anti-LGBTQ discrimination Archives - RVA Mag

RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu

Republican Lawmakers Across The Nation Are Attacking LGBTQ Rights

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis last month signed into law a bill that would prevent LGBTQ+ discussions in schools and will discourage classroom conversation about gender identity and sexual orientation in primary grade levels.

The measure, nicknamed by critics the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, drew condemnation from the Walt Disney Co., was labeled as “discriminatory” and “a form of bullying” by the White House, and prompted calls from some in the film industry to boycott making movies in Florida.

But Florida is just one of many states where Republicans have proposed measures aimed at curbing LGBTQ+ rights. In 2021 there was a flurry of anti-LGBTQ legislation, making it the worst year since 2015 for anti-LGBTQ legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign. 

Last year, 17 anti-LGBTQ bills passed in state legislatures in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia.

“There’s no doubt that this (Florida law) is the tip of the iceberg at stripping away rights for LGBTQ people and for LGBTQ families,” said Darren Vance, executive director at Rainbow Families, a non-profit focused on supporting and educating the LQBTQ community in Washington. 

Vance is a part of the LGBTQ+ community, along with his 17-year-old son, who identifies as queer. He said the Florida statute is more destructive and far-reaching than many understand.

“Jumping to the most horrific end is it will increase LGBTQ youth suicide. Like that’s it, that’s the bottom line,” Vance said.

Congressional Republicans defended Florida’s new law.

“What I think we got to make sure our teachers are focused on (is) reading, writing, arithmetic and that’s what they ought to be doing,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, told CNS.

But congressional Democrats said the Florida bill was too broad and could cause parents to file lawsuits. 

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, said that schools should provide a “productive, nurturing learning environment” for students regardless of their backgrounds, race, gender identity or sexual orientation.

“This bill not only isolates LGBTQ students but also denies all students comprehensive and inclusive education,” Van Hollen told CNS. “I will keep fighting to ensure schools are welcoming of all students, while working to pass the Equality Act to ensure LGBTQ Americans are afforded equal rights under the law.” 

The Equality Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, accommodations and education. It passed the House is February of last year but has not moved in the Senate.

Meanwhile, GOP efforts to curb LGBTQ+ rights continue to spread as the 2022 midterm elections approach.

In February, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, sent a directive to state health agencies stating that delivering gender-affirming medical treatments to transgender youths is considered child abuse under Texas law. The order requires medical professionals and teachers to report parents who aid their children in receiving this care.

The Biden administration may challenge Abbott’s directive.

“HHS will take immediate action if needed (in Texas),” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement last month. “I know that many youth and their supportive families are feeling scared and isolated because of these attacks. HHS is closely monitoring the situation in Texas, and will use every tool at our disposal to keep Texans safe.”

Meanwhile, some of the Republican Party’s candidates falsely are accusing Democrats of being part of an effort to “groom” young people to become gay or transgender.

In Michigan, Republican State Sen. Lana Theis attacked Democratic State Sen. Mallory McMorrow in a fundraising letter, claiming that the latter wanted to “groom and sexualize kindergarteners.”

McMorrow’s outraged response delivered in the Michigan Senate has gone viral.

“Call me whatever you want. I know who I am,” the Democrat said. “I know what faith and service mean, and what it calls for in this moment. We will not let hate win.”

Cathryn Oakley, the state legislative director and senior counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, said she has seen an increase in anti-LQBTQ+ legislation in the past few years. 

“You know, legislation often moves in sort of trends around the country,” Oakley said. “And part of that is because the vast majority of the anti-LGBTQ legislation that is introduced in state legislatures comes from the same sources.”

Tania Cordova, an advocate for Casa Ruby, the only LGBTQ bilingual and multicultural organization in Washington, knows what it means to be discriminated against due to a lack of resources, Cordova said. 

“I think that when I was a kid, I couldn’t express myself because there was not education about gender identity. And I mean, who’s going to determine how you’re going to identify yourself?” Cordova said. 

Cordova said she now empowers children who may not be able to empower themselves.   

“We feel suffering from oppression and discrimination, but at least now we have to empower ourselves to be the advocates for those little ones who sometimes don’t have the voice to defend themselves,” Cordova said.

