Comments on Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"TypePad2012-11-13T13:48:10ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/11/colombo-the-naked-private-sphere/comments/atom.xml/Matt Bowman commented on 'Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee5222db9970d2012-11-15T02:50:57Z2012-12-04T12:57:56ZMatt BowmanAnd as the Minnesota Supreme Court declared, "The Commissioner's conclusory assertion that a corporation has no constitutional right to free...<p> And as the Minnesota Supreme Court declared, "The Commissioner's conclusory assertion that a corporation has no constitutional right to free exercise of religion is unsupported by any cited authority." 370 N.W.2d 844</p>Matt Bowman commented on 'Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee521db9a970d2012-11-15T01:35:32Z2012-12-04T12:57:56ZMatt BowmanTyndale pays significant royalties to a nonprofit religious charity, then it tithes its pretax income, and then about 97% of...<p>Tyndale pays significant royalties to a nonprofit religious charity, then it tithes its pretax income, and then about 97% of its dividends go to a non profit religious charity. </p>
<p>As Prof. Colombo concludes on page 75, after an extensive survey of the caselaw, all the cases weighing in on this question count in favor of the reality that people can exercise religion through business corporations, many courts have allowed them to bring free exercise claims, and not one single court has ruled they cannot. </p>Matthew W commented on 'Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017ee520e3cc970d2012-11-14T23:57:31Z2012-12-04T12:57:56ZMatthew WI have a question about Tyndale (and other cases like it). 1 USC 1 defines "person," in any Act of...<p>I have a question about Tyndale (and other cases like it). 1 USC 1 defines "person," in any Act of Congress, as including "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."</p>
<p>So in interpreting the term "person" in the RFRA -- an act of Congress -- wouldn't a court look to 1 USC 1 and be forced to conclude that "person" includes corporations or companies? 1 USC 1 does not contain any limitation on for-profit or non-profit. Doesn't this kill the goverment's case? Am I missing something here?</p>Alexis Marlons commented on 'Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3da9a024970c2012-11-14T19:55:52Z2012-12-04T12:57:56ZAlexis Marlonshttp://incometherapy.comI totally agree with you, Matt..<p>I totally agree with you, Matt..</p>David Nickol commented on 'Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c3377f538970b2012-11-14T14:44:48Z2012-12-04T12:57:56ZDavid Nickolhttp://www.religiousleftlaw.comWhy isn't Tyndale organized as a for-profit business? Has it ever been ruled before that a for-profit corporation can exercise...<p>Why isn't Tyndale organized as a for-profit business?</p>
<p>Has it ever been ruled before that a for-profit corporation can exercise religion? My impression is that it has not. </p>
<p>How can a company give "over 100% of its proceeds to charity"?</p>Matt Bowman commented on 'Colombo, "The Naked Private Square"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017d3d9c9e53970c2012-11-13T20:01:09Z2012-12-04T12:57:56ZMatt BowmanGreat article. In federal district court in DC on Friday, DOJ argued that a devout Bible publishing company that gives...<p>Great article. In federal district court in DC on Friday, DOJ argued that a devout Bible publishing company that gives over 100% of its proceeds to charity is categorically incapable of exercising religion. </p>