1. Whats the difference between a for-profit corporation and a non-profit corporation? The key question in this case is whether or not for-profit corporations can have religious rights. Since the Citizens United ruling in 2010, the political left has spent a lot of energy attacking this idea that corporations are somehow, legally, persons. The claim that theyre not has been pretty politically effective, putting pro-business conservatives in a terribly awkward position. Such is the stuff of politics. Legally, the case isnt quite this clean. Constitutional protections extend to corporations in more than a few cases that arent controversial (at least in the mainstream of American politics). They have the Fourteenth Amendment right and a Fifth Amendment right to due process under the law. They have the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy and Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures. They have the Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to a trial by jury. Few seem outraged by these instances; rejecting the legal doctrine of corporate personhood, if one is going to be consistent, would have consequences reaching much further than campaign ad funding. One could perhaps argue that the First Amendment protections of speech and religious exercise are just different. Yet, with regards to this particular case, thats not the argument. The federal government is actually not taking the position that corporations cannot have or exercise religion. Theyre taking much more limited position that for-profit corporations cant have or exercise religion. Churches and many other religious organizations are, in the eyes of the law, corporations. Theyre not-for-profit, of course, but still corporations. It seems clear that churches in some sense exercise religion. It seems clear that many non-profit organizations have religion. No one appears to be objecting to the idea that churches are constitutionally protected as churches under the First Amendment. These are, then, legal entities that, for the purposes of the law, are treated as persons. In the lefts case against Hobby Lobby,et al, this has been glossed over. Its been argued that its obvious that corporations cant have religious rights, because theyre obviously not people. In the Hobby Lobby case, however, the crux is not whether or not corporations can have religious rights. Everyone agrees that some do. The argument, rather, is about whether or not theres a distinction between the non-profit corporations that have religious exercise protected by the Constitution, and for-profits that dont. To put it another way: can corporations serve both God and mammon? And if not, why not? As the district judge ruled in the lower court, this question goes into largely uncharted waters. ************** One of the rare few non-hysterical and balanced treatment of the issues at hand, focusing upon the legal facts. As a good Proto-Protestant however, I think this highlights one of the main problems with the idea of Christian groups becoming civilly incorporated as a distinct legal entity over and above the individuals profession of faith, thereby becoming subject to civic law.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 01:46:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015