An entrepreneur chooses to run their business based upon their own morals, values, and beliefs. However, in recent years, the controversy has arisen that if business owners refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their sexuality is considered discriminatory. Throughout this essay, I will first describe how this issue has arose, give detailed examples of why it has developed, predict the extent of this issue in the future and create my policy implementing that All business owners reserve the right to refuse a service based upon a person’s sexuality if the owner feels as if their religious freedom is violated.
When entering a restaurant there is usually a sign that says, “no shoes, no shirt, no service.” Is it fair for a business …show more content…
First, in the case Ingersoll v. Arlenese Flowers, a business owner named Barronelle Stuzman, refused to give her service of floral arrangements for the gay couples wedding because it goes against her beliefs. The couple had been customers of Stutzman's shop for nine years, but when they asked her to provide flowers for their wedding, the florist declined, citing her "relationship with Jesus Christ (Kaplan 2015). The court ruled that Stuzman, was violating discrimination laws put into place in. Stuzman appealed to the Supreme Court where they affirmed the lower court’s ruling. However, Stuzman is not giving up, as she is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. After analyzing this case, I decided to look from an insider point of view. Marriage in the Christian religion is between one man and one woman. As Stuzman was taught these values growing up, it would be difficult to go against her own morals. Another business owner refused to give their service in a similar scenario. A photographer in New Mexico, was asked by a gay couple to photograph their wedding However, the photographer refused and noted that she did not agree with same sex marriage, but she would happily photograph gay customer, but not if the photographs were related to marriage. She argued that she was exercising her right of free speech (Barnes 2014). The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in Elane Photography v. Willock that not allowing a service to a gay couple is considered discriminatory. Many of the business owners that have refused a service to the LGBT community argued that statues should be put into place which provide enhanced religious liberty protections (Riley
When entering a restaurant there is usually a sign that says, “no shoes, no shirt, no service.” Is it fair for a business …show more content…
First, in the case Ingersoll v. Arlenese Flowers, a business owner named Barronelle Stuzman, refused to give her service of floral arrangements for the gay couples wedding because it goes against her beliefs. The couple had been customers of Stutzman's shop for nine years, but when they asked her to provide flowers for their wedding, the florist declined, citing her "relationship with Jesus Christ (Kaplan 2015). The court ruled that Stuzman, was violating discrimination laws put into place in. Stuzman appealed to the Supreme Court where they affirmed the lower court’s ruling. However, Stuzman is not giving up, as she is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. After analyzing this case, I decided to look from an insider point of view. Marriage in the Christian religion is between one man and one woman. As Stuzman was taught these values growing up, it would be difficult to go against her own morals. Another business owner refused to give their service in a similar scenario. A photographer in New Mexico, was asked by a gay couple to photograph their wedding However, the photographer refused and noted that she did not agree with same sex marriage, but she would happily photograph gay customer, but not if the photographs were related to marriage. She argued that she was exercising her right of free speech (Barnes 2014). The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in Elane Photography v. Willock that not allowing a service to a gay couple is considered discriminatory. Many of the business owners that have refused a service to the LGBT community argued that statues should be put into place which provide enhanced religious liberty protections (Riley