I need of (2) substantive replies to (2) different post. BUSN 311 Law and Ethics in the Business Environment. Topic:

Constitutional Law

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 gay rights, a perception it since has tried to reverse. This news article briefly summarizes the Chick-fil-A controversy.

The subject of gay 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 overrode Colorado’s discrimination laws requiring equal access of service to the public. For this Forum, consider this case: the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 (2018). Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. was a small bakery, whose owner refused to create and sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding because the marriage was against his religious beliefs.

• Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case. Do you agree with the Court’s decision? Explain.
• Compare the outcome of this case to the Court’s finding of race discrimination under the Commerce Clause in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)
• Do you agree that a business entity (other than a sole proprietorship) should have the same First Amendment rights as individual human citizens? Why or why not?
• Readings to assist you with this Discussion are listed in Additional Readings for Week 3 under Content.

**Discuss these questions and other views you wish to offer.**

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

Peer replies to further the conversation

25 points

Student replied to at least two (2) classmates’ posts and each reply includes at least three (3) to four (4) sentences relating the classmate’s post to at least one (1) question/point of the Discussion Prompt.

Forum Post 1:

Hello Class,

Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case. Do you agree with the Court’s decision?

I have never heard about this case that we analyzed in this week’s discussion. Furthermore, when reviewing the given readings and other outside research, the court system ruled in favor of the bakery owner Jack Phillips. The court looked at the protection of gays as well as the owner’s First Amendment rights. Though many looked at this discriminatory case as a clear violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Phillips was trying to protect his First Amendment rights; Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at this particular point in time.

Justice Gorsuch believed the product was not relevant because the cake its self did not celebrate same-sex marriage. Moreover, Jack did not want to be forced into designing or adding any imagery that represented same-sex because it contradicted his own personal religious beliefs. The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips, specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination. The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow-up from the court’s decision three years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide (Vogue, 2018). Though I am a Christian man, I do not believe that justice was served. If couples are in love and are doing no harm or bothering others, they should be treated equally and be able to have a cake made so they, too, can celebrate their marriage. Same-sex marriage is against Christianity; however, in my opinion, I do not agree with the fact that making a pastry should be seen as a significant violation of the Christianity community. I am a firm believer in a quote I once heard, which is, those who are in love let love.

–

Compare the outcome of this case to the Court’s finding of race discrimination under the Commerce Clause in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

This was yet another case that sickens me. Though there were unfortunate racial segregation laws (mainly Jim Crow laws), it virtually impossible for African Americans to live in peace. This restaurant was in clear violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act); the Commerce Clause also forbids all racial discrimination. Furthermore, after extensive research conducted, I found that because regardless of the fact that the District Court issued an injunction restraining the appellant city from enforcing the Act against the restaurant, specific parts of the law will place restaurants that are selling food for eating under the Act if it indeed offers to serve interstate travelers or if the products served, have moved into commerce.

This was a historic loss for the restaurant owner ended up being a landmark in desegregation amongst African Americans and made a statement to the other restaurants.

In comparison, Jack Phillips allegedly just wanted his First Amendment to be heard and respected; because of his win, the restaurant owner of Ollie’s Barbeque should have gotten the same result from the court system. Both cases were discriminatory under the law and they should have had a different outcome; if you own a business, you should not be able to turn away paying customers over their race, color, gender, or any other noticeable attributes. Overall, discrimination can be seen clear as day. There was no fair and equal treatment in both cases (though both were wrong), even though one case did win. Regardless of the various laws within the First Amendment, I feel as if there are many subjective views among the court judges that will ultimately determine the outcome.

Do you agree that a business entity (other than a sole proprietorship) should have the same First Amendment rights as individual human citizens? Why or why not?

Another controversial topic is if businesses should have similar rights as human citizens. I do not think they should, for the simple fact that they are supposed to continuously maintain a professional image; they also are subject to adhering to various laws. The court system has been trying to expand rights for many organizations. Perhaps the most impactful decision on the matter was in the 2010 Citizens United V. FEC ruling, which in a 5-4 decision granted corporations First Amendment rights, ruling that corporate political spending was protected speech (Fagan, 2019). Chick-fil-A is an excellent example of how much backlash a business will obtain when utilizing their First Amendment. Being discriminatory to gays will impact the company’s sales, reputation, and most definitely, they will end up in various litigations.

Another example would be when Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil and Gas Corporation, was discovered concealing corporate knowledge of its business’ “catastrophic” impact on the health of the planet while dismissing these claims publicly. In response, the company argued it had a First Amendment right to not speak (Fagan, 2019). These are just some examples of why corporations should not have the same rights as human citizens.

–

Reference:

Vogue, A. (2018, June 04). Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiec…

Fagan, S. (2019, April 10). 5 Reasons We Need an Amendment to Say Corporations Aren’t People. Retrieved from https://americanpromise.net/blog/2019/04/10/5-reas…

Post 2:

Hello Everyone,

Assume that, as in earlier cases, there were no relevant statutes and no settlement of employment. Courts relying on a holding or precedent that “employers can also fire employees for any reason or no

cause” may rule in opposition to a worker searching for compensation for being fired for

telling the truth at the witness stand. Or it might make an exception to the overall rule, along with, “Employers might also typically discharge employees for any reason or for no motive without incurring legal liability; however, employers will incur legal liability for firing an employee who refuses to lie on behalf of the corporation in a courtroom intending.”

In every case (the overall rule and its exception), the common-regulation culture calls for the court to explain the reasons for its ruling. within the case of the general rule, “freedom of choice” might be the essential purpose. in the case of the perjury exception, the efficiency of the judicial system and the necessities of citizenship might be used as reasons. because the courtroom’s “motives” can be persuasive to some and no longer to others, there is inevitably a degree of subjectivity to judicial opinions. this is reasonable people will disagree as to the persuasiveness of the reasoning a court can also offer for its selection.