on time on time on time business management a+ work, on time, no

week3busn623.docx

Week 3 (No more than 600 words)

A Debate!

This week’s discussion is framed as a DEBATE. In your initial main post you will argue FOR or AGAINST a debate proposition provided with a hypothetical scenario for context. The basis for your argument shall be analysis of relevant legal and ethical materials. Note that in a debate you are advocating for or against the stated proposition even if the position you are advocating differs from your personal beliefs you might have on the topic. Please focus on the assigned argument position and support for it. Focus on the U.S. Constitution.

There is no right or wrong ultimate answer to the debate question in this Discussion. There are arguments on both sides. Thus, the debate. Please see the Grading Rubric for guidance.

Your Debate Side Assignment:

Students with LAST name beginning A through L --- You will argue FOR the proposition.

Debate Hypothetical Scenario:

A high-end private jewelry boutique, Platinum Elegance (PE), an LLC, prides itself on providing a "luxury experience" to people it considers “high-end” clientele. The boutique has a strict dress code for both employees and customers. As part of this dress code, the business prohibits visible facial piercings or tattoos on the premises, citing its brand image and customer expectations. A customer with facial tattoos and piercings attempts to enter the boutique to browse their offerings but is politely denied entry based on the store's policy. The customer argues that the facial markings and piercings are cultural and faith-related and that PE’s policy is discriminatory and unfairly excludes them from accessing goods that are publicly available. PE defends its stance, claiming it has the right to maintain its business environment and appeal to its target clientele.

DEBATE PROPOSITION

A private business is justified in refusing individuals with visible facial tattoos and/or piercings from entering its premises so as to maintain the business' brand image and enhance customer experience.

If you are arguing FOR this Proposition: you are arguing in agreement with what it says and explaining why with supporting legal and ethical principles. Use research support as you deem appropriate.

If you are arguing AGAINST the Proposition: you are presenting that it is wrong - a business is NOT justified in doing this and explaining why with supporting legal and ethical principles. Use research support as you deem appropriate.

TO HELP YOU FRAME YOUR ARGUMENT

In framing your argument you should consider multiple angles, including law (Constitution, statutes, common law), brand identity, ethical business practice, ethical frameworks, societal stereotypes, and consumer rights. The following questions will help prompt your thinking both for and against the Proposition. These are NOT questions to list answers to. These are provided to get you thinking and assist your preparation. Your debate post should be a cohesive, original paragraph defending or opposing the Proposition according to your assigned side.

· Is PE's policy lawful under current anti-discrimination laws? (Consider federal, state, local likely laws as deemed necessary to carry out Constitutional principles; research examples.)

· Is it ethical for a business to exclude individuals based on physical appearance like tattoos and piercings?

· Should a business’s asserted right to define its store environment outweigh a potential customer’s right to access goods and services?

· Does PE's business policy reinforce harmful stereotypes about people with tattoos or piercings, or, is it a legitimate expression of brand identity and a business' right to operate peacefully, as it sees fit?

· What is the connection of interstate commerce to a private business’ choice of whom it serves or how it provides the service?

Support your argument professionally according to law and ethics appropriate to the debate from your learning materials and research.

Please do not open your main post with statements like, "I do not believe this but here goes anyway." Or, "I do not approve of this question." Think of it this way: A defense attorney does not open with the jury by saying "I think my client is probably guilty but here's an argument you might use to find him innocent."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/682/

Katzenbach v. McClung Summary | quimbee.com - YouTube

Right to Refuse Service: What the Supreme Court Says - LegalClarity

https://youtu.be/-YM4QorREGE?si=UgKOumwHednFaWto

5th & 14th Amendments

“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

U.S. Const. amend. V

Due Process & Equal Protection

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects all persons within U.S. territory, including corporations. Chief Justice Waite wrote in Sinking Fund cases:

“The United States cannot any more than a State interfere with private rights, except for legitimate governmental purposes. They are not included within the constitutional prohibition which prevents States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts, but equally with the States they are prohibited from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law”

( Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718-19 (1878)).

The Court’s early establishment of business constitutional protection aligns with the law’s recognition of a business entity as a legal “person,” as discussed in the Week 2 Lesson, and further in the First Amendment context in Citizens United.

The Fifth Amendment does not mention the words “equal protection” or guarantee nondiscrimination. That language is in the 14th Amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that equal protection is inherent in the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee.

“[Due process] tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is predicated on the general, fundamental principle of equality of application of the law”

Casper, W. C., & Schoen, E. J. (2016). BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.: LOTS OF SMOKE, BUT NO FIRE. Southern Law Journal, 26(2), 233-249. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fburwell-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc-lots-smoke-no%2Fdocview%2F1860277028%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289