jimmyg, I agree with your synopsis, but still don’t see how it squares with the Citizen’s United decision wherein a corporation can exercise it’s 1st Amendment rights to fund policians but the same corporaton can’t exercise it’s freedom of religion in how they run their business. Any thoughts on the District Court decision (not the SCOTUS decision)?

The Court stated as follows as to the rights enjoyed by Corporations:

“Corporations have constitutional rights in some circumstances, such as the right to free speech, but the rights of corporate persons and natural persons are not coextensive. Courts have not extended all constitutional rights to all corporations. Corporations do not possess a “right to exercise a privilege against self-incrimination.” Application to Enforce Admin.Subpoenas Duces Tecum of the § v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 416 n.3 (10th Cir.1996), They have been denied “[c]ertain `purely personal’ guarantees … because the `historic function’ of the particular guarantee has been limited to the protection of individuals.” First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 n. 14 (1978) (citing United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698-701 (1944)). “Whether or not a particular guarantee is `purely personal’ or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.” Id.

The purpose of the free exercise clause is “to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority.” Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963) (emphasis added). Churches and other religious organizations or religious corporations have been accorded protection under the free exercise clause, see Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 694, 706 (2012); Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531-32, because believers “exercise their religion through religious organizations.” Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 341 (1987) (BRENNAN, J. concurring) (internal quotations omitted). However, HobbyLobby and Mardel are not religious organizations. Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such asHobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.See Anselmo v. Cnty. of Shasta, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 2090437, at *12 (E.D.Cal 2012) (“Although corporations and limited partnerships have broad rights, the court has been unable to find a single RLUIPA case protecting the religious exercise rights of a non-religious organization such as Seven Hills.”).[10] The court concludes plaintiffs Hobby Lobby and Mardel do not have constitutional free exercise rights as corporations and that they therefore cannot show a likelihood of success as to any constitutional claims they may assert. Plaintiffs’ ability to show a likelihood of success therefore depends on evaluation of the claims of the individual plaintiffs — the Greens.”

So, basically, a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and technicalities and bizarre reasoning.