Hooby Lobby
Argument: Are corporations “persons”?
Petitioners: The corporations in question here are not “person’s exercising religion.” Under the Religious freedom Restoration Act, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not exempt from complying with a generally applicable law. These laws, in general, regulate the corporations, not the individual owners. The Green’s as “individuals” are allowed to make decisions for themselves based on RFRA, but any decision made for the entire corporation based on these rights cannot validate an injunction. While the corporations are run through religious practices, at root, denying these federal statutes would deny thousands of employees the access to benefits that could prove to be of great importance to health and wellness. As individual “person’s” you are allowed religious freedom, which is protected, but a person cannot make decisions for a mass community or in this case employees.
Respondents: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects any person’s exercise of religion. Since the term “person’s” is not clearly defined, it extends to corporations, companies, associations, as well as individuals. This is correlated to the 1 U.S.C. Section 1: Words denoting number, Gender and so forth. Within this section corporations will be grated same religious freedoms guaranteed to any individual person under the RFRA. Nothing stated in the RFRA deny any of these privileges to corporations, so using the Dictionary Act’s definition of the term “person’s” can be applied to the use for a corporation.
Argument: Does the RFRA cover for profit Corporations?
Petitioners: Within the meaning of the RFRA for-profit corporations conducting commercial business are not considered persons exercising their religion. There is no suggestion from prior cases that suggest that for-profit corporations exercise religion. The RFRA “ recognized free-exercise rights of individuals, churches, and religious communities.” The RFRA claim for corporations fails,
Petitioners: The corporations in question here are not “person’s exercising religion.” Under the Religious freedom Restoration Act, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not exempt from complying with a generally applicable law. These laws, in general, regulate the corporations, not the individual owners. The Green’s as “individuals” are allowed to make decisions for themselves based on RFRA, but any decision made for the entire corporation based on these rights cannot validate an injunction. While the corporations are run through religious practices, at root, denying these federal statutes would deny thousands of employees the access to benefits that could prove to be of great importance to health and wellness. As individual “person’s” you are allowed religious freedom, which is protected, but a person cannot make decisions for a mass community or in this case employees.
Respondents: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects any person’s exercise of religion. Since the term “person’s” is not clearly defined, it extends to corporations, companies, associations, as well as individuals. This is correlated to the 1 U.S.C. Section 1: Words denoting number, Gender and so forth. Within this section corporations will be grated same religious freedoms guaranteed to any individual person under the RFRA. Nothing stated in the RFRA deny any of these privileges to corporations, so using the Dictionary Act’s definition of the term “person’s” can be applied to the use for a corporation.
Argument: Does the RFRA cover for profit Corporations?
Petitioners: Within the meaning of the RFRA for-profit corporations conducting commercial business are not considered persons exercising their religion. There is no suggestion from prior cases that suggest that for-profit corporations exercise religion. The RFRA “ recognized free-exercise rights of individuals, churches, and religious communities.” The RFRA claim for corporations fails,