Could corporations claim a right to lie because of sincerely-held religious beliefs?

[DetlefK]

A few days ago, I asked in the Religion-forum when lying way okay for a Christian and most responses indicated that it was the intention that made the difference:
If you tell something that is not true with the intention to harm, then it's a lie and a sin.
If you tell something that is not true without the intention to harm, then it's a lie but not a sin.
If you twist the truth by withholding information and you do so with the intention to harm, then it's a lie and a sin.
That's the consensus found among various christian theologists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218143436



I'm not that firm with the Hobby-Lobby-decision of the Supreme Court, but I have read that it is written in such a way that could serve as a precedent for future decisions about corporate religious rights, even though the text claims that it can't be used as precedent beyond the topic of health-insurance and menstrual medication.

Now, it's the established christian doctrine that "white lies" are okay. Does that mean that a corporation (claiming sincerely-held christian beliefs) could sue for the right to lie to people for their own good?
"You don't want to know, what's in the sausage."
After all, not allowing someone to live by their religious doctrine violates their religious right.

[enough]

1. Corporations don't need to base this on religion. They already claim a right to lie

under free speech protection.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2337:unequal-protection-protecting-corporate-liars

[Gman]

2. I have no idea what you're talking about

Regarding Christians and lying. And some random post on DU obviously doesn't define Christianity's position regarding lying and the HL decision. And it looks like a very great leap to assert what you do about product packaging and production. In short, seriously?