Lederman (2016) in the article “Reconstructing RFRA: The Contested Legacy of Religious Freedom Restoration” argued that viewing corporations as religious entities would harm third parties in commercial settings. In this regard, the companies would be forcing individuals who may hold opinions or beliefs that do not agree with theirs to uphold them. In such an event, the corporation would be breaking the tenets of the First Amendment that holds that among others things, the government cannot coerce anyone to support religion or its exercise. Besides, corporations are not in themselves an entity that can always act in a particular way because there are exceptions even in the laws that view them as independent entities. Simon (2013) in the article “Catholics, Contraceptives, & Corporate Personhood: Rulings on the Health and Human Services Contraceptive Mandate” writing on the cases of allowing corporates religious autonomy stated that it was not practical for corporations to practice religion as persons. In the RFRA, the legislature (Congress) did not mention non-profit organizations directly or by implication and, therefore, there is no way they can act as individuals. Further, Simon (2013) noted by giving corporation some fundamental rights like freedom of speech does not imply they are entities capable of exercising religion in the same capacity. Moreover, just as Lederman claimed, there is no way shareholders of corporations could act as a person. In this respect, companies act on behalf of the owners under the registration name.
After reading the article, I have come to know that the rights of the individual owners to practice religion remains, and are not transferable to the corporation. From this point of view, it is impossible for the organizations to enjoy religious rights as a person. When an employee commits a crime at an individual level, the corporations do not take the liability meaning that it is a semi-autonomous body with autonomous individuals regarding human rights. Fundamentally, granting personhood to corporations amounts to discrimination and conflict of interests for the parties.
References
Lederman, M. S., (2016). Reconstructing RFRA: The Contested Legacy of Religious Freedom Restoration. The Yale Law Journal. Retrieved on April 24, 2016 from http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/reconstructing-rfra-the-contested-legacy-of- religious-freedom-restoration
Simon, S., (2013). Catholics, Contraceptives, & Corporate Personhood: Rulings on the Health and Human Services Contraceptive Mandate. Penn Undergraduate Law Journal. Retrieved on April 24, 2016 from http://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/category/sarah- simon
