The Rights Of Lgbt Individuals

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 controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

A family who resides in Indiana displays their concern, “As a mother, I am here to protect, provide for, and nurture my children – that’s always my priority.” Recently, when in search for a pediatrician to care for their girls, they were in fear that someone might not provide the service because two moms were raising the girls ("What is RFRA?")." In this case, can a person really deny this service due to their religious belief? Provided that, yes, a "for profit" business can reject such services. “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding (Senate Bill 568).” Given that, a "for-profit can deny service to a homosexual or a person with a different religion.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), “the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining when states were allowed to support religious accommodations, making it permissible when the law served a “secular legislative purpose;” when the law did not promote or impede religious interests, and when the law would not create ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”(P. R. Lockhart, 2016)

The state of Mississippi is taking a step back into the past. The new lesbian, gay, bio-sexual, and transgender law is a law that gives business owners the right to refuse service based on religious objections. House bill 1523: it protects a specific group of beliefs that are commonly expressed by religious conservatives. Second, it states that marriage must be limited to one woman and one man. Sexual activity between two persons is restricted to married couples. Gender is defined at birth by anatomy and genetics. Finally, the bill allows religious organizations, and their employees, for-profit companies, and their employees, and state employees to freely refuse goods, and services to anyone if it would conflict with their sincerely held

Either you allow everyone, even the most extreme and ugly people, to have the choice to exercise their preferences (Meyer & Bayer, 2013). Or you allow no one to. These are the only ways to achieve equality. Either everyone has the right to refuse service or discriminate for whatever reason. Or no one does. You can’t have it both ways and call that equality. Furthermore, it is not an exercise of religion to deny service. That is an exercise of choice or preference. Let’s say the KKK wanted a cake for an event, and they asked a black baker to make it. Perhaps they wanted the black baker to put a message on the cake: “Keeping America White”. Would anyone have a problem with the black baker turning down the job? I certainly wouldn’t. But what if a black man came into a bakery owned by a white supremacist, and the black man, or a member of the LGBT community came into a very religious bakery and was refused service? Most of us have a knee-jerk reaction that says racism is just lame. And we’re right. It is. But really the only way to decide this thing and maintain freedom and equality is to extend the same rights of refusal to everyone, for any

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

couple for their wedding. The owner of Arlene’s Flowers, Barronelle Stutzman, had sold to the couple in the past, but she would not sell them flowers for their wedding. The couple, Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll, sued Stutzman for discrimination. Stutzman argued that her religious beliefs prevented her from selling flowers to the couple, and that as her flower arrangements were “artistic expression,” the government could not regulate her business interactions (Johnson). The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Freed and Ingersoll, saying, “A florist who refused to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding cannot claim religious belief as a defense under the state’s

In 2012, gay couple Craig and Mullins, asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, located in Colorado, to make them a wedding cake. The Owner, Jack Phillips, denied them the cake, saying that it went against his religion, Christianity. In response the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, they filed discrimination based on sexual orientation, under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). This law prohibits businesses from discriminating against a person based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation. This resulted in the court case, Craig V. Masterpiece Cakeshop. In response to the case the Administrative Law Judge, wrote a response in support of Craig and Mullins.After hearing the facts, Colorado Civil Rights Commission sided with Craig and Mullins, saying that Phillips cannot deny service based on sexual orientation. As a result the cake shop was to make same- sex marriage wedding cakes, retrain their staff, and give quarterly reports.

The florist knew that her customer was gay from the beginning, so eventually the day will come where he decides to get married and asks her to design the flowers. I don’t think that it is right to refuse to do something for someone just because they are gay. The two guys are human and deserve to be treated the same as any other couple getting married. They have feelings just like everyone else and anyone who got treated like that would be upset like they were. I think religious beliefs should be put aside when running a business otherwise there’s always going to be problems which can cause the business to eventually

On Feb. 17, Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo went to Kern’s Bake Shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding. After the Christian owners turned down the order, the gay couple went to the press and accused the Delormes of discrimination, according to Breitbart.

While religious liberties does not protect people from other people’s religious beliefs, it still does not mean they get to be discriminated against. It also does not mean that people should be allowed to deny goods to people of different religions or deprive them of their rights. Religious liberties should stay in place the way the are in the government but, there should be a way that everyone is allowed to believe in whatever religion they would like to but no one is being discriminated against for believing in their own

In July 2012 a same sex couple went to a local cake shop known as Masterpiece cakeshop. The couple (Charlie craig and David Mullins) requested a cake to be made for their upcoming wedding but were refused service based on the fact that they were a homosexual couple. The couple decided to press charges on the shop based on discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. Following the attempted charges the division issued a notice of probable cause; Craig and mullins then filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of

The govt. dictates to small businesses that they have to do business with customers, even if in conflict with their conscience or religious beliefs, ignoring the civil rights of the business owner. Are the businesses that refuse service to patrons that don’t wear shoes or shirts because of their cultural beliefs in violation of their civil rights?

To begin with, Ezekiel did in fact have the right to deny service to the newly married gay couple, Chad and Rufus. Although according the case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, the government, with the help of the Commerce Clause found in the constitution, can force small business owners to abide by the civil rights act of 1964. Businesses cannot discriminate based upon race, country of origin, religion, gender, or color. However, the LGBT community is not a suspect class and therefore are not protected under the civil rights act of 1964, because it is classified as sexual preference, not gender. The first amendment allows freedom of religion; but, it is not absolute. The civil rights act of 1964 states the exceptions and the LGBT community does not make the list. There is no federal law protecting against the discrimination of LGBT community members. Because of this, the agents had no right to be at Ezekiel’s restaurant. He was simply doing what he thought was right by denying service. Chad and Rufus could have gone somewhere else.