MGT response

Chapter 4

In my personal opinion, I think that the courts have enforced it just enough. I think that it is hard to strictly enforce a separation between church and state when much of the morals of the county and the people are based on religion. It is right that the country does not support a singular religion nor allows the nation or any states to maintain and promote a church. Also, on the subject of prayer in school, I think that the balance of not allowing mandatory prayer in pubic school is the right decision. But, on an extremely more delicate subject, in certain circumstances, I see the courts as going to far to enforce the separation of church and state, In particular, regarding the gay marriage decision. Let me first say that I support this decision to its full extent. But I believe that when the court is attempting to enforce the separation, it disregards the free exercise clause. For example, if a couple is looking for a cake for their wedding, but the certain baker's religion does not support same-sex marriage, I do not believe that they should be legally mandated to serve them. This is the same for churches who's religious practices do not support same sex marriage. But, they should be able to prove their standing. Yet I do not agree with people rejecting these couples without a legitamit and provabel y religious reasoning.

Chapter 5

I agree with the critics referred to above and personally disagree with arbitration clauses because of the sole reason that it, in some cases, mostly in B2E and B2C cases, it has the power to take away the lesser parties constitutional rights to a trial. I believe that no private party should be vested the power to disregard a persons constitutional right, whether if they sign a contract or not. In B2C situations, the signing of most large contracts, such as a credit card agreement, the consumer releases their constitutional right to a trial because of the presence of an arbitration clause. The Supreme Court, as I see it, made an unjust decision by allowing these to continue to be written in. Also in B2E situations, as well as B2C situations, arbitration clauses form an unequal balance of power, the higher authority holding almost all the power of course, as well as unequal bargaining power. I believe that arbitration clauses, given that they can agree to waive constitutional rights in favor of a private party, are unfair to the consumer and should be excluded or severally changed.