Need help to review my assignment or make recommendations to correct.

Sam owns a resort that has over 100 employees. He hired Sandra, a Christian to serve as a housekeeper. Sandra informed him during the interview process that per her faith, she would need to have every Sunday off on the schedule as she goes to church on Sunday and believes that Sunday is the Sabbath and that she must keep it holy by not working and taking a rest. Sam, who espoused a policy of diversity, told her it wouldn't be an issue.

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision inBurwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,573 U.S. 682 (2014), Sam decided to stop paying for any kind of birth control through the health insurance that he offered his employees due to financial loss associated with the COVID-19 crisis; the business went under and numerous employees left for higher paying jobs or left out of fear of catching the virus. While the resort offered free COVID-19 vaccinations, many stated that it was against their religion to take the vaccine and opted to look for other employment.

Sam then started thinking about other ways in which religion impacted his business. After talking with his wife, he decided to tell Sandra that she could no longer be off every Sunday, as it probably was disruptive to business and bothered the other employees (as they said they were Christians too, but still had to work on Sunday and even took the vaccine to maintain their job during the economic uncertainty). He issued Sandra a letter informing her that, under her religious freedom rights as a business owner, he would no longer allow her to be off every Sunday. The next day, he got a certified letter from Sandra's lawyer telling him that he was violating her rights and unless he allowed her to continue to be off every Sunday, he would be subject to a lawsuit.

Part 1

How would the legal dilemma(s) posed in this scenario likely be resolved if no Constitution existed? Does what you imagine seem impartial and/or fair to all parties?

The First Amendment says you can express your freedom of religion, so Sandra was correct based on their faith. Still, before Sam hired her, she told him she needed Sunday off because it was a holy Sabbath where she needed to rest. Still, you have Sam agree to Sandra's terms. They agreed, but when COVID-19 hit, Sam's business was in danger because he wasn't able to pay for birth control through health insurance. However, if no Constitution existed due to the legal dilemma posed by this scenario as the boss, Sam could set the work schedule and make business decisions, including accommodating employee requests for time off. However, fairness would dictate that Sam consider reasonable accommodations for Sandra's religious beliefs as long as they don't disrupt the business. An impartial solution would be to find a compromise, such as adjusting her schedule or allowing her to switch shifts with willing coworkers. Since birth control and COVID vaccinations are not constitutionally protected, Sam's decision to change employee benefits can't be challenged legally. However, it could impact employee morale and retention, which may not be suitable for the business.

Part 2; Assisting Sam's lawyer.

Further assume that the lawyer for whom you work wants you to outline the basic arguments that should be made for the respective client (either Sandra or Sam). Upon what resource(s) did you rely in your proposed legal argument? Note that the First Amendment protects against governmental actions, not those of private individuals. Also, what is the law that gives First Amendment rights to corporations?

First, Sam, as a private business owner, has First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. That includes the right not to be forced to accommodate religious practices that disrupt his business. Second, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects individuals and closely held corporations like Sam's Resort from government actions that burden their exercise of religion. The Hobby Lobby case was about closely held corporations and their ability to not provide certain types of birth control coverage based on the owners' religious beliefs and RFRA. This case extended religious freedom to corporations.

Part 3

Do you agree with corporations having First Amendment rights? Why or why not?

Even though I do agree with some of our First Amendment rights, our freedom to make our own choices, whether it's good or bad, what concerns me, though, is that some people will take advantage of our First Amendment right to control over other people for their gain and this is why I firmly believe that the corporations should not have the same as the First Amendment rights because there are primary purpose is economic activity, not expression or religious practice and will possibly be taking advantage of and also have unequal treatment towards the employees.

Do you think that corporations should be able to impose the religious beliefs of the owners on the employees and not be subject to restrictions like Title VII?

No, I firmly believe that a company should not be able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees because we all have different views on religion and our constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination in the workplace.

What if Sam was a Scientologist? What if Sam was a member of a religion created by his cousin? How do you know if a religious practice is protected?

If Sam were a Scientologist influenced by his cousin, he should be able to establish legal precedents. These principles should serve as a framework for protecting religious practices and ensuring that sincerely held beliefs are respected unless they cause undue hardship or infringe upon the rights of others.

Does the US need a constitution or not? Why?

Of course, the United States needs a Constitution to hold those in power accountable, protect individual rights, and establish a basic framework for governance. The Constitution establishes the rule of law and protects arbitrary behavior by the government or private organizations.