Baked In The Cake Summary

Prior to Cracker Barrel’s evaluation and termination of lesbian and gay employees, the company frequently denied them promotional opportunities, applicants being rejected, employees fired and decision makers became bias; nevertheless, both heterosexual and same-sex were employed with the company. The difficulties of implementing discrimination rules against sexual orientation, originates from these main factors: “employers view homosexuality as somehow detrimental to job performance or harmful to the company’s public profile;” more importantly, the company hasn’t established a nondiscriminatory policy against homosexuals; hence, it is “difficult to trace” (Harvey & Allard, 2015, p. 166). Seeing the rapid growth of the company being unfazed by the boycott and other movements in the media, Dan Evins felt empowered to continue rejecting homosexuals; hence, he did. The upward trending of the company’s profit, proves the vast support for Cracker Barrel’s actions.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

Mississippi lawmakers on Tuesday called for the repeal of a controversial new law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people based on religious objection. Ellen DeGeneres called it "the definition of discrimination," while singer Bryan Adams canceled his upcoming show in the state to show his opposition to the law.” (Reilly, 2016). Misguided people are being driven by the nose by tricky "Christian" pioneers and legislators who have a personal stake in the matter of ensuring that their assemblies and their constituents remain profoundly and honestly perplexed of the myth of the "gay person plan." Know this: If the LGBTQ people group has any sort of motivation of all, it is achieving the same essential human rights that other people appreciates. That is all. That is the plan. Try not to fall for some other clarification of it. Gay people are not after your children. They are not attempting to change over you or change you. They are not worried with being comprehended as much as they are worried with being dealt with like some other person has the privilege to be dealt with. On the off chance that you trust that any gathering

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

This newspaper article discusses how more business such as Walmart and the Apple store are beginning to call on office holders to reject the laws designed to give business the right to deny service based on one’s sexuality. This article gives an opposing view of my stance that businesses should be able to deny service. In addition, it justifies my argument that more people are becoming more excepting off the LGBT community, however only a small portion. The information from this site is accurate and had reliable information to support its research and argument. Furthermore, the article is geared toward all American people as its goal is to provide information of what corporations are doing to stop legislation denying service to the LGBT community. The corporations mentioned in the article have a huge voice and can make a large impact on government, as they hope to one day make a

Thank you for your post. The reason I chose to include the cases are to show how the issue of a business owner refusing sexuality is becoming popular, and is being argued in court more. Many business owners are actually fine with giving their services to one of the opposite sex, however when that service is extended that goes against their beliefs, values, or morals then they have a problem with providing. Such as the case that I mentioned above, the State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, where the florist served the couple many times but when asked provide a service for their wedding she refused as it goes against her faith. How do you propose we find a solution for this issue?

Some cases end in favor of the same sex couple and others do not. In the Washington Post it is stated that in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights, President Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, had a very honest opinion. Francisco said, “leaving the law intact would mean that an African American sculptor could be forced to make a cross for a Ku Klux Klan event if he made crosses for the general public” (Konnoth). Because of the 14th amendment, gays, whites, blacks, women, etc are protected from discrimination. If the law were to go away, it would be every person for themselves. Francisco has a good point in his comment. An African American who doesn’t believe in the Ku Klux Klan shouldn’t have to make a cross for them, so why should a baker have to make a cake for a couple that he personally doesn’t believe

There are several controversial issues argued concerning the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017). The allegation began in 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Philips cake store, Masterpiece Cakeshop, to order a cake for their weeding. Yet, Philip denied on making them a same-sex marriage cake on the grounds of his religious believes. Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, Philips argues that his first Amendment Rights to free speech and religious exercise are violated by the Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. The state of Colorado on the other hand, argues that their law does not target his constitutionally protected speech and religious rights, but simply his conduct. However, the Colorado Civil

Same-sex couples are becoming increasingly popular in our society and advocates have been pushing for social justice to abolish sexual discrimination. America has been misled by opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts who claim a business' right to religious freedom to turn away gay customers is discrimination and bigotry, and we need to return to the biblical view of homosexuality as what it really is: sin. This paper will cover religious freedom and the advancement of gay rights in society today as it pertains to the opposing arguments of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed recently in Indiana.

The state of Vermont accepted and promoted same sex marriages by classifying them as “civil unions” in order to maneuver around DOMA. Vermont believed that “civil unions” would provide lesbian and gay individuals with financial and emotional benefits that are accessible to heterosexual individuals who are married (Kranz & Cusick, 2000). Vermont’s objectives were to provide an inclusive versus separation and discrimination reality for fellow Vermonters (Kranz & Cusick, 2000). In 1998, Hawaii’s state legislation implemented the DOMA amendment that altered the state’s constitution and rejected same sex marriages. “28 states passed laws preventing the recognition of same sex marriages” (Kranz & Cusick, 2000).

In the United States, legalization of same-sex marriage has a long-standing history of opposition from religious circles. Some argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage based on their interpretation of the Bible’s stance against homosexuality (Dobson, O’Brien). Other opponents argue against the practice based on universal tenets of moral behavior, fundamental beliefs that are said to underpin our country’s existing laws and should not be eroded (George, Finnis, Friedman).

Often time’s companies find themselves involved in a socially discouraged activity. In a Forbes Magazine article, “Chick-fil-A CEO Cathy: Gay Marriage Still Wrong, But I’ll Shut Up About It And Sell Chicken,” discusses Dan Cathy (Cathy), CEO of Chick-fil-A, public stance against equal rights (O'Connor, 2014). In 2012, there was the same-sex marriage on four

Danny got a new book from the library, a pirate adventure book and he couldn’t put it down!

On June 26, 2015, the White House lit up in rainbow colors to commemorate a Supreme Court decision that ruled, in Obergefell vs Hodges, that states cannot ban same sex marriage. It is no longer a state level decision, as it had been since 1993. This means that same sex marriage became legal on a national level. Many viewed this as the biggest, most important hurdle for the LGBT community to face, and for the time being they had cleared it. I found it mighty funny that the phrase “Love Wins” was coined as the moniker for the movement. Love is one thing that the LGBT community would agree is something that they are definitely not feeling on a local, state, or national level. In at least 31 out of the 50 states that “Love Won” in, there are no laws in place to protect the LGBT community from discrimination, up to and including being fired for no reason other than their sexual orientation or gender identity, in the workplace. In this paper, I will lay out the timeline of the LGBT community’s fight to put an end to both “open” and “soft” discrimination from a legal standpoint. I will explore the many reasons that it is absolutely necessary to put legislation in place to ensure the LGBT community, at least, job security.