The document discusses a proposal called the Fairness for All Act, which aims to find a compromise between LGBT nondiscrimination protections and religious exemptions. It proposes extensive nondiscrimination protections, but also carefully defined carve-outs for religious charities, schools, and small businesses. While rejected by activists on both sides, the authors argue it deserves closer consideration as it models an approach of negotiated compromise, as was successfully done in Utah. It could build new protections for LGBT Americans while affording new safeguards for religious institutions.

1. The Good Samaritan & Immigration Essay
The Good Samaritan & Immigration EssayORDER HERE FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE
PAPERS ON The Good Samaritan & Immigration EssayYou must choose TWO of the topics
below, and for each one that you choose you must write an essay. The two essays are
equally weighted. Each essay should be approximately 1 ½ – 2 single-spaced typewritten
pages, font size 12. The essay must be uploaded by 7 AM on Monday, June 29, Eastern
Daylight-Saving Time.In writing this essay, you should display your knowledge of Chapters
1-8 of Onora O’Neill’s Justice Across Boundaries: Whose Obligations?(For this question, you
should use the files called “the good Samaritan” and “Scott Warren”.) How might the parable
of the good Samaritan be used to justify the idea that wealthy states should give aid to poor
states? Give an account of how we might interpret the story of the good Samaritan below in
terms of Kant’s categorical imperative. Explain why this is relevant to O’Neill. Is Scott
Warden a good Samaritan? What do you think O’Neill would say about governments that try
to prosecute people like Scott Warden? Explain. The Good Samaritan & Immigration
Essay(For this question, you should rely on the file called “sittlichkeit”.) Almost certainly,
O’Neill would maintain that in a relatively large country like Canada, more than one
sittlichkeit can be found. Why should she think so? On the assumption that she is right, what
problem does this raise for communitarianism in connection with figuring out what the
obligations of Canadians are? The Good Samaritan & Immigration Essay(For this question,
you should rely on the files called “gay-rights SCOTUS” and “conflict and gay-rights”) The
Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that discrimination based on
sexual orientation is included under discrimination based on sex, so that since in American
law people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex, they also have a
right not to be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. In American law, too, people
have a right to practice their religion. To many people, these rights appear definitely to
conflict. According to O’Neill, when apparent conflicts of real rights occur, a delicate, fact-
based accommodation must be worked out. In the file called “conflict and gay-rights”, to
conservative authors propose an accommodation between the right not to be discriminated
against on the basis of sexual orientation, and the right to religious freedom. Briefly
summarize the proposal. Do you think that their proposal is satisfactory? Do you think that
their proposal would satisfy O’Neill? Give reasons for your answers. The Good Samaritan &
Immigration Essay(For this question you need to make use of the file called “economic
refugee”.) Currently, Canada, like most countries, does not grant refugee status to coming
into the country and claiming – truthfully – that they are fleeing on the basis of their

2. genuinely awful economic and possibly life-threatening economic prospects in their country
of origin. Do you think that O’Neill would say that Canadians have an obligation to grant
such people refugee status in Canada, so that they could stand eventually become Canadian
citizens? Give reasons for your answer. Do you yourself think that Canadians have an
obligation to grant such people refugee status in Canada, so that they could stand eventually
become Canadian citizens? Give reasons for your answer. The Good Samaritan &
Immigration Essay The Good Samaritan & Immigration
Essayattachment_1attachment_2attachment_3attachment_4attachment_5Unformatted
Attachment PreviewOpinion We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious
Liberty It does not have to be all or nothing. By Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner Mr.
Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Mr. Wehner is a senior fellow at the
Ethics and Public Policy Center. • June 22, 2020 Last week’s Supreme Court ruling extending
employment-discrimination protections to L.G.B.T. Americans — in a 6-to-3 decision, with a
conservative justice writing the majority opinion and another conservative, the chief justice,
joining it — was a milestone. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia overjoyed many
progressives and L.G.B.T. advocates, who will redouble their push for the Equality Act, a bill
that passed the house in May 2019 that would ban anti-L. G.B. T. discrimination more
broadly. The decision horrified many social and especially religious conservatives, who see
a net of cultural and legal intolerance tightening around them. “It is hard to overstate the
magnitude of this decision, and the size of the loss to religious and social conservatives,” the
Christian blogger Rod Dreher wrote. “There is no safe place to hide from what’s coming.”
Now might seem like a particularly unsuitable moment to suggest that the two sides make a
deal. But we believe an opportunity beckons. In an era when Americans are deeply
polarized and angry at one another, convinced that those on the other side politically are
wicked and unreasonable, there is a better way forward on the fraught issue of gay rights
and religious liberty — a path that could build on the protections the Supreme Court has
provided L.G.B.T. Americans, while affording important new safeguards to those who
believe the Court’s decision will pressure religious institutions to abandon their views on
sexual ethics. It holds out the prospect of a positive-sum resolution for both sides, with each
side getting something it considers essential and neither side getting everything it wants. In
its decision, the Supreme Court held that the 1964 civil rights law’s prohibition of sex
discrimination extends to employees who are fired for being gay or transgender, but it did
not address an array of other L.G.B.T. civil rights concerns. High on that list are conflicts
over so-called public accommodations. These are the emotionally charged cases where a
merchant, citing religious principles, declines service to, for example, a same-sex couple
seeking photography or catering for a same-sex wedding. Such merchants typically say they
gladly employ L.G.B.T. people and do business with them, but they cannot in good
conscience participate in an event that violates their religious principles. Similar issues
arise with religious charities and schools that object, for instance, to facilitating adoptions
by same-sex couples or providing married-couple housing for same-sex spouses. Of course,
the L.G.B.T. side disagrees, arguing that nondiscrimination protection means little if it
allows anyone with a religious objection to opt out. Both in its decision this week and in its
2018 holding about a Colorado bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex

