Need help with your Assignment?

Get a timely done, PLAGIARISM-FREE paper
from our highly-qualified writers!

When does the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause justify a discriminatory business practice

When does the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause justify a discriminatory business practice?

The LGBT society also has legal equality matters. Nonetheless, their rights are the right to privacy, freedom of association and speech, and equal protection of the law. They can form political and social organizations to discuss LGBT issues while socializing with freedom of association. Therefore, the Free Exercise Clause is connected to one’s freedom to exercise religion. The clause states that Congress has no power to make any law forbidding the people’s freedom of religion (Legal Information Institute, 2022). In addition, the article about exercising religion freely within the First Amendment justifies a discriminatory business exercise only when Congress fails to create any law that respects the formation of religious convictions. Alternatively, congress forbids this free exercise, restraining the media’s freedom of speech or the citizens’ right to assemble and request the government to amend complaints peacefully.

Therefore, in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission accepted and realized that Philips violated Colorado’s public housing laws forbidding business institutions of discrimination, including sexual orientation (Casemine.com, 2018). As a result, the Colorado Court of Appeal confirmed the commission was ruling against Masterpiece Cakeshop. For the Washington v. State Arlene’s Flowers case, Washington’s Supreme Court approved the ruling of the lower court that the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) never violated the offender’s rights or freedom of speech or religious exercise under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The cake deal never expressed any concerns since it failed to communicate anything to the public. As a result, it did not get any protection from the First Amendment. In addition, WLAD offered an exception/ freedom for religious groups from actions centred on its services. Finally, in the case of Katzenbach v. McClung, 379, it would make a difference if the restaurant owner claimed that discrimination by race was due to his religion (MCCLUNG, 1964). This would make a difference because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits restaurants from segregation (Legal Information Institute, 2022). In addition, the First Amendment states it is unlawful to segregate people based on their race, colour, sex, language, etc., because every person has the right to be free from any sought of discrimination.

References

Casemine.com. (2018). Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, U.S., Judgment, Law,  | https://www.casemine.com. Retrieved 17 August 2022, from https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c100743342cca0d0e4a924e.

Legal Information Institute. (2022). First Amendment: Free Exercise Clause. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 17 August 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause.

MCCLUNG, K. (1964). Katzenbach v. McClung, 379.FindLaw’s the United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Findlaw. Retrieved 17 August 2022, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/379/294.html

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question 


.Many businesses today, as corporate entities other than sole proprietorships, voice their political and social views in various ways. Chick-fil-A is an example of a business that voiced prominent views on the issue of LGBTQ rights, a perception it has since tried to reverse. This news article briefly summarizes the Chick-fil-A controversy.

When does the First Amendment's Free Exercise of Religion Clause justify a discriminatory business practice

When does the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause justify a discriminatory business practice

The subject of LGBTQ rights is an evolving issue of constitutional implications. Another business, a Colorado bakery, stepped into center ring of controversy asserting that First Amendment free exercise of religion must be recognized by the government in the application of discrimination laws.

**QUESTION FOR THIS FORUM DISCUSSION: When does the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause justify a discriminatory business practice?**

In forming your discussion, READ and COMPARE: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 (2018). Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. (a small bakery, whose owner refused to create and sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding because their homosexual marriage was against his religious beliefs) and State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, Case No. 91615-2 (Wash., June 6, 2019)(florist claimed right to deny flowers to same-sex wedding for reason of religion).
In forming your discussion, READ and COMPARE: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 (2018). Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. (a small bakery, whose owner refused to create and sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding because their homosexual marriage was against his religious beliefs) and State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, Case No. 91615-2 (Wash., June 6, 2019)(florist claimed right to deny flowers to same-sex wedding for reason of religion).

ADDITIONAL HELP SOURCES:

Another case you should consider is the Court’s finding of race discrimination under the Commerce Clause in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Would it make a difference if the restaurant owner claimed segregation of the races was required by his religion?

Additional Chick-fil-A reference: Severson, K. (2012, July 25). Chick-fil-A thrust back into the spotlight on gay rights. New York Times.

Order Solution Now