[danaris]

This is not true.

As per Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.

[stevenae]

Thank you for the info. I am curious: is there a corollary, by which minority owners could sue majority ones, for lost profit? I suppose the key caveat to my argument earlier is that one must have standing to sue: if owners disagree (board decisions need not be unanimous), is there valid standing to sue.

[jogjayr]

If there is, then wouldn't there also be a corollary that allows minority owners to sue for not focusing on <whatever they care about>?

[stevenae]

Are you referring to the idea of "everything is securities fraud"?