 Felly, o'r cyflechau, ond byddwn i'n clywbeth yw'r oedd yma'r gwneud o'r gwaith o'r cyfrifiad yn gwneud i gyda'r bach. Felly, nawr, ymlaen ychydig oedd ychydig o'r cyfrifiad. Y genesys ydych chi'n dweud yma, fe'n deisembeth 2014, rwy'n wedi gweithio i'r blog, o'r gwasanaeth, xmoe, Felly, yw ddwynghwyr. Mae ydych i'n meddwl eu tarsau o'n mynd i bob i bob, yr un ar bobl yn cael ei gwasanaeth y cyhoedd a'r llwyddochol yn cael bob i bob yw, ac mae hynny'n cael ei wneud arno. Ond rydych chi'n gwybwch â gweld ygooedd, a ddod o'r pergyn yn cynnig ymddrech o swydd roedd gweithio gyda'r byd ddyn nhw, ddod o'r gweithio cyhoedd maeddiol yn ddaraf, gofyn llw, i gydweithio ar y chyflprin o'i rfynod, the first reference that I could find is a case called Costanderson Finland . It was before the European Commission of Human Rights North and Court in 1997. The free think publishing company, which was a limited company, hefyd yn y Gymraeg, a dyna'r pethau'r gweithio ar ddiwn ni yn rhaid i ddechrau'r rhai gael, dwi'n dechrau i'r gweithio ar gyffredinol i'r gweithio a'r gweithio ar gweithio am y cymdeithio. Y gallwch chi'n gwneud y pethau'r gweithio ar gyfer y cyfyrdd y gallwn ni'n ddechrau, a'u cyfan fyddai'n gweithio iawn, gyda'r cyfan hynny ymgyrch ar gyfer hefyd, Mae'r bwysig iawn o'r bodi'r cyffredinol wedi cael ei wneud o'r cyffredinol yn Arthigol 9. Mae'r bwysig iawn o'r bwysig iawn o'r bwysig iawn o'r bwysig iawn o'r cyffredinol yn Arthigol 9. Mae'r bwysig iawn o'r bwysig iawn o'r bwysig iawn o y cyffredinol yn Arthigol 9. wrth ei angen i'r adrefion gyda fan y Feirddur y Electrolygu bydd gael lefyddo a i gyda'r ffeirddau iawn ac ran hefyd. HMRC maewn gweld eich margr furnitureau fel wych gyda gan gwahodd ac mae wedi cael ei hunain, yn cymdeithasio gennym o adrefion, gyda gwaith cyfnodau cywysig ac yn gweithio'r cyfnodau tyllirol, dartho ymlaen nhw'r cyfnodau diolad解fridiadau. Ydyn ni wedi gweld ar gyfer y Gymraedd a'r Sefydliad yn y mynd yn oedd Gymraedd eich gymryd yn cael o'r amser cyfnodd cyfnodd. Ond, wrth gwrs, yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ddweud, rydw i ddweud yna'r gwreithiau hefyd. Ond yn fwy, yw, fydd ymgyrch gael bod, maen nhw ymgyrch yn gwneud ymddeithasol o'r baiol, ac mae Facebook, ysgol, a'r cyfnodd yn gyfryd i gyd-dwy. Ac ymwy o'r ffynol o'r sgwyd. Rwy'n gweithio'n ffrifio'r cyfnodd sydd yn cael ei wneud ymgyrch, ond nhw'n meddylu fath o'n ei ddiweddol i'ch unig o'r ddweud, ond nid iddyn nhw'n meddwl i ddim yn ddweud weithio i bryd, yn ychydig, fe weddill bydd y cyfnod yn digwyddol, yn ei cyd-ddylai ddechrau a phobl yn defnyddio i gyrfafydd, a mae'r wych yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrchu. Nid yw ymddirionedd, mae HMRC yn heb y hoffi, hynny yn ddigonol bod gyuned ymmygu gyda'r o'r Llywodraeth Cymru wedi bod yn bau cyfnodd. Rwy'n gwybod fydd ei ddarparu gwahanol o'r adroddau yn ddod o'r cymdeithasol. Felly, y Fyfyrdd y Llywodraeth Cymru yw'r bod yn ddod yn ddod – ac mae'r ddysgu'r yng Nghymru yn Sennu Cymru yn 1998 wrth gwrs cyfnoddau cyfnoddau o'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn ddod yn ddod. yn y gynghwyl iawn sydd yn gwybod yr oedd yma, maen nhw'n gwneud o'r fforddau lleol yn gweithio'r fforddau lleol. A gofyn y gwirio'r cyflym yn ymgyrch. Mae yma'r test yn ywedad, oedd y gweithio'n cyfrifio mae'r fforddau lleol yn yn dechrau i gael y rhan o'r Llywodraeth yn y cyfrifio'n cyfrifio. Ond mae'n gallu ymgylchio'n gwneud o'r fforddau, mae'n cwmifio'n cyfrifio. Ond o'Swenffwr, mae'n gweithredu'n cywedd li o'r dweud sydd mor profiad Abery erfer am gwrth iddyn nhw'n cael eu gyf rhaghaffau a'r ddweud. Mae'r ydych chi'n gweithio'n gyda'r ddyliadau sy'n tebyg i'ch rhai hyn o ledydd rhan oherwydd y cyfrigoi a chyfriddio'n ein blyneddau i'r ddyliau rhyw iawn yn y gyflawn. yr ad Lord Llywodraeth yma i ddechrau tarreddon yw ymarfer o Goodbyeol. Mae'n angen i'w bwysig i cael gyffredin iaith gael ar y rai rhan, i gael arcaf bethau'r rhaglen cyfriforol ar hynny. Ond mae'n cael ei adael arweinyddol ar gyfer energio ddakaian fryr yma, yn ymwelio ffigur i ymddangos ymdegwyd, rydyn ni'n wneud fod yn hwnnw iaith i ddweud hypnodol. Mae'n gondol yr wych yn ei ddweud y peth eisiau bydd y cyfrifordd i'w gweld yn fawr i'r fawr hyn o'r cyfnod. Ac nid yw'r Llyfrgell Llyfrgell, ond Melae wedi'i gweld eich rhan o'r gyfnod, ond mae'r Lash wedi'i ei wneud. Rwy'n gweithio, ond yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, mae'r cyffredigau'r cyffredigau. Mae'r cyffredigau'r cyffredigau yn cael ei ddod ac mae'n meddwl i'r ffamilau sydd ymgyrch gyda'r lleidau lleol, yn fwyaf y lleol sy'n cyffredigau lleol, a rhaglen i fewn i'w gwirionedd a eu ddysgrifanaethol o ran ffeyddol i fan hynny i bobl cerddur iawn i ffeyddol ac yn gwirionedd i hefyd. Mae gwirionedd, ych chi'r Llilwyr, a'r hollbeth nhw'n mynd i'r hollbhef ychydig ateb o bwysigau cyllid yn gyfodol, were exempt. But the US government argued that the three appellants couldn't themselves claim the exception because they were secular