Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision [1] [2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom ...
Missouri sued Starbucks this week, alleging the chain’s push to hire and promote more people of color and women violated anti-discrimination laws and slowed down coffee orders.
Churches and religious non-profits are something of a special case, because the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government making a law "respecting an establishment of religion," and also forbids "prohibiting the free exercise thereof [that is, of religion]." The First Amendment originally bound only the U.S. Federal ...
The first seven groups on the list were organizations identified by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council, while the second group of seven organizations were identified directly by the ministry. All groups included are considered illegal in mainland China, and are subject to prosecution under Chinese law.
Religious institutions have to be careful of the messages they share, as veering too overtly political can risk their tax-exempt status as nonpartisan nonprofits.
The case is Missouri ex rel Bailey v Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, No. 25-00165. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Lisa Shumaker, David Gregorio and ...
Lipsky, 63 N.E.2d 642 (Ill. 1945), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, did not allow a married woman to stay registered to vote under her birth name, due to "the long-established custom, policy and rule of the common law among English-speaking peoples whereby a woman's name is changed by marriage and her husband's surname becomes ...
The ruling allows the church to seize money that the group makes through “any sale, transfer, disposition, or license of the Proud Boys Trademark.” More: Historic Black church takes on Proud ...