Court rules that stock-owning churches can't interfere in what Walmart chooses to sell.

[benEzra]

Wal-Mart defeats bid for shareholder vote on gun sales

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday lifted an injunction that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc to let shareholders vote on a proposal to tighten oversight of its sale of guns with high-capacity magazines.

In a brief order, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a permanent injunction imposed in November by U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark that would have required a vote at Wal-Mart's annual meeting in June.

Wal-Mart had objected that allowing a vote on the proposal from Trinity Church, a historic church in downtown Manhattan, would "open the floodgates" to more shareholder proposals, and cause excessive interference in day-to-day business operations.

The church's proposal would have required Wal-Mart's board to more closely examine the sale of products that might endanger public safety, hurt Wal-Mart's reputation, or offend "family and community values" integral to Wal-Mart's brand.

(more at link)

A lot of people who cheered this lawsuit apparently didn't consider the ramifications if the church had won its crusade....if it had been Focus on the Family suing to yank Plan B or the pill from store pharmacies, or if a megachurch were buying healthcare stocks in an attempt to limit what reproductive services could be provided by your local hospital or traded-on-the-NYSE clinics, the problem with that approach might not have been overshadowed by the "ZOMG GUNZ!" argument as it initially was in this case.

Given that the church was suing about the least misused of all guns anyway (Walmart sells *only* long guns), this was a quixotic approach from the get-go.

[Eleanors38]

1. Shareholders usually show up at meetings to voice concerns...

re company policies, products, etc., in an attempt to persuade stockholders to join in with a boycott, or change leadership.

Seems like this church couldn't get it together to go this route, but instead wanted a court to carry its bucket.

[ileus]

2. The 2A is the one right we're expected to be regressive on.

And this case is double nuts in the fact we were rooting for religion to triumph over liberty.