Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Same sex marriage morality
Ethics and morals in same sex marriage
Freedom of religion and law suits and gay marriage
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Same sex marriage morality
FIRMS BALK AT GAY WEDDINGS
BY NATHAN KOPPEL AND ASHBY JONES
Hadassah Vargas
May 4, 2014
BUSN 120
The main Ethical Dilemma identified in the article is “Wedding Business Service provider refuse to provide services to same-sex marriages on religious basis is anti-discrimination.” There is no evidence in law of antidiscrimination to prove that refusal of services from any company is mean to be antidiscrimination. First of all, it is not an anti-discrimination act but the religious belief, secondly it is clearly written in the law that anti-discrimination legislation has exemption on religious basis [1]. According to article:
"There are plenty of florists who could provide arrangements for same-sex weddings," said lawyer of Ms. Stutzman; a florist, Dale Schowengerdt. "The state has no good reason to cause my client to violate her own conscience."
Similar things happened to Cake-maker Jack Phillips in July 2012, argues that “Selling cakes to same-sex marriages would violets his right to free expression” [2]. This means that enforcing business person to give services unwontedly is the violation of another law “Freedom of Expression”
Bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein have said they serve customers regardless of their sexual orientation but do not want to provide services for same-sex weddings because of their religious beliefs which means going in same-sex wedding is to be promoting them. It is clear from their statement that there is no discrimination among the customer.
Recently, Kensas House approved a bill allowing service refusal to same-sex couples. State Rep. Charles Macheers, R-Shawnee, said on the House floor that his bill prevents discrimination. “Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civiliz...
... middle of paper ...
...eferred to as “conscience clauses.” Robin Fretwell Wilson, Matters of Conscience: Lessons for Same-Sex Marriage from the Healthcare Context, in SAMESEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: EMERGING CONFLICTS (Anthony R. Picarello Jr., Douglas Laycock, and Robin Fretwell Wilson, eds., 2008).
2. Denvor post editorial board, 2013, No right to refuse gay couple’s wedding cake, http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake
3. The Wichita Eagle, Feb 12,2014, Kensas House passes bill allowing service refusal to gay couples, http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/12/4817862/kansas-house-approves-response.html
4. Martha C. White, 2013, Wedding Companies that shun gays feel impact, for better or worse, Business News, NBCNEWS, http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wedding-companies-shun-gays-feel-impact-better-or-worse-f8C11391280
If the line is clearly drawn in the sand between church and state it will ultimately be for the betterment of many. Members of the clergy will no longer fear the repercussions of performing marriages for the select homosexual couples who wish to be joined in their church of their choosing. Moody states one catholic priest said: “We can bless a dog, we can bless a boat, but we can’t say a prayer over two people who love each other.” (355) The sacrament of marriage will forever be a topic not everyone can agree upon but as history proves change is inevitability a spoke on a wheel that will constantly be moving forward.
Wolf, Richard. “Timeline: Same-Sex marriage through the years.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 26 June 2015,
Stern, Mark J. "Kansas' Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination." Slate Magazine. 01 Mar. 2014.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
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
Early April 2016, North Carolina passed a law restricting governments from passing laws that are discriminatory. This law is intended to protect Transgender people from discrimination. Discrimination against Transgenders is against the law, and it has stirred up arguments throughout the nation. With more and more people standing up against discrimination regarding Transgenders, the debate about Transgenders is now nationwide. Unfortunately, Transgenders still continue to face public discrimination due to misinformation and misleading statements from the media.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
Throughout the recent history of America, gay marriage has always been an issue. With the different views and morals everyone has on the subject, it makes it hard for individual states to determine what side they should be on. In 1983 a Harvard Law School student, Evan Wolfson, wrote a thesis stating the rule of marriage equality. Justices concluded that gay couples were entitled to the legal benefits of civil marriage; and most crucially in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, whose favorable ruling, in a suit by lawyer Mary Bonauto and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders, led to the nation’s first bona fide same-sex marriages…” (“Gay Marriage turns 10 and Credit Should Be Spread around- The Boston Globe). On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages. In June of 2013, California legalized gay marriages, which helped their large LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community. (“History and Timeline of the Freedom…”). When this finally happened, it was seen as a great achievement by Karmala Harris, a California Attorney. “This is a profound day in our country, and its just the right thing: ‘Justice is finally being served’” (“Court Gives OK for California Gay Marriages”).
... the government and a majority of states ban homosexual marriage. Although many of these claims tend to be opinions and even falsehoods, the author contributes a strong argument. Many court cases have been issued due to the huge controversy of homosexual marriage. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court concluded “that the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood”(Moss 106). This contradicts with all the rules and regulations that the states place upon marriage and more specifically gay marriage. There have been several cases on the violations of homosexual rights, but laws have not currently been changed so that they have equality in all aspects. In the future, society will hopefully mirror the solution to the 1960’s prohibited interracial marriage and permit homosexual marriage.
1. Joffe, C. Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion Before and After Roe v. Wade. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996
This article tells about how gay marriage and same-sex have always been an issue but now that the government people are voicing their opinion to make the world a better place for everyone. June 26, 2015 was the biggest day in the history for same-sex couple because that when the Supreme Court ruled that “gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states” (Citiation). This article gives the liberal side of gay marriage in comparison to the conservative side. The number one pro of the legalization of gay marriage is “denying some people the option to marry is discriminatory and creates a second class of citizens” (Citiation). Even with splitting people up based on who they want to marry and be with is like creating another class of people the United States is not equal in many other situations so by making another class because you want to be different should not be an issue. Another pro and con about gay marriage is, “same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples”; marriage should not define a person with what benefits they have if they are straight or gay if a person is happy with the same gander as them than why is that an issue. I think this website give great example of each side and do not favor one side more than the
North Carolina’s discriminatory HB2 law is extremely disappointing, and it takes away some of the LGBT community’s most basic rights and protections” (Smith). I completely agree with Jonas, Lovato and Springsteen. This law needs to be abolished very soon. There should be a law implementing gender neutral bathrooms everywhere, so transgender people can feel comfortable and safe, no matter where they are. Transgender people should have the right to go to work, not feel discriminated against, and be able to use the bathroom safely.
Stoddard, T, Fein, B, (Jan. 1990) Gay Marriage, Personal relationships, Marriage, Legislation, Homosexuality, American Bar Association, (Pages 42, 42)
In order to address this issue, one must first define the concept or meaning of marriage. However, this is a rather subjective approach, because the way we define marriage depends on our own views and interpretations.
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.