3. couple, the Supreme Court indicated that it is not ready to weigh in on the contentious issue
of religious refusals. In Congress, progressives are all-in for the Equality Act, which would
outlaw all forms of discrimination against L.G.B.T. people and also override religious
exemptions. But that bill frightens many religious organizations, and because it has no
Republican support, it will not get past a Senate filibuster anytime soon. Both sides, then,
have unfinished agendas. L.G.B.T. advocates want broader civil rights protections than the
Supreme Court’s relatively narrow decision provided. Religiousliberty advocates want some
carve-outs for faith-based institutions. Both sides could — and indeed might — hope to win
in the courts. The Good Samaritan & Immigration EssayBut that strategy is unpredictable
and risky, since the Supreme Court is closely divided and protective of both L.G.B.T. civil
rights and religious liberty. In any case, waiting for the courts would take years, if not
decades, during which friction would only grow. There is an alternative. In December, the
American Unity Fund and a consortium of mostly conservative religious groups unveiled the
Fairness for All Act, an L.G.B.T. nondiscrimination bill that seeks to model a negotiated
compromise. The bill would provide extensive nondiscrimination protections, but, unlike
the Equality Act, it couples them with carefully defined carve-outs for religious charities and
schools and for retailers with fewer than 15 employees. The act was immediately
denounced by activists and organizations on both the proL.G.B.T. left and the religious right,
often in hyperventilating language. No House Democrat agreed to join the eight Republicans
who co-sponsored it. Realistically, the Fairness for All Act is going nowhere in the House,
just as the Equality Act is going nowhere in the Senate. So why do we think it deserves a
closer look now? Start with what at first glance may seem to be a curious fact. According to
polling conducted last year by the Public Religion Research Institute, 77 percent of Utahans
support nondiscrimination protections for L.G.B.T. Americans, second only to 81 percent in
New Hampshire. Why the high enthusiasm for gay rights in conservative, heavily Mormon
Utah? No mystery. In 2015, L.G.B.T. -rights advocates, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints and the state’s Republican leaders agreed on a new law combining L.G.B.T.
protections with carefully tailored religious exemptions. The process of negotiating the deal
and building trust forged a durable consensus. In fact, just a few months ago, Utah enacted a
rule barring harmful “gay conversion” therapy for minors, with the support not only of
L.G.B.T. advocates but also of the Mormon hierarchy. In today’s Trumpified world,
Americans tend to think that politics is a brutal Punch and Judy show, and that compromise
is a surrender of principles. But when the politics of compromise is in good working order,
it builds new alliances, develops new solutions, and turns conflict into cooperation. Utah
provided one example. The Fairness for All Act holds out a similar opportunity at the federal
level, with at least three substantial payoffs. First, the bill shows how seeking compromise
makes seemingly nonnegotiable moral differences tractable to political bargaining. Unlike
the Equality Act, which expands protections for the L.G.B.T. side while narrowing existing
protections for the religious side, the Fairness for All bill gives each side a win compared to
where it is now. L.G.B.T. people get those important civil-rights protections, more swiftly
and surely than the courts could deliver them. More than that, as in Utah, they get the buy-in
and active support of an influential swath of the conservative religious community,
something that has never been on offer before and that has the potential to change the

