He had an answer - he just didn't say it. The answer is that corporations can have any privilege that best serves the needs of the State. So if it serves the needs of the State for corporations to have a "race" - then bingo, they have a race. And if the State decides someday corporations cannot have a race - then bingo, they can't. That's corporate law. It is EXACTLY the same as a person running a business, and deciding some division will sell cars one day, then sell soap the next, and then go back to cars later. Exactly the same.
So given this definition of terms, Roberts was basically asking the government lawyer if he could think of a reason that would benefit the State to extend religious privileges to corporations, similiar to the way race privileges were extended to corporations - and the government lawyer couldn't think of a reason.
Thanks for your explanations. While I am in sympathy with the owners of Hobby Lobby, I do not see how they can seek the protection of being a corporation in order to protect themselves from personal liability, tax considerations, etc., yet claim the corporation has their religious protection as individuals.
If all members of Hobby Lobby were killed by another individual, could that individual be accused of mudering Hobby Lobby? Can’t they sell Hobby Lobby corporation to someone else? Could they then be accused of engaging in slavery? Of course not.
I don’t like MY rights as a human being compared with an artifical “person” created for business or tax purposed. If we go that route, making a corporation = human being, we are putting a human being in a position of being granted rights by the STATE.