Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius -- CU revisited

[kandrathe]

If you mean the basic idea of corporation goes way back, ok sure.

Yes. Romans did not have the Thurgood Marshall version.

Also, whether or not their googly eyes packs are ethically, and sustainably sourced.

That verse out of context, like many others, is often used as a foil to chastise most anyone. It's hard to live up to this standard (out of context), unless you immediately sell all your possession, donate the proceeds to your local charity, and join a monastery. I believe there is more nuance when read in context.

The full thought in that part of the sermon was; "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

If the choice is to attempt to run your business in a manner consistent with your belief system, whether that be Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or whatever, then you'd be closer to the former (building spiritual treasure), than rolling over to a civil authority that has demanded you surrender what you see as key to your morality.

The key for me is; For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. If you do something because "God", then A) but if you do it because "I wanna be rich, and comfortable" then B). The trouble hinted at throughout Christ's message is that the temptation that Mammon brings soon cause the eye to wander. Not all the rich and comfortable are necessarily Mammon seekers, but it is the rare duck indeed who had it showered upon them and still walks the "spiritual" path.

Another take on this ruling is it's risk of piercing the corporate veil, in making individual owners more liable for corporate behavior. I believe most executives secretly like the "no risk of jail" for criminal corporate behavior.