4. L.G.B.T. religious conversation in all kinds of constructive ways. For L.G.B.T. Americans,
locking in religious groups’ support for nondiscrimination protections would be a political
game-changer — one that might lead to breakthroughs on other fronts. Religious interests
get assurances that religious-affiliated organizations like schools and charities can hire and
teach according to their beliefs and, importantly, that faith-based groups can keep their
nonprofit status while maintaining their beliefs and practices concerning marriage, family
and sexuality. It is significant that the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, an
influential higher education association of more than 180 Christian institutions, has
endorsed Fairness for All. Second, the bill demonstrates that compromise is not necessarily
just about splitting differences. The Good Samaritan & Immigration EssayOften,
compromise is a creative, generative force, expanding the political frame and inventing new
policy approaches to break old deadlocks. In their search for traction on the particularly
thorny issue of faith-based adoption and foster-care agencies, the Fairness for All
negotiators devised an innovative approach that lets individuals, rather than governments,
pay placement agencies. In their quest to sweeten the pot for both sides, they agreed to bar
companies from firing employees based on what they say about marriage and sexuality
outside the workplace — a type of freespeech protection that currently does not exist for
either side under federal law. Most important of all is the lesson Utah teaches. Politics can
paralyze and polarize, yes. But politics can also conciliate and heal, with effects that radiate
farther and last longer than the terms of any one piece of legislation. By creating new
constituencies for both sides of a bargain, political accommodation can change hearts and
minds, not just law — a stronger foundation for civil rights and religious liberties than any
statute or judicial decision alone can provide. As the L.D.S. Church leadership said in
endorsing the Utah compromise, security lies in reciprocity: “In a game of total victory, we
all lose.” There is one other thing that dialogue, negotiations and accommodation can
provide that the culture-war mentality doesn’t offer: the chance to widen the aperture of
understanding between people of different life experiences and perspectives, and to learn
from others. That has certainly been the experience in our own friendship, between a gay
atheist and a straight Christian. Our point is not to endorse all the specifics of the Fairness
for All Act, much less to predict its enactment. Our point is that the bill provides a starting
place for negotiation. It opens the conversation the country needs to have now, when
fracture and polarization seem to be reaching unsustainable levels. It demonstrates a
meliorating, positive-sum style of politics. In an age when politics is laced with hate and
contempt, that is worth quite a lot. Jonathan Rauch (@jon_rauch) is a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution and the author of “Political Realism: How Hacks, Machines, Big Money
and Back-Room Deals Can Strengthen American Democracy.” Peter Wehner (@Peter
Wehner), a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the previous three
Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer. Luke 10, 25-37: The
Parable of the Good Samaritan On one occasion, a lawyer came forward to put this test
question to Jesus: “Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said, “What is
written in the Law? What is your reading of it?” The lawyer replied, “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and
your neighbour as yourself.” “That is the right answer,” said Jesus; “Do that and you will