for profit corporations. That olders might have objections personally, but the corporations couldn't have those objections as corporations. Well, by a 5-4 majority, the US Supreme Court held that the regulations provided which violated the provisions of the ynghyd yn y gwirionedd ynghyd yn y reisio 1993, ond y Cymru wedi'i gweithio'r cyfnodd cyfnodd yn y ffrwng ar y rhaid ffyrdd cyfnodd. A'r ydych chi'n gweithio ymwyaf yn ymweld, yn y cyfnodd cyfnodd, yw'r cyfnodd, yw'r cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd, oedden nhw'n cyfnodd cyfnodd y bydd ymddangos a'r cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd a'r amser o'r ffordd y Llywodraeth yn ymgyrch i'r hyn sydd o'r cyfnod sydd yn cael eu gweithio'r cwyrdd. Rhywbeth yw'n ddysgu. Rhywbeth Dady Ginsburg yn ymgyrch a'r ymgyrch yn mynd i'n gweithio'n gwaith yn ymgyrch, ond yn ymgyrch mae'n amser o'r gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. The First Amendment's Free Exercise Protections shelter churches and other non-profit religion-based organisations. No such solicitude is traditional of a commercial organisation. The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organisations exist to foster the interested persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so for profit organisations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from a non-religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the workforce of a profit corporation. The distinction between a community made up of believers of the same religion and non-embracing persons of diverse beliefs. Clear as it is, constantly escapes the court's attention, which I'll come back to. Then back to the UK, after Hobby Lobby, there was Exmo on the coast boat cruiser's limit. In which the owner and sole director, Mr Oxman, had applied for a religious exemption from filing his battle terms. HMRC refused his request. It refused the request because its officials weren't satisfied that Mr Oxman didn't and wouldn't use a computer. He advertised his business on the internet and because he hadn't demonstrated that he was a member of a religious society with beliefs incompatible with the use of computers anyway. His religious affiliation was rather doubtful. He kind of claimed to be a member of the Plymouth Brethren, but the tribunal judge, Mollsdale, again, wasn't convinced. So Judge Mollsdale rejected his appeal to Article 9. As for the claim under the vital regulations, she concluded that first, the appellants did not have beliefs as it was a company. And second, even if its directors' beliefs were the beliefs to which the legislation referred, he was not a practising member of a religious society or order whose beliefs were incompatible with the use of electronic communications. Very much in line with the majority opinion in Hobby Lobby however, she didn't accept that there were no circumstances in which a commercial company could have human rights. Her view was this. A company has human rights if and to the extent it is the outer ego of a person or potentially a group of people. Therefore it must be seen as being in the shoes of that person and must possess the same human rights because any other decision would deny that person his human rights. Therefore, while it is ludicrous to suggest a company has a religion or a private family life, nevertheless a company which is the outer ego of a person can be a victim of a breach of Article 9 if, were it not so protected, that person's human rights would be breached. But on the facts, she concluded that Mr Ockson's words and he didn't qualify. He advertised on the internet, he got the edges to follow his behalf, so requiring him to find his value terms as well didn't seem to affect his manifesto of religious or other beliefs and she dismissed the appeal. Then Cairnash's page, which has already been talked about quite a lot, so I won't rehearse the game except to say this. Like this click-judge-brownly at first instance, Lord Chief Justice stecked me more than the point of that almost in passing because it didn't prove necessary to explore the point further, that Asher's page was a limited company and that, quote, it does not have any religious objectives in its memorandum and articles of association. Although it is common cause that its name derives from a passage in the Bible of Genesis 4920, great from Asher should be which and he shall review royal daintings. Whether a limited company could plead article 9 wasn't explored further, the county court had undertaken a painstaking analysis to establish whether the limitations on the MacArthur's article 9 rights were prescribed by law aimed at a legitimate objective necessary in the democratic society and concluded that they fulfilled the article 9 to criteria. So it's clear to me at any rate that if the Lord Chief wasn't going to privilege the consciousness of individuals, he certainly wasn't going to bother with the possibility that a non-natural person could be set out of the conscience. But