Homosexuality In America

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

The author, Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter of the article, “Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case” states, “The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law.” This complaint was filed after Jack Phillips denied David Mullins and Charlie Craig their wish for a wedding cake. The complaint shows that the baker was violating the state’s law of anti-discrimination, which was wrong to do. The same author, Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter of the article, “Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case” states, “‘This case is about more than us, and it's not about cakes," Mullins said in an interview. "It's about the right of gay people to receive equal service.’”

Mississippi lawmakers on Tuesday called for the repeal of a controversial new law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people based on religious objection. Ellen DeGeneres called it "the definition of discrimination," while singer Bryan Adams canceled his upcoming show in the state to show his opposition to the law.” (Reilly, 2016). Misguided people are being driven by the nose by tricky "Christian" pioneers and legislators who have a personal stake in the matter of ensuring that their assemblies and their constituents remain profoundly and honestly perplexed of the myth of the "gay person plan." Know this: If the LGBTQ people group has any sort of motivation of all, it is achieving the same essential human rights that other people appreciates. That is all. That is the plan. Try not to fall for some other clarification of it. Gay people are not after your children. They are not attempting to change over you or change you. They are not worried with being comprehended as much as they are worried with being dealt with like some other person has the privilege to be dealt with. On the off chance that you trust that any gathering

Many other states have developed laws that protect individuals' religious freedoms, yet Indiana's law has more of a controversial front to its recent legislation. This action is to help court cases to decide whether a business owner was discriminating towards a customer or simply complying with the first amendment. Most have argued that this legislation discriminates towards sexuality; whereas, others believe they would be practicing their religious rights. Government and religion have crossed paths before, but this new bill overpasses a boundary that appeals intolerable. Furthermore, the causes of the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is causing an uproar due to it's discriminatory presence and the future of this country's well-being

Under the separation of church and state, these organizations have the right to refuse service based on this objection; however, that separation is not being honored in such situations. Religious freedom laws would further separate religion from government intervention, allowing faith based businesses and organizations to conduct business in a manner that is suitable to their

If I owned a business and placed a disclaimer on a job application that read, ‘Muslims need not apply’ is that a violation of their civil rights? Muslims are granted the freedom to publicly practice their religion without fear of discrimination and persecution however does that disregard my right to refuse participation? Why is it necessary for my family and my business to be unjustly exposed to a way of life that I disapprove of? Some would argue that the appropriate response to these questions is simple, “Because the Constitution says so.” The First Amendment of the Constitution forbids the government from restricting religious practices; however this forbiddance is more of a civil liberty than a civil right. This type of realization was

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Thank you for your post. The reason I chose to include the cases are to show how the issue of a business owner refusing sexuality is becoming popular, and is being argued in court more. Many business owners are actually fine with giving their services to one of the opposite sex, however when that service is extended that goes against their beliefs, values, or morals then they have a problem with providing. Such as the case that I mentioned above, the State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, where the florist served the couple many times but when asked provide a service for their wedding she refused as it goes against her faith. How do you propose we find a solution for this issue?

Either you allow everyone, even the most extreme and ugly people, to have the choice to exercise their preferences (Meyer & Bayer, 2013). Or you allow no one to. These are the only ways to achieve equality. Either everyone has the right to refuse service or discriminate for whatever reason. Or no one does. You can’t have it both ways and call that equality. Furthermore, it is not an exercise of religion to deny service. That is an exercise of choice or preference. Let’s say the KKK wanted a cake for an event, and they asked a black baker to make it. Perhaps they wanted the black baker to put a message on the cake: “Keeping America White”. Would anyone have a problem with the black baker turning down the job? I certainly wouldn’t. But what if a black man came into a bakery owned by a white supremacist, and the black man, or a member of the LGBT community came into a very religious bakery and was refused service? Most of us have a knee-jerk reaction that says racism is just lame. And we’re right. It is. But really the only way to decide this thing and maintain freedom and equality is to extend the same rights of refusal to everyone, for any

Masterpiece owner informed them that because of his religious beliefs and store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding. ACLU is on David and Charlie side.

The baker did not give a rejection on the basis of the Charging party's sexual orientation but, on his own religious beliefs. He refused because, "creating cakes for same-sex marriages would go against his...belief...taught in the bible" (McIntyre). His refusal to not make the cake for the same-sex couple is backed by the "First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and free religion exercise" which "he says prohibit Colorado from compelling him to make cakes that violate his conscience" (S.M.). He does not only exclude same-sex couple wedding

Imagine being a homosexual United States citizen. Although life up until recently was difficult because of the constant discrimination, not being able to adopt children, strange looks when being with significant others, not being able to marry, and many more, the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges solved one of those problems. The law changed in June 2015 when President Obama issued that same-sex marriage was legal. Although the gay pride assemblage was satisfied that one of their problems was solved, the homophobic, heterosexual caucus was far from satisfied and discriminated the LGBT community even more. Many Christian companies that provide goods and services for people refused to provide homosexual consumers with their products simply

The question is some how hard to answer but I will do my best in answering to the best of my knowledge. Considering the fact that both values are important in making sure that everybody is happy, I think they should follow the law that requires all businesses to serve everyone regardless of their race, color, national origin, or creed. We are supposed to do what the law says and not what we think. But where it becomes complicated is where that same law gives everyone the freedom to say what they want and also the freedom of religion. In my opinion, I think the business owner were wrong, selling to the lesbian couples doesn’t mean that they’re engaging in the act or anything relating to that. If they law had said that nobody should sale to them it would have been a deferent matter entirely, but since that is not the case nobody should deny them of their right to patronize anybody. If anybody is not comfortable with they law that has been put in place they have the right to take it to the court and not take laws into their own hands by denying people of their right. A right can be given and can also be taken at the same time, therefore, it’s the duty of the government to always decide. The fact that the government have that right make laws doesn’t mean that they can do what they want at the expense of people happiness.

As a society, we feed off of each other for what a proper response to something may be. As children, we first look to see our mother’s reaction after falling down; if she is calm, I should also be. We look to each other for what a definition of things should be, as well. In the 1950’s, it was generally obscene for a woman on television to show her belly button, whereas today we will show nude breasts on primetime programming. This follows the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism, where society and individual social interaction provides a subjective meaning to deviant behavior. Many social definitions change for the better, however some change for the worse. One such example was once viewed as normal, with no second thoughts given