It probably would not rise to the level of harm necessary for a violation of public accommodation laws, especially given the employee's competing interests. Thus, based on our application of the principles described above, we suggest that the employer should prevail on its RFRA claim and not be required to accommodate the religious employee.
Until cases involving the other side of this debate are decided, these employers and individuals will continue to face an uncertain legal climate with regard to conflicts between their values and the values of their employees and customers. The increasing interest in bringing religious, moral, and ethical values into the workplace has heightened the potential two federal courts ruled the ban on openly gay religious conflict between employees, employers, customers, and governments.
While not directly ruling on the issue of compliance with a public accommodations law, in Masterpiece CakeshopJustice Kennedy appears to have given credence to the notion that passive compliance with facially neutral statutes may be required over religions objections.
These laws similarly set the stage for potential conflicts between the rights of employers and employees or between the rights of employees and customers.
Corporations have publicly confronted President Trump and his administration on a range of issues from racism to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. This creates a wider pool of potential complainants. Barber v. It passed with At the federal legislative level, Congress, as in the marijuana propositions and 19 and the Controlled Substances Act, was used by the courts to overturn decisions made at the state level.