Washington Vs. Arlene's Flowers: Case Study

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 case study, we will analyze a franchising restaurant company, Chick-Fil-A who was accused to discriminate LGBTs. Although there is no documentary record for their discrimination of homosexual people, there are still some things they done had been seen as discrimination. In this case study, we will identify what their problem is. Then we will base on the knowledge which we learnt in class to find out a solution for their problem.

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

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.

In the United States, LGBT rights have been expanded by landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Between 1996 and 2015, the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowed protected class recognition based on homosexuality and made same-sex marriage legal on a federal level. Justice Kennedy played a pivotal role in expanding the rights of gays and lesbians over the years through specific legal rationale that insists upon protection of LGBT rights. On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinions oppose expanded constitutional protections for gays and lesbians. In order to understand the evolution of LGBT rights, it is crucial to analyze the opinions from Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas,

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

GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer) rights and issues have increasingly been found in the news over the past couple decades. With the United States Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage recently, there will be more barriers for GLBTQ people to break through. Just like any other couple in preparations for a wedding and reception, GLBTQ couples need to buy dresses, tuxedos, cakes, etc. These preparations have been trying for some of the couples, because the businesses they have tried to patronize do not want to service them, because it goes against the businesses’ religious beliefs. In this current event paper, I will review the article; state its relevance, share my opinion, and discuss consequences.

In this paper you will learn about the Chick-Fil-A controversy that affected the LGBT community and conservative communities alike. We will go over what ethics they brought into play during this time and how they affectively handled themselves after the fact.

The U.S Supreme will be hearing this case and should side with Craig and his Fiancé as they are victims of such discrimination. The owner should not have refused to make a couple simply because in his eyes same-sex marriage is a sin. “ No one

The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates back to the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights. In 1971 the case Baker v. Nelson ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples did not violate the U.S. Constitution. But as the subject of same sex marriage became increasingly prominent in the U.S., in 1993, the case Baehr v. Lewin suggested that such prohibition might be unconstitutional. The United States is the land of the free and freedom means equality, but for decades marriage was a denied right for the LGBTQ community. The nation’s “constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need no wait legislative action before asserting a fundamental right” (Obergefell v. Hodges 533), therefore under the fourteenth amendment which protects fundamental liberties “states [had] to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State” (Obergefell v. Hodges 533). The United States was founded on the term “men,” the men that abhors the idea of femininity.

The recent Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage has made history by making marriage a constitutional right between two consenting adults as opposed to the traditional and prevalently accepted definition that strictly extends marriage to only two people of the opposite gender. This decision has expanded the circle of liberty and has created a more perfect union. As a reaction to the decision, many same sex couples, homosexuals and gay rights activists have celebrated while the religious and more conservative Americans spoke out against the decision. Many conservatives expressed their concerns about the potential consequences that would ensue on religious folks that refuse to serve same sex couples in their business venues or work

The sample in this report came from eighteen random business in West Hollywood and Hollywood area. It ranged from local retailers to chains such as Ramada and Starbucks. The sample includes male and female managers, associates, and business owners answering survey questions. The survey included demographic questions such as age, eduction level, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. The survey also had questions on how Proposition 8 could have had an affect on business. The survey included eleven male and seven female participants.

On the one hand, Koppel and Jones’s mentioning the Fifth Amendment clearly works in favor of the sexual minorities and their right to be married, seeing how in a range of states, legal regulations “ban businesses from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation” (Koppel & Jones, 2013, October 2, p. A3). On the other hand, making staff provide services to the people whose marriage is contrary to the staff’s beliefs can be seen as the staff’s rights infringement. This duty-based dilemma is clearly one of the hardest to solve. However, of all the arguments, the given one is clearly the weakest, seeing how in the choice between one’s right to be treated equally and one’s right to have personal preferences, the former is obviously the superior one.

What if someone refused to provide services to someone’s wedding? What if the business refused someone’s request, not because of a shortage of supplies, but because they don’t want to affiliate with someone’s wedding in any way due to their religious beliefs? More and more cases have occurred when a business refused to provide a cake or flowers to a same-sex couple’s wedding. It is not O.K. to refuse to serve same-sex couples based on one’s religious beliefs because businesses have a responsibility to serve everyone, anti-discrimination laws are not a violation of a person's First Amendment rights as some may argue, and refusing gays for religious reasons is a form of discrimination.