Written by Devin Rank and Julia Rosier, Capital News Service. Photo by Cecilie Johnsen on Unsplash.

Equality Virginia’s Week Of Action In Support Of Hanover LGBTQ Youth Begins Tonight

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

It’s been a tough time for the LGBTQ community around the United States lately — especially for LGBTQ youth. From Florida’s infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which attempts to restrict all discussion of non-hetero sexual orientations and non-cis gender identities from Florida public schools (and make teachers criminally liable if they do speak about these things) to the push in Texas to prosecute as child abusers parents and medical professionals who’ve affirmed the identities of trans youth, we’re seeing all kinds of terrible things around the country.

Here in Virginia, many of us thought we were out of the woods when, after the 2019 state election, Democrats gained control of the Governor’s mansion and both Houses of the General Assembly. A variety of pro-LGBTQ bills were passed into law during the sessions that followed, most prominently the Virginia Values Act. In addition to outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the realms of housing, employment, and public accomodation, the Virginia Values Act required Virginia’s Department of Education to craft a model policy for local school boards to implement in order to protect transgender and non-binary students within all of the different school systems in the commonwealth.

Here’s the problem — those policies had to be implemented by different school boards at the county and city level, all across the state. And while some school districts did so without complaint, others in more conservative areas of the state have continually refused to do so, even when not doing so put them in violation of state law.

Loudoun County’s initial refusal to implement a policy to protect transgender and non-binary students got more attention over the past couple of years, but there’s another place that has also refused to do so, and they’re a lot closer to us right here in Richmond. I am, of course, talking about Hanover County, just 20 minutes up the road from Richmond. Over a year after their deadline, Hanover County is still talking about whether and how they will implement the policy. And on March 8, the Hanover County School Board voted to allow Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to make a presentation to the school board saying how they think the school board should handle this situation.

If you’ve been paying attention to the activities of anti-LGBTQ hate groups over the past decade or so, you know that this is a bad situation. From attempting to re-criminalize sexual acts between LGBTQ adults to arguing that LGBTQ people have a “gay agenda” to destroy Christianity, these people are way out there on the anti-LGBTQ limb. Their big push in recent years has been to push “religious freedom” as an argument in favor of allowing goods and services, and even medical care, to be denied people based on their LGBTQ status. They also, as a matter of fact, played an important role in the kerfuffle over Loudoun County’s transgender student policy. The Southern Poverty Law Center is right: these people hate us.

Thankfully, we do still have powerful allies that are on the side of Hanover County’s LGBTQ youth. Tonight, Equality Virginia is kicking off a Week Of Action to push back on Hanover County’s decision to work with ADF. They’ll be hosting a virtual community meeting at 6 pm, featuring representatives from ACLU of Virginia, Side By Side, He She Ze and We, and the Hanover chapter of the NAACP, as well as students, parents, and teachers from Hanover County. They’ll be passing on the info you need to know exactly what’s going on in Hanover County, and how we can all help Hanover’s trans and non-binary youth.

This meeting is free for all who wish to attend, but you must register in advance to be part of it. You can do so by clicking here. Do it! The youth of Hanover are counting on you.

Top Photo by daniel james on Unsplash.

Texas AG Ken Paxton Sues Biden Admin Over LGBTQ Policies

|

Topics: , , , , ,

Paxton claims (falsely) that the policies “put women and children at risk,” relying on the tired anti-LGBTQ accusations that queer and trans people are sexual predators. The result of the lawsuit could have nationwide implications for LGBTQ employment rights.

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, running for re-election, on Monday sued the Biden administration in litigation falsely attacking LGBTQ people.

Paxton filed a lawsuit in a federal court seen as a friendly pipeline to the Supreme Court, over LGBTQ-related Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, and even used the litigation to prop up a far right wing conspiracy theorist, who is also running for re-election. EEOC Commissioner Charlotte Burrows and Attorney General Merrick Garland are named as defendants.

The EEOC “guidance misstates the law, increasing the scope of liability for the State in its capacity as an employer,” Paxton claims in the lawsuit, as Bloomberg Law reports.

But as Courthouse News’ David Lee reports, the