my reference from his reference to the company's memorandum and articles was that, had it been necessary to do so, it had been inclined to concentrate on the conscientious objections of Mr and Mrs MacArthur rather than those of Asher's begging of the corporation. So, can a secular corporation be set out of the conscience? In 1982, a couple of American academics, Kenneth Goodpaster and John Matthews, published an article in the Heart of Business Review, which has been much quoted since, and they suggested that it was improper or at best value free for organisations to, the assertion that for organisations to conduct themselves in conformity with the ordinary principles and morality wasn't just wrong, it was counterproductive. They said that suggesting that corporations didn't have morals was a tremendous barrier to the development of business ethics, both as a field of inquiry and as a practical force in the management decision making. And people say they've gone further. Jason Ulyonov suggests that, from the US perspective, corporations possess beliefs that are truly their own. They are distinct entities with distinct intentional states. And he argues that, not for profit corporations, though not that should be said commercial ones, qualify for protection of free exercise laws. Drax Hager wrote an article fairly recently in which he suggested that, there are some companies who pursue moral religious objectives in tandem with profit making. This is hardly an awful observation. And he quoted Pope John Paul II in Chantessa Mazzanis, who described a business firm like this. A community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs and who perform a particular group at the service of the whole society. Profit is a regulator of the life of the business, but it is not the only one. Other human and moral factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least equally important. I'm not sure I buy that. Is a business firm necessarily our community of persons? And even if it is, is such a community necessarily a particular group at the service of the whole society? I'd have thought, in fact, that even some quite large companies are immediately on sale. And human factors are undoubtedly important in some circumstances, like attracting customers and recruiting and keeping your personnel. But our moral factors equally important. Honestly, I doubt it. It may be reasonable to impute a moral sense to the directors that closely have a company on a small partnership, where, as tribunal judge and those of you who have observed an example of both cruises, the non-natural person is the outer ego of the person, or potentially a group of people. But when you come to a large secular corporation, can it be said to be the outer ego of the shareholders? Many of them, in any case, are going to be investment funds, other corporates, whatever. It's all, in my view, much more doubtful. Big, public limited companies may well consist in part of persons, at least in terms of the directors and their employees. But whether they're a community is, to my mind at least, a much more open question. And whether they have a moral purpose is even more doubtful. And look what's been going on recently, all those banking scandals. So, to return to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Hobby Lobby, could have distinction between religious organisations and for-profit corporations simply to blunt in the UK context. Or, for that matter, in the US one. My reading of the recent cases is that black foam in exit of both cruises suggests that UK battle at any rate is moving towards recognising some religious rights in small businesses in the corporate capacity even though taken together the two judgments seem rather contradictory. In terms of the outcome, same regulations, same judge, similar claims, opposite results. The reason for the difference, in my view, is that the claims of this nature are highly fact-sensitive. The black verbs could demonstrate that they were serious about it are Mr Oxon and Collins. But, and it's a very big but, in both cases, the tribunal is prepared to look beyond the corporate form to the beliefs of the individual owners. So perhaps, what this is telling us, perhaps, is that the courts are evolving some kind of hierarchy. The answer would be yes for a partnership or a small, closely held, limited company. Possibly, or there again, possibly not for a medium-sized business, almost certainly a big fat no for BP or Tesco. And then there's Asher's Baking, which is in the news again, cos on the first of May, the Belfast Telegraph reported the rather similar incidents to the one which is currently making its way to the Supreme Court. And it would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court finally makes of Asher's Baking. But I suspect that one issue which they might find themselves addressing is the question which has started can a secular, non-natural person have the conscience for the purpose of the assumption. Thank you.