Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination in the us today
Discrimination in the us today
Discrimination in the us today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discrimination in the us today
Christian business owners today are increasingly faced with a great moral dilemma—what to do when the law requires them to contradict their own personal or religious convictions. Should business owners be required to provide specific services to same sex couples if this union goes against their religious beliefs? This debate has led to court decisions that must determine what rights business owners have to deny services based on their religious beliefs. This is the question that is being considered in the case of Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock. Elane Photography denied their wedding photography services to a same-sex couple because it went against their spiritual values. Thus, the courts had to decide if this act violated anti-discrimination …show more content…
Hobby Lobby provides another example of a case that involves the defense of religious liberty. In this case, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, thereby not requiring them to provide the government-mandated contraceptives which included four potentially life-ending drugs. They held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was violated because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the ‘least restrictive means’ of furthering a compelling governmental interest” (Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services et. al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et. al., 2014) This case is differentiated from the Elane Photography case because it did not involve a question of discrimination. Thus, it would likely not have changed the ruling of that case. However, the Hobby Lobby case will have important implications for many other pending lawsuits involving non-profit religious organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor ("Hobby Lobby Ruling," …show more content…
al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et. al., 13 USSC 354 (2014). Elane Photography LLC v. Vanessa Willock, 309 NMSC 53 (NM 2013). Gershman, J., & Audi, T. (2015). Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Cake for Gay Couple. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296 Kenworthy, B. (2012). Photography and the First Amendment. Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment New Mexico Human Resources Act, § 28 1-7 (2006) Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities, 42 U.S.C. § 12182. (Legal Information Institute). Schmitz, A. (2012). The Legal Environment and Business Law (Executive M.B.A. Edition v. 1.10 ed.). [Adobe PDF]. Retrieved from
...gain ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause. These cases include Murray v. Baltimore School Board, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Stone v. Graham. It also set the grounds for the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which set up the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a religious function is Constitutional or not.
Hobby Lobby is fighting up the Supreme Court ladder to ensure that they do not have to provide contraception coverage to its many employees in their 560 different stores across the United States.
The issue that is at hand is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is being violated, which says that the federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a corporation the ability to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners. But the debate over the legitimacy of the case has ripped a path all the way to the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby argues intensely that they should be exempt from certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, because of the owners Mennonite religious beliefs and practices. What is at risk here isn't just the freedom of religion, but about power over one’s health care.
According to the Census Bureau, “the United States has more than 310 million people” (Tannahill 2012). Even though the United States is founded on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there are various subjects that can often spark a heated debate among Americans. In a society and government that is vastly changing by the year, heated debates over various subjects including gay marriage, women’s rights, religious rights, etc. are often discussed due to multiracial, multiethnic, and religious differences among citizens. In recent months, the ruling made on June 30, 2014 by the Supreme Court in the particular case of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell has created controversy for the sense that many battle
The court should decide to make the owner make the cake anyways. Because the cake shop is not a private one, whatever happened to the separation of church and state? If Jack C. Phillips can make a cake for a straight couple. Why not a same sex couple? Love
Do your employers’ religious beliefs interfere with your life, or does your life interfere with your employers religious practices? You probably will have the same religious beliefs, as your employer, if you work at a church or some other religious organization. However, imagine you are a women employee who works for a closely held, for-profit company, such as Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby provides health insurance, but does not cover your birth control, due to the business’ religious beliefs, and the lawsuit they won. Do you agree with their decision or do you believe they are treating you unfairly, because they are not giving you the full privilege of health care coverage, disregarding your employer’s religious beliefs? With
First, it is imperative to comprehend the implications of the case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. This court case is still in litigation and pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), religious freedom, and woman’s access to contraceptives. The ACA requires all insurance companies to cover forms of female birth control. The ACA also requires l...
I agree with the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case. Corporations should be seen as people and have the same civil rights as them. A previous court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) supported that corporations and unions have the same rights as individuals under the First Amendment1. Hobby Lobby is arguing that they will not provide insurance coverage for women to have abortions or for emergency contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby, David Green and his family have an Evangelical Christian background which prohibits abortion in their religion. In a Christian background, fertilization is when an egg meets a sperm2. So the Green family believes nothing should be allowed to interfere once the baby is created through
The religious freedom of the country was threatened by the Employment Division v. Smith case because this case took away the qualification that you prove that the law against the religious act be of compelling interest to the state. The RFRA was issued to reinstate the qualifications for laws against religious freedoms. The changes this Act has brought are already significant. During the three years prior to RFRA -- between the time that the Smith decision was handed down (1990) and RFRA was enacted (1993) -- there have been approximately 60 cases which have relied on the Smith decision. All of them were decided against the free exercise or First Amendment claims.
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Supreme Court in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby (2014), in which the Court ruled 5-4 against the application of the contraception mandate to “closely-held corporations” (such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties) with strong religious objections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (and not the First Amendment) as the basis for the decision. Justice Alito contended that there is a compelling state interest in providing a full range of contraception options, but the forms of contraception deemed unacceptable on religious grounds by Hobby Lobby and others could be provided to employees through “less-restrictive means” (e.g., government provision) that do not burden their rights of free exercise of religion. In a sharply-worded dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the degree to which for-profit companies can exercise a religious right in refusing to provide contraception coverage, particularly since such companies employ a wide variety of people including those who do not share the same religious beliefs. In the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision, there has been an intense back-and-forth between proponents and opponents of the decision, and the contraception mandate promises to continue to be a major bone of contention in American politics for the immediate
In his article “Sacred Rite or Civil Right?” Howard Moody tackles the controversial issue of the definition of marriage and inclusion of same-sex marriage into that definition. The real issue that takes center stage is the not so clear separation between the church and the state. Moody, an ordained Baptist minister, shares his belief that it’s only a matter of time that civil law is once again redefined and homosexual marriage is recognized just as much as heterosexual marriage. The gay marriage debate he suggests isn’t focused on the relationship between such couples and is more about how to define such unions as a “marriage”. (353)
The LGBTQIA community has faced strong opposition from groups falling outside this minority for years, primarily conservative and religious groups. This phenomenon is not particular to the United States, but spans hundreds of countries across the world. Religious leaders in varying religions not only oppose the act of marriage, but often times oppose the actual act of homosexual behavior. Often religious oppositionist will cite religious text, like the Bible as a means of opposing the LGBTQIA lifestyle. One of the most blatant oppositions to homosexual b...
... Case may Determine Direction of Church-State Law." Church & State 62.10 (2009): 220-2. Web.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.