Legal and Ethical Boundaries of Company Refusing Service Considering Individual's Public Statements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/fdw7as73Keywords:
Service Refusal; Freedom of Speech; Legal Case Analysis; Corporate Rights and Responsibilities.Abstract
As the impact of public discourse on the relationship between individuals and corporations becomes increasingly pronounced, this paper examines the legal and ethical issues surrounding when a company may refuse service based on an individual's public statements. The field of study has its deficiencies, particularly in the lack of clear guidelines at the intersection of freedom of speech and corporate rights. This paper aims to clarify the boundaries of rights between companies and individuals by analyzing specific legal cases, such as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and discusses the potential damages that may arise from refusing service. The study finds that companies can refuse service in specific circumstances without violating the law, especially when service provision may harm the company or its clients. This conclusion emphasizes the importance of respecting freedom of speech and protecting corporate rights. The significance of this research lies in providing legal guidance for companies dealing with service refusals based on public statements and offering a reference for future legislative and judicial practices, contributing to a deeper understanding and respect for freedom of speech and corporate rights.
Downloads
References
[1] Published by a LexisNexis Corporate Expert, 'Company Definition: Legal Glossary' (LexisNexis) Accessed 29 June 2024.
[2] 303 Creative LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Aubrey Elenis, et al., (2023) Scotus 143 S. Ct. 2298, (2023) Opinion of the Court 20.
[3] Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Community for Creative Non-Violence et al., (1984) Scotus 468 U.S. 288, (1984) Google Scholar 294Clarkv. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 294, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984).
[4] Boy Scouts of America et al., v. Dale (2000) Scotus 530 U.S. 640, (2000) Opinion of the Court 649-650.
[5] The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I. Freedom of Association.
[6] Hurley et al., v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., et al., (1995) Scotus 515 U.S. 557, (1995) Westlaw Classic.
[7] Hurley et al., Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., et al., (1995) Scotus 515 U.S. 557, (1995) Opinion of the Court 570.
[8] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al., (2018) Scotus 138 S. Ct. 1719, (2018) Opinion of Thomas, J. 6.
[9] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al., (2018) Scotus 138 S.Ct. 1719, (2018) Opinion of the Court 4.
[10] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al., (2018) Scotus 138 S.Ct. 1719, (2018) Gorsuch, J., Concurring 3.
[11] 303 Creative Llc, et al., Petitioners v. Aubrey Elenis, et al., (2023) Scotus 143 S.Ct. 2298, (2023) Sotomayor, J., Dissenting 1.
[12] Yoshino K., 'Rights of First Refusal' (Harvard Law Review, 13 November 2023) Accessed 30 June 2024.
[13] 'House Passes Federal LGBTQ Anti-Bias Law; What's Next for the Equality Act?' (Fisher Phillips) Accessed 30 June 2024.
[14] 'Top Social Media Statistics and Trends Of 2024' (Forbes, 12 April 2024) Accessed 30 June 2024.
[15] Dizikes P, | Mit News Office, 'Study: On Twitter, False News Travels Faster Than True Stories' (Mit News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Accessed 30 June 2024.
[16] The Yomiuri Shimbun, 'Domino's Japan Apologizes for Nose-Picking Employee; Pizza Giant to Consider Taking Legal Action Against Part-Timer' (The Japan News by the Yomiuri Shimbun, 14 February 2024)
Accessed 30 June 2024.
[17] Global Times, 'China's Manner Coffee Vowed to Optimize Store Operation After Clashes Between Baristas and Customer' (Global Times) Accessed 30 June 2024.
[18] Ruane K, Mcsherry C, Patel F, Franklin S, Greene D, Llansó E (Online Speech and the First Amendment: Ten Principles from the Supreme Court) Accessed 29 June.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






