholders. Apart
from cases in which the law makes them directly
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.
I agree about the effects of limited liability
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? question is a red
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? question is a red
herring. As is the shareholder
: 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? question is a
red herring. As is the shareholder right-to-sue question. The gist of
the claims in these cases
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
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.
Ah. Silly me. Thank you.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Greg Lipper lip...@au.org 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
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
as
17 matches
Mail list logo
