03-30-2014, 02:00 PM
My feeling is that if the founders/proprietors/owners shed the liability to form a corporation with the right to own property, enter into contracts, etc., they have created a new entity that cannot use religious liberty as a shield to avoid the law. This has the virtue of simplicity; all corporations are equal and have equal exposure to the law.
The founders have the choice of not incorporating; they can then reflect their biases in business behavior with the consequence of exposing themselves to financial liability.
In any case, there needs to be a limit to religious claims. There should be a very high bar to curbing the individual's right to behave in concert with their beliefs; likewise, there should be a very high bar to allowing religious sentiment to curb the privileges and behaviors of others. Hobby Lobby, et al. seek to limit an advantageous social policy by refusing to permit even a diffuse financial connection to aiding behaviors they don't like, even to the point of restricting doctor-patient relationships. That's bordering on ridiculous; they are seeking to impose a narrow religious restriction on employees that are in all likelihood not adherents to that view. The First Amendment would appear to cut against HL more strongly that with it.
The founders have the choice of not incorporating; they can then reflect their biases in business behavior with the consequence of exposing themselves to financial liability.
In any case, there needs to be a limit to religious claims. There should be a very high bar to curbing the individual's right to behave in concert with their beliefs; likewise, there should be a very high bar to allowing religious sentiment to curb the privileges and behaviors of others. Hobby Lobby, et al. seek to limit an advantageous social policy by refusing to permit even a diffuse financial connection to aiding behaviors they don't like, even to the point of restricting doctor-patient relationships. That's bordering on ridiculous; they are seeking to impose a narrow religious restriction on employees that are in all likelihood not adherents to that view. The First Amendment would appear to cut against HL more strongly that with it.