The Equal Access Act

Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.

this promotion in conjunction with a Mother's Day promotion that he says draws a very loyal group of residence are two of his main sources of income. the second when he argues the law violates constitutional rights is that the damage that this would do to his business would be akin to the government seizing it there for violating the takings clause. he supports this, by providing a survey of 200 of his customers. When asked if they would continue to use the Eros Lodge if he were to allow homosexuals to also room in the lodge of the 50 that responded all 50 said they would not return to the lodge. Bates would go on a file this suit in federal court against the United States. The federal courts sided with the United States and delivered a brief opinion citing cases like Wickard V Filburn and United States V Darby. they founded the Supreme Court had consistently shown how wide of a bread the Commerce Clause to be used with. Even found that the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously in similar cases such as close and heart of Atlanta Motel versus the United States. the argument was a moot point. Refiling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Bates found success as in a

The issue being brought before the court today is the constitutionality of the Public Accommodations Equal Access Act. In addition, it is also evident that the facts in this case raise the issue of congressional authority. Moreover, in order for the Court to come to such a determination, Congress’ justification for the passing of such an act, as well as the powers of Congress, will be reviewed.

Gays and lesbians are discriminated against and oppressed by archaic "sex laws" used by the conservative Arizona government. Some statutes include the restriction of same-sex marriage, and no monetary or federal benefits for domestic partners of homosexuals who work for a government agency.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993, allows for any business to be entitled to an exemption from applicable laws as long as it can be proven to be due to one’s religious belief. (Rivkin, David & Whelan, 2012). In simpler terms, it means that a business owner or church has the right to discriminate in the form of not providing pro-choice rights to female employees, to deny patronage to their businesses to gay/lesbian couples and to not offer the aforementioned employee benefits because of their sexual orientation. However, bear in mind, in order to deny these individuals, their particular rights, one merely has to cite the new RFRA act. In order to support the statements made previously, please see examples below:

The Fair Employment and Housing Act defines harassment because of sex as including sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission regulations define sexual harassment as unwanted sexual advances, or visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. This definition includes many forms of offensive behavior and includes gender-based harassment of a person of the same sex as the harasser. The following is a partial list of violations: Unwanted sexual advances, Offering employment benefits in exchange for sexual favors, Making or threatening reprisals after a negative response to sexual advances, Visual conduct: leering, making sexual gestures, displaying of suggestive objects or pictures, cartoon or posters, Verbal conduct: making or using derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, and jokes, Verbal sexual advances or propositions, Verbal abuse of a sexual nature, graphic verbal commentaries about an individual 's body, sexually degrading words used to describe an individual, suggestive or obscene letters, notes or invitations, Physical conduct: touching, assault, impeding or blocking movements. (Dept of Fair housing California website, 2016)

In April, 2015 Brian Klawiter, The owner of a Michigan truck repair shop publicly announced on social media that he 's a Christian and "would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons" because of his views on religion and morality. Klawiter and private business owners like him who refuse service often argue that they’re practicing their first amendment right of freedom of expression, where they’re expressing their opinion on an issue by refusing to serve certain individuals . Even though such argument might seem reasonable on the surface, using your right of freedom of expression as an excuse to hate and discriminate is simply unacceptable in the 21st century. The exercise of freedoms such as the freedom of expression comes with duties and responsibilities, and according to Article 10 of the Human right act (1998), “the exercise of these freedoms may be subjected to restrictions and penalties and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety or health and morals.” And unfortunately in the state of Michigan, Klawiter has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason even though such action is a clear violation of human rights. Michigan law allows him to discriminate against anyone for any reason he chooses.

Even though the Supreme Court’s ruling has brought marriage equality to all 50 states, 31 states still lack clear, fully-inclusive non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens. This means that despite the ruling, LGBT Americans can get legally married but still be at risk of being denied services for who they are or risk being fired simply for getting married and wearing their wedding ring to the office the next day. Discrimination is a real and persistent problem for too many LGBT Americans. Nearly

The legal battle in the fight of gay rights tests the application of the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause that states “No state shall …deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (CITE). Our country was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. Everyone should be guaranteed the same freedoms and rights no matter what gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. One group that has historically and continuously been discriminated against is homosexuals. Author Jeff Jordan in his article “Is it Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?” defends the claim that there are situations in which it is morally

The enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act, under the Whitlam government of 1975, heralded a revolutionary shift in the psyche of many; to this day it remains a cornerstone to peaceful race relations and the fundamental principle of equality before the law. Of particular note, it was the sanctioning of the provisions and principles enlisted under Section18 of this legislation which scrutinized the very framework to the legality of racial vilification from its previously applauded state. Introduced in an era when racial intolerance and discriminatory prejudice was the social norm, from the atrocities of the Stolen Generation to the infamous White Australia Policy, the nature of racial vilification was made unlawful. This move encouraged

Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act renders any deed unless done in private that offends, humiliates, insults or intimidates another person on the basis of race. The act prohibits discrimination either overt or implied on the basis of race or racial group. The Act which has remained in the statutes since 1995 became inconvenient for the supporters of LNP after the findings of Eatock v Bolt (2011) which found Andrew Bolt to have breached the Act by talking about Aborigines that are lighter skinned. Senator Brandis had proposed a freedom of speech bill of 2014 which desired to repeal section 18C and accord Australians the ‘right to be bigots.’

In this situation, the primary thing that should be said is, the worries of the bank were legit and a chief security officer needs to perform countless duties. Be that as it may, in the meantime, the bank did not act legitimately in light of the fact that, Liz was not given a reasonable shot of substantiating herself rather demonstrating whether she could really perform every one of her obligations and also be a mother.

In order to look at the court reasoning and conclusion, I just want to split the court decision in regards to the public accommodation laws that prohibited discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation and the First Amendment's right that granted exercise of free speech. The New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) clearly prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. Elane Photography, LLC as a business entity working in the State of New Mexico is subject to this enacted law, even though categorizing of photographic services as a public accommodation would invite another debate since it does not fit all the descriptions of public accommodation guidance in prior US Supreme

Equal access to justice is when all citizens are able to receive solutions from institutions of justice for problems relating to human rights. I believe there will never be equal access to justice as there are large costs involved in lawsuits. If citizens are unable to pay these fees then they are offered lawyers who do not represent them effectively. Also, citizens do not often know their rights as they are not informed due to a poor legal framework. The true criminals are high profile businessmen and people who are financially capable of affording the top lawyers. I feel this is true as they are given a better access to justice, because of their financial status. Criminals on the other hand, are subjected to class inequality as there is very

First affirmative action refers to policies offering compensation to groups formerly targeted for discrimination and identified along social cleavages - racial groups in the United States and South Africa, and religious groups in Northern Ireland. Affirmative action is a federally mandated program for federal contractors as it relates to employment. Civil rights result from a series of federal and state civil rights laws and provide protection from discrimination and harassment on a variety of bases, including race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, religion and veteran status. Diversity can be defined in many ways, including diversity of thought, experiences, and backgrounds. Together, all three can contribute to a more welcoming. Affirmative action helps create a level playing field that gives everyone an equal opportunity to compete for a job and career. It ensures that no person is disadvantaged or treated unfairly during the hiring process because of their race, ethnicity or gender. It is about fairness and justice for all. Who could be against that? “For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company written personnel policies”3333 The affirmative action rules have to be