Question.5460 - A high-end private jewelry boutique, Platinum Elegance (PE), an LLC, prides itself on providing a "luxury experience" to people it considers “high-end” clientele. The boutique has a strict dress code for both employees and customers. As part of this dress code, the business prohibits visible facial piercings or tattoos on the premises, citing its brand image and customer expectations. A customer with facial tattoos and piercings attempts to enter the boutique to browse their offerings but is politely denied entry based on the store's policy. The customer argues that the facial markings and piercings are cultural and faith-related and that PE’s policy is discriminatory and unfairly excludes them from accessing goods that are publicly available. PE defends its stance, claiming it has the right to maintain its business environment and appeal to its target clientele. • Is PE's policy lawful under current anti-discrimination laws? (Consider federal, state, local likely laws - research examples.) • Is it ethical for a business to exclude individuals based on physical appearance like tattoos and piercings? • Should a business’s asserted right to define its store environment outweigh a customer’s right to access goods and services? • Does a business policy like PE's reinforce harmful stereotypes about people with tattoos or piercings, or, is it a legitimate expression of brand identity and business' right to operate as it sees fit? • What is the connection of interstate commerce to a private business’ choice of whom it serves or how it provides the service?

Answer Below:

I am falling into the A–L group, which means your assignment is to argue FOR the proposition. A private business like Platinum Elegance (PE) has the r...