It makes me wonder why corporation don't become religions. After all, the holy order of wall-mart will allow it to do whatever it wants to its employees and also not have to pay tax, while continuing to operate like any other business.
About 10 years ago, there was a very interesting District Court (trial court) holding that laid out a (I think) 9 point test to determine whether an organization is a religion. Although it is not binding, this is the only court to have done so, and other courts have used that test as a basis.
I don't have the cite on me at the moment. I'll look it up later and list the criteria. Overall, I think it's a pretty good, extensive test. (And most corporations would fail.)
I feel that while this ruling makes sense, it is not precise enough. A strong difference needs to be established between the religious and business aspects of the religious institution.
In a way, there is. Ministerial exception pretty much only applies to those whose job involves teaching others about religion. (By that, I don't mean history teachers who teach a world religions class.) There are some gray areas (my Law and Religion class used the example of a teacher at a pre-school run by a Baptist church), but the lines are usually pretty clear.
Aspects such as employment are clearly business aspects and thus should fall under the banner of the judiciary, aspects of representation is the realm of the religious.
But they aren't, as the Court explained.
Say a church has a minister named Martin Luther. Luther studied the Bible and came to the conclusion that the teachings of the church were wrong. As a man of strong beliefs and convictions, Luther published his beliefs on his blog, which was read by all members of the congregation, as well as many others.
Employers can fire a person for insubordination (with certain exceptions). Luther's actions would be no different.