They've broken 2-1 in favor of suspending the requirement.
One thing they've had in common is that if the complaint's filed by the corporation as the corporation then it's turned down. Apparently corporations have free speech rights but not freedom-of-religion rights. Not unreasonable--the corporation itself is an amalgamation, a legal fiction to use a legal tactic for pooling resources and sharing/avoiding risk.
The other thing they have in common is that if the complaint includes the name of a majority shareholder then the court views the corporation as just the tool that an individual has choosen to use to enter the marketplace. The individual has free speech and freedom of religion/conscience, and since the corporation is just an extension of the individual then the individual's freedom of conscience has to be considered.
In one case that was the explicit rationale given. A court had ruled against the corporation, but then on appeal a court said that the lower court had only considered the effect on the corporation and failed to notice that an 88% shareholder (I think I have the # right) was also a plaintiff and that his/her rights had been ignored.
I wanna watch this play out at SCOTUS. I always think that dueling personal rights are more interesting than a lot of the other cases and I'm always disappointed when the court does the convenient thing and finds technical reasons to not hear the case, remand the case down the food chain for further deliberation, or finds some piddly detail on which to rest the case's carcase.
= new reply since forum marked as read
