Free Ethical Dilemma Essay Example

Businessmen especially those in the wedding business in America are finding themselves in court for discrimination against gay couples. The instances of the business men refusing to offer services to the gay couples have risen in the recent past even in states where it is legal for gay couples to marry. The courts have determined some cases, but that has not made the business owners accept to coercion into providing services they think are against their beliefs.
The primary concern in the case is whether denying services is discrimination to the person seeking the services. The First Amendment (free speech clause) allows one not to be coerced to speak in favor of any ideology they deem contrary to their beliefs. Further, the First Amendment allows all people to exercise their religions freely. In this situation, the gay couple argues that they have a right not to be discrimination basing on their sexual orientation. Some of the states have laws that prohibit businessmen from discriminating any American citizen basin on among other things, sexual orientation.
Do the business men have the moral authority to discriminate gay couples? From a utilitarian perspective, one’s actions ought to promote the greater good of all people (Brian Duigman, 2015). The happiness or good of the actor may not count if all the people benefit from one’s actions. From these arguments, one can proceed to claim that the businessmen deny happiness to the greater majority-gay couple seeking their services.
However, one must questions what happiness here entails. Would the couple be happy if they find that the service provider is not happy to offer them the service(s)? Rational human being seeking to bring about happiness to the majority ought to act in such a manner that all the people get the maximum benefits. Therefore, there is no any logical ground for the gay partners to force the service provider to attend to the. Such is against Utilitarianism. Would it then, not be good for the gay couple desist from seeking services from those who refuses to offer their services and, therefore, spare them the challenge of choosing between providing the services and not? This question leads to the concept of duty and regulations.
Some states, as noted earlier prohibit all forms of discrimination basing on sexual orientation. The reasons behind these regulations are to bring equity in the society and reduce social segregation that among other things distorts the normal functioning of the community. On the contrary, one can question to what level would such a law apply viz a viz the First Amendment clauses and other laws.
Kant opines that actions are right without qualification (“Could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW,” n.d). Kant asserted that actions are right or wrong basing on the inherent good in them and not by the consequences resulting from the actions. The case of gay marriage and discrimination may bring a challenge of the defining of the discrimination, and withholding services in a free environment. However, it is noteworthy that, considering all factors, discrimination is not good. The businessmen have no moral authority to discriminate against gay partners since it is just immoral. One expects that they, who seek to judge others, ought to first be clean. There is not reason that can justify the actions of the businessmen.
But do the laws not give the businessmen the freedom of speech and a right to exercise their religions? The fundamental aspect of these scenarios is whether the exercise of one’s religious belief cause harms to another person of a contrary opinion. Laws seek to protect injustice of whatever nature. It is from this reasoning that any businessman that discriminates the gay couples basing on their religious affiliations or beliefs causes harm to them.
A religious belief is applicable to only those who profess to the religion. It is wrong for a Muslims to impose Sharia laws to a Christian, the same way it is wrong for a Christians to impose their beliefs to the Buddhist. The essence of freedom of religion, and abiding by it, is in this respect limited to those of a similar opinion. Moreover, there are even differences in the same religions that one cannot ignore. For example, in Christianity there are Catholics Protestants.
The Stockholder theory suggests that the only social responsibility of a business is to make and continually increase profits i.e. maximizing profits (Tripathi, and Saint, n.d). What then is the reason to deny services to a customer who would make such possible? The external characteristics of the customers are not of any concern if they do not affect the business negatively. Therefore, it is against this principle that some businessmen deny gay partners services.
On the other hand, the stakeholder theory proposes that a firm is responsible for a greater population other than the shareholders. A stakeholder is anyone who is affected by the actions or inactions of the firm(s). The actions of the American wedding businessmen who deny the gay people services contradict this responsibility. Refusing to attempt to them affect them negatively as customers and by extension other stakeholders.

References

Could i rationally act on my maxim in the pswthe shareholder and stakeholder theories of cooperate social purposes.. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian Ethics.htm
Duigman, B. (2015, April 4). Utilitarianism Philosophy. Retrieved on April 4, 2015, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620682/utilitarianism
Tripathi N. A., and Saint D. K. (n.d). The Shareholder and Stakeholder Theories of Cooperate Social Purposes. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.knowledgeworkz.com/samatvam/newsletter/The%20Shareholder%20and%20 Stakeholder%20Theories%20of%20Corporate%20Purpose.pdf