[Pox]

"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.

To me, this statement seems absurd in the extreme.

[One Name]

Corporations, as collective groups of citizen-investors-owners
are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

News to me.

Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton. et al might have differed.

[DesertRhino]

“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.”

Maybe something like,,”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;,,”

Says nothing about secullar,, for-profit,,only individuals,, nothing. Just says “shall make no law,, free exercise”

[1010RD]

What exactly is the free exercise of religion and do you get to have a conscience to do it?

The problem here is that our judges assume the state from the beginning. In assuming the state they then come to a conclusion. In America it is the reverse. We accept the individual as sovereign and it is the state that must make the case - beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tanknetter]

I don’t think it’s extreme, and since Hobby Lobby couldn’t cite any existing precedent, it probably means that there isn’t one. The closest recent ruling that might be applicable is Citizens United, but that dealt with speech not exercise of religion.

So iow the court here punted under the auspices of there not being a precedent to go from. This is going to the Supreme Court, (regardless) where Citizens United can be seen as a good indicator of where the majority will rule.