5. live.” But the lawyer wanted to vindicate himself, so he said to Jesus, “And who is my
neighbour?” Jesus replied, “A man was on his way from Jerusalem down to Jericho when he
fell in with robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went off leaving him half dead. It so
happened that a priest was going down by the same road; but when he saw him, he went
past on the other side. So too a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him went past on
the other side. But a Samaritan who was making the journey came upon him, and when he
saw him was moved to pity. He went up and bandaged his wounds, bathing them with oil
and wine. Then he lifted him onto his own beast, brought him to an inn, and looked after
him there. Next day he produced two silver pieces and gave them to the innkeeper, and said,
“Look after him; and if you spend any more, I will repay you on my way back.” Which of
these three do you think was neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The
lawyer answered, “The one who showed him kindness.” Jesus said, “Go and do as he did.”
The New English Bible with Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, Cambridge
University Press, 1970-71.) Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers,
Supreme Court Rules The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and
gender identity. By Adam Liptak • Published June 15, 2020Updated June 16, 2020
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a landmark civil rights law
protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the
movement for L.G.B.T. equality a long-sought and unexpected victory. “An employer who
fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M.
Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling. That opinion and two dissents, spanning
168 pages, touched on a host of flash points in the culture wars involving the L.G.B.T.
community — bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, pronouns and religious objections to same-
sex marriage. The decision, the first major case on transgender rights, came amid
widespread demonstrations, some protesting violence aimed at transgender people of color.
Until Monday’s decision, it was legal in more than half of the states to fire workers for being
gay, bisexual or transgender. The Good Samaritan & Immigration EssayThe vastly
consequential decision thus extended workplace protections to millions of people across
the nation, continuing a series of Supreme Court victories for gay rights even after President
Trump transformed the court with his two appointments. The decision achieved a decades-
long goal of gay rights proponents, one they had initially considered much easier to achieve
than a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But even as the Supreme Court established
that right in 2015, workplace discrimination remained lawful in most of the country. An
employee who married a same-sex partner in the morning could be fired that afternoon for
being gay. Monday’s lopsided ruling, coming from a fundamentally conservative court, was a
surprise. Justice Gorsuch, who was Mr. Trump’s first appointment to the court, was joined
by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Supporters of L.G.B.T. rights were elated by the ruling,
which they said was long overdue. “This is a simple and profound victory for L.G.B.T. civil
rights,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg, a law professor at Columbia. “Many of us feared that the
court was poised to gut sex discrimination protections and allow employers to discriminate
based on sexual orientation and gender identity, yet it declined the federal government’s

6. invitation to take that damaging path.” In remarks to reporters, Mr. Trump said he accepted
the ruling. “I’ve read the decision,” he said, “and some people were surprised, but they’ve
ruled and we live with their decision.” He added that it was a “very powerful decision,
actually.” The Trump administration had urged the court to rule against gay and
transgender workers, and it has barred most transgender people from serving in the
military. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation on Friday that
undid protections for transgender patients against discrimination by doctors, hospitals and
health insurance companies. Those actions involved different laws from the one at issue on
Monday, and the Supreme Court has allowed the military ban to go into effect while lawsuits
challenging it proceed. Still, the court’s ruling suggested that a new era in transgender rights
has arrived. The decision, covering two sets of cases, was the court’s first on lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender rights since the retirement in 2018 of Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in all four of the court’s major gay rights
decisions. Proponents of those rights had worried that his departure would halt the
progress of the movement toward equality. The Supreme Court is generally not very far out
of step with popular opinion, and large majorities of Americans oppose employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation, and substantial ones oppose it when based on
gender identity. More than 200 major corporations filed a brief supporting the gay and
transgender employees in the cases before the court. The decision was both symbolic and
consequential, and it followed in the tradition of landmark rulings on discrimination. Unlike
Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that said racially segregated public schools
violated the Constitution; Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that struck down bans on
interracial marriage; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that struck down state
bans on same-sex marriage, the new decision did not involve constitutional rights. Instead,
the question for the justices was the meaning of a statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and
sex. They had to decide whether that last prohibition — discrimination “because of sex” —
applies to many millions of gay and transgender workers. Justice Gorsuch wrote that it did.
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person
for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” he wrote.
“It is impossible,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, “to discriminate against a person for being
homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
The decision will allow people who say they were discriminated against in the workplace
based on their sexual orientation or gender identity to file lawsuits, just as people claiming
race and sex discrimination may. The plaintiffs will have to offer evidence, of course, and
employers may respond that they had reasons unrelated to discrimination for their
decisions. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote
that the majority had abandoned its judicial role. “There is only one word for what the court
has done today: legislation,” Justice Alito wrote. “The document that the court releases is in
the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.” “A more brazen
abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” he wrote. “The court tries to
convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is
preposterous.” The common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964, Justice Alito

7. wrote, was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on
sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender
workers, he wrote, it could pass a new law. “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ was not
understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or
transgender status” in 1964, he wrote. “Any such notion would have clashed in spectacular
fashion with the societal norms of the day.” Justice Alito added that the majority’s decision
would have pernicious consequences. He said the majority left open, for instance, questions
about access to restrooms and locker rooms. “For women who have been victimized by
sexual assault or abuse,” he wrote, “the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the
anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room
can cause serious psychological harm.” Nor did the majority address, he said, how its ruling
would affect sports, college housing, religious employers, health care or free speech. “After
today’s decision,” Justice Alito wrote, “plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their
preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.”
“Although the court does not want to think about the consequences of its decision, we will
no …The Good Samaritan & Immigration Essay