Smith V. California's Unruh Act
Bob Smith, a California resident, owns a banquet hall that he rents out for weddings and other events. He is approached by Adam and Steve, who wish to rent the hall for their gay wedding. Bob refuses to rent the hall to Adam and Steve because he does not believe in gay marriage and has religious objections to their lifestyle. He does not want his property to be used for what he regards as an immoral and ungodly purpose. Under the state law of California, Mr. Smith has violated the California’s Unruh Act, which states that “All persons… [regardless] of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitle to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,
…show more content…
Smith is discriminating against their sexual orientation because they are a gay couple. Under this law, Mr. Smith cannot refuse to provide his services to Adam and Steve because of their sexual orientation. However, Mr. Smith has grounds for challenging the constitutionality of that law. If Mr. Smith wants to argue that he has a constitutional right to refuse to rent the hall, he can call the U.S Constitution, Amendment I, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religions, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (US. Constitution, Amendment I) In other words, anyone has the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to practice the religion they decide to follow. Mr. Smith can claim that he has the right to refuse to rent the hall to Adam and Steve because their gay marriage goes against his religious beliefs. He can also call out the Miller v Davis case, where the county clerk, Kim Davis was sued for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argued that the First Amendment protects her decision to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because her religious beliefs forbid her to do …show more content…
Similar to this case, Mr. Smith can argue that he is not discriminating against gays but he refuses to be involved with something that in his religion is considered “immoral and ungodly purpose.” He can also challenge California’s Unruh Act and call out the Fourteen Amendment because this law is forcing to abandon his freedom of religion. In the Fourteen Amendment, Section 1, states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…[and] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property”(US. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec 1). This means that California has no right to force him to follow a law that violates his liberty to enforce his practice of religion. Alike, Davis, for Mr. Smith, refusing to provide services to gay couples, is part of the practice of his religion. On the other hand, Adam and Steve would claim that Mr. Smith is using freedom of religion as an excused to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. As stated before, the Unruh Act states that all persons of the state of the California are free, equal, and cannot be denied access to business’ services because of sexual orientation, race,
Smith is discriminating against their sexual orientation because they are a gay couple. Under this law, Mr. Smith cannot refuse to provide his services to Adam and Steve because of their sexual orientation. However, Mr. Smith has grounds for challenging the constitutionality of that law. If Mr. Smith wants to argue that he has a constitutional right to refuse to rent the hall, he can call the U.S Constitution, Amendment I, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religions, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (US. Constitution, Amendment I) In other words, anyone has the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to practice the religion they decide to follow. Mr. Smith can claim that he has the right to refuse to rent the hall to Adam and Steve because their gay marriage goes against his religious beliefs. He can also call out the Miller v Davis case, where the county clerk, Kim Davis was sued for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argued that the First Amendment protects her decision to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because her religious beliefs forbid her to do …show more content…
Similar to this case, Mr. Smith can argue that he is not discriminating against gays but he refuses to be involved with something that in his religion is considered “immoral and ungodly purpose.” He can also challenge California’s Unruh Act and call out the Fourteen Amendment because this law is forcing to abandon his freedom of religion. In the Fourteen Amendment, Section 1, states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…[and] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property”(US. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec 1). This means that California has no right to force him to follow a law that violates his liberty to enforce his practice of religion. Alike, Davis, for Mr. Smith, refusing to provide services to gay couples, is part of the practice of his religion. On the other hand, Adam and Steve would claim that Mr. Smith is using freedom of religion as an excused to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. As stated before, the Unruh Act states that all persons of the state of the California are free, equal, and cannot be denied access to business’ services because of sexual orientation, race,