Inclusive Non-Discrimination Law

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

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

The case Obergefell vs. Hodges reached the United States Supreme Court in 2015 (Oyez). This case dealt with the rights of same-sex marriages and became important case in our nation’s young history and in our society in general. The problem was groups of same-sex couples were being told that their marriage licenses were not being upheld to the same legal standards as those of heterogeneous couples. Therefore same-sex couples in Ohio, Tennessee , Kentucky, and Michigan went and sued these agencies in challenge of their constitutional rights (Oyez).They took their issue to court because they believed that the states were denying them their 14th amendment rights without due process. They couldn’t understand why their marriages license were not

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

She argues that “framing gay marriage as a religious right suggests that the parties who are harmed by marriage laws discriminating against same-sex couples include not only the individual men and women in these relationships but also the churches who support gay marriage and their members, regardless of their sexual orientation”. Even though DeLaet wrote this before the Supreme Court ruling, her argument can still be applied to the rights that gays and lesbians face in society today. The LGTB community is still striving to find acceptance among business owners who discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. These business owners cite the First Amendment and their right to express their religion freely and use it as a scapegoat to refuse service to homosexuals. However, with DeLaet’s argument, gays are also protected under the First Amendment because there are many religions that sanctify their union. The concept of freedom of religion cannot be used to grant right to one group of people while discriminating against

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

The Defense Marriage Act is also known as DOMA. This act has been around for decades and continues to change over the years to shape individuals rights and needs. Individual’s perception of marriage equality is constantly evolving, and the number of government officials that recognize same-sex marriage is constantly changing (Rodriguez & Blumell, 2014). This act not only affects the LGBTQ community and their families, but also affects the whole nation. Many have different opinions on the topic and what should be in the Defense Marriage Act. Some were elated with the recent decision in the summer of 2013 the LGBT community where included in the Defense Marriage Act. This arose when the language of section (2) in the DOMA, was defined as unconstitutional

There are times that the law works in favor, and there are other times that the law works against it. I read both sides on this political issue, from the people that want laws to protect same-sex couples to the people that do not want same-sex couples to be. Some of the factors that have influenced a lot of policy makers are the representation of equal rights in the United Sates to other countries, the increase of LGBT youth attendance in schools, protection to all in the workplace and the life experience they see in our communities for the LGBT citizens. As to there is positive factors that influence a policy maker as they consider this issue, there are also adverse factors in the eyes of opponents. Some of the opponent's influences on opposing the proposal were that the complaint case overload would rise by 5 to 7 percent, it eliminates school ability to avoid hiring transgender teachers, employer's self-ownership rights would be and it threatens religious liberty. As I carefully read all of this factors that influence a policy maker to vote on the proposal I took notes on how much impact in policy and society each factor have. All of these factors will have a huge impact on people's life when policy makers decide to either pass or not pass a

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

All organisations have to follow equality and diversity laws and make sure all their employees know the law and follow it. They are also responsible for investigating any claims that may be made by employees/employers. They will need to ensure that all policies and procedures were correctly followed. If as a result of an investigation it is found that there has been a breach of these laws they will need to follow all correct procAll organisations have to follow equality and diversity laws and make sure all their employees know the law and follow it. They are also responsible for investigating any claims that may be made by employees/employers. They will need to ensure that all policies and procedures were correctly followed. If as a result

Imagine being told, by law, you couldn’t have a family of your own because of lifestyle choices. There are 251,695 same-sex married couples in the United States, as of 2013, that had to deal with difficulties while building their family that would never be faced by a hetrosexual couple. Stereotypes and false research have hindered same-sex couples all over the United States by putting doubt into the minds of many powerful politicians who create laws on what a family should be. The false fear that our future children will end up “lesser” than the high standards we already hold them to, causes people to create laws that will theoretically protect children. The lack of their research and insensitivity has created this war between same-sex families

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice