Business Finance - Accounting Business Finance - Management ASSIGNMENT (APA, NO PLAGARISM, GREAT WORK, ON TIME)

2

JH(Reply no more than 200 words)

As a private high end jewelry boutique Platinum Elegance (PE) does have the right to refuse service to anyone per the federal law in the U.S. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does state that service cannot be refused based on discriminatory status such as race, color, national origin, citizen status, religion, creed, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, genetic information or veteran status (Huckleberry, n.d.). Although the person with the facial tattoo and piercing states it is a cultural statement the boutique is not denying them access because of its cultural meaning but are denying access due to the individual not meeting their appearance standards for their business brand. They have upheld the standard with everyone making it less of a religious discrimination and more so protecting their brand. Tattoos and piercings are not a protected characteristic under any law so if the store has a written policy on dress and appearance they can refuse entry to individuals.

It would be unethical if the business made exceptions for just one individual claiming that their facial tattoos are religious. In order to make it fair across the board and keep to their business brand it is reasonable to restrict access to all individuals that do not follow the dress and appearance set forth by the business. Adopting a utilitarian framework, the business believes that with this policy in place, they can have a better outcome because they are solidifying their brand and the clientele they are seeking. This can further help them if there are certain investors that are looking for specific brands. PE is simply building a strong brand presence, and they have the right to manage their property as they deem appropriate for to strengthen that brand. They are not bending rules for individuals but keeping it the same throughout their business.

PQ(Reply no more than 200 words)

While private businesses do have flexibility in shaping their brand identity, Platinum Elegance’s decision to deny entry to customers with visible facial tattoos or piercings is difficult to justify when viewed through constitutional principles, public accommodations law, and ethical business practice. Although businesses often argue that they have a “right to refuse service,” that right is not unlimited—especially when a policy potentially interferes with religious or cultural expression. The Supreme Court’s decision in  Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) reinforces the idea that religious beliefs deserve meaningful consideration, even in a commercial setting. While Hobby Lobby involved employer obligations rather than customer access, the case underscores a broader legal principle: when religious expression is involved, blanket policies that ignore accommodation can raise serious legal and ethical concerns.

From a constitutional perspective, this issue connects directly to the First and Fourteenth Amendments discussed in Week 3. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends equal protection principles to businesses operating within the public marketplace. Although Platinum Elegance is a private LLC, it operates as a place of public accommodation and participates in interstate commerce. As a result, it cannot apply policies that effectively exclude individuals in a way that undermines equal access or disproportionately burdens religious expression without strong justification. A strict appearance-based policy that offers no flexibility risks violating the spirit, if not the letter, of these constitutional protections.

The idea that a business has an absolute “right to refuse service” is also somewhat misleading. Legal analysis shows that while businesses can set reasonable rules, they cannot refuse service for reasons that are discriminatory or tied to protected characteristics, including religion (Huckleberry, 2023). Customer preference or brand image alone is not considered a valid defense when exclusion impacts civil rights. In this case, denying entry to someone whose tattoos or piercings are tied to faith or culture moves the policy beyond aesthetics and into potential discrimination.

From an ethical perspective, the policy is even harder to defend. Ethical decision-making in business requires more than simply asking what a company is legally allowed to do; it also involves considering fairness, respect, and social impact. Excluding customers based on tattoos or piercings reinforces outdated stereotypes that associate certain appearances with lower status or professionalism. A deontological approach would argue that individuals should be treated with dignity and respect across the board, not turned away simply because their appearance does not fit a narrow aesthetic. Additionally, research shows that inclusive brand practices can actually strengthen consumer trust and brand equity, even in high-end markets (Smith & Wilson, 2025). In other words, inclusion does not necessarily undermine luxury, but it can enhance it.

Ultimately, Platinum Elegance can preserve its high-end atmosphere through exceptional service, design, and customer engagement without relying on policies that exclude individuals based on appearance. When brand standards conflict with constitutional values and ethical principles of fairness and inclusion, the business’s asserted right to control its environment should not outweigh a customer’s right to access publicly available goods. For these reasons, PE’s policy is ethically questionable and difficult to defend under modern interpretations of law and responsible business practice.