More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination in the united states
Burwell v. hobby lobby case analysis
Recent national policy initiative promoting anti – discrimination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This Hobby Lobby case was decided totally upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that became law in 1993. The problem is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores is one of the demonstration that anti-discrimination regulations can practically induce heightened discrimination than they inhibit. This regulation, RFRA has effectively worked to protect that several anti-discrimination laws. However, Regulations that target religion on purpose are and should be legally suspect, but the RFRA progress more and more, empowering intentional omissions to laws that oppress religious activities. The RFRA menaces rational set of laws, including Unite States Constitution and Amendments forbidding discrimination against other
unprotected members who are women employees in this case. Hobby Lobby claimed that the precondition to offer its employees with health insurance coverage for contraceptives should have relevance to employer's religious faith. However, rejecting to support it can be discrimination by ruling medical coverage out that only women need and by mediately restraining atheistic or different religious employees to take action at work. Religious faith is as diverse as ideological convictions, and the law does not allow juries to select and opt which religions to keep. Some religious dogmas defend suppression of women, racism like anti-Islamism or anti-Semitism, and a caste system as strict social hierarchy. Should we follow those inhumane beliefs for the simple reason that owner of company has particular religion? administration’s concern for prohibition on discrimination is enough to enables the laws to survive from constitutional conflicts, however, in terms of religious freedom, anti-discrimination laws are threatened. Eventually, Hobby Lobby case completely restricts the Affordable Care Act rights. There is alternative plan to solve problem about birth control issue at Christian corporations. Women employee who are relatively discriminated against particular believer could receive the insurance coverage for contraceptives at public cost. Administration could offer public employment for people who are aggrieved and underprivileged by discriminatory owners and companies. It could be brilliant solution to resolve some adverse effects such as reverse discriminatory laws and precedents based on RFRA and Hobby Lobby case. In practice, however, with a limit budget and political issues between Republicans and Democrats are the major problems. Therefore, finding efficient ways to use limited financial resources and an effort to political consensus are top priority for the U.S. to protect women's rights to choose.
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
According to the court case on Pam Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am in agreement with the fact that the “district court granted summary judgment in favor of Huber” (Morgan, p.413) and that Wal-Mart gave Pam Huber, a maintenance associated job due to her disability. In doing so, I am also in agreement with the fact that Wal-Mart did not breach the American with Disability Act of 1990 due to the fact that Wal-Mart specifically stated what was required of Pam Huber to do on the job. Due to that, I am in agreement with Wal-Mart’s decision to hire a capable candidate in replace of Pam Huber due to their policy.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Overviewing the case of Snyder v. Phelps it could be easily misconstrued about who was at fault morally rather than coming to a conclusion according to federal law. From thoroughly investigating the case it is infact accurate that Fred Phelps and his following a Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka,Kansas focus and actively execute their ideas about God’s supposed hatred for the United States,and their tolerance of homosexuals.Particularly, the congregation focuses on homosexuality within the military and exercises their opinion by protesting their public opinion alongside military funerals to get their point across.
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
It has been suggested that there is currently a culture war taking place in the United States. Depending on who you listen to, you will get vastly different descriptions of the two sides. Some will insist that the fight is between the upholders of strong Christian, moral values and godless, secular-minded, moral relativists. Others will tell you that defenders of religious freedom and rational thought are battling religious fundamentalists who wish to impose their radically conservative views on the whole of the American populace. Regardless of which way you view the debate, the entire so-called “culture war” boils down to a basic disagreement over the place of religion in public life. In light of President Bush’s recent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I believe it is prudent to have a thorough discussion of the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, because how the Supreme Court rules on issues related to this principle in the future will have a profound impact on how we define ourselves as a country. In order to conduct a thorough inquiry into this debate, I believe it is necessary to start at the beginning and attempt to discern how our founding fathers viewed religion’s place in public life, and how they relayed this view in the First Amendment. After I have done this, I will try to apply some of the principles I have gathered to current hot-button social issues which are likely to come before the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.
An American’s right to religious worship is valued tremendously, thus making the first Amendment ve...
The incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to Civil Liberties is one of the longest and most important constitutional debates of all time. Though the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, the Supreme Court rendered their first interpretation of its scope five years later. The Court supported the Privileges and Immunities Clause by a narrow 5-4 vote. This clause was later thought to be the regular basis of enforcing individual citizen’s rights and civil liberties. The development in understanding and the provision for protection of one such liberty, freedom of religion, has changed throughout the history of the United States. Evidence of this can be seen not only in the role government has played but also through several court cases.
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.
In my opinion, the author supporting the baker has a better argument. One of the reasons that makes Richard's argument better is that he doesn't use superfluous examples and information. The case is about sexual-discrimination and most of the examples that both authors use does not comply the context of the argument. However, Richard brings up a better example that I can relate to in order to compare the two arguments of the "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission". Both authors gave a different example of how the conversation between the baker and the customers went. One claimed that the baker was kind enough to give the couple direction to
Can you blatantly ignore a religion and make sure they don’t get any government funding for their schools because of their religious status? Is it constitutional to ignore drug laws because it is a person’s religious belief to use them in their practice? In this essay I will show through the Framer’s papers, early political debates and various Supreme Court cases to show why establishment clause and free exercise clause were put into the Constitution in order to “building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State.”
...nvolving for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby Inc. is one of the plaintiffs. David Green and his family are the owners and say their Christian beliefs clash with parts of the laws’ mandates for comprehensive coverage. Companies that refuse to provide the coverage could be fined up to $1.3 million daily. The Obama administration has defended the law and federal officials say they have already created rules exempting certain nonprofits and religiously affiliated organizations from the requirements. The cases accepted by the Supreme Court were Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.