Fantastic Fitness Argumentative Essay

Fantastic Fitness is a place of “public accommodation” whose services are generally open to the public. Fantastic Fitness is demanding an exemption from the law because women have expressed a religious and private desire to exercise in a private room separate from men. Additionally, Fantastic Fitness has a policy of restricting special fitness equipment to men over the age of twenty-five so that “. . . no one is injured using the special equipment.” A three-tiered analysis will be applied to examine whether the law (1) is generally valid to businesses open to the public, (2) if the law is a legitimate use of Columbia County’s police powers, and (3) if Columbia County is obligated to exempt Fantastic Fitness from the law based on age, sex, privacy, and religious grounds. In the case of the Young Social Reformers Club and Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, “ . . . far from apparently holding itself out as a public accommodation, Moose Lodge quite ostentatiously proclaims the fact that it is not open to the public at large.” In other words, like Moose Lodge, the Young Social Reforms Club is not a place of public accommodation. The Fourteenth Amendment therefore would not be applicable to the club’s discriminatory restrictions due to the lack of government action involved. Fantastic Fitness on the other hand, is open to the public and in no way

In addition, the law prohibits discriminatory behavior by individuals of all religious faiths and not a particular one. Therefore, the law is religiously neutral. As established, the law is generally applicable. Because the law is generally applicable, women cannot use their religion as a means to justify discrimination. Neither can they refuse, on religious grounds, to follow a generally valid law. Of which “. . . the State is free to