Religious Practices and Business Discrimination

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The freedom of religion and associated protections have for the longest time been a part of the US constitution and an important part of people’s lives. As a country largely basing its legislation on the democratic desires of the many, American law has to ensure that the majority of the country’s citizens can properly exercise their rights and beliefs. Following this, some individuals think that their religious beliefs should also guide their business decisions, as well as how they organize their business. This subject, however, becomes contentious when a person decides to discriminate against others based on their religion. While the right of a particular individual to hold beliefs that are in opposition to other groups is perfectly legal and accepted, the practice of denying service or discriminating against customers based on some aspects of their being is a more contentious subject.

Currently, the precedent for such situations is shaky, with two major cases in public record leaning much more firmly to the prohibition of religious beliefs as a justification for discrimination. By the existing information on this subject, however, there are no substantial circumstances where discrimination can be justifiable by religious belief. In both Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 and State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, Case No. 91615-2, one party have denied another service based on their adherence to their religious beliefs (Ingersoll & Freed V. ARLENE’S Flowers, Inc.). The decisions made in both of these lawsuits regarding the legality of this action were the same, initially, with the first one being overturned by the court later (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission). Currently, it is difficult to say with certainty that religion-based discrimination is prohibited, but the evidence seems to lean heavily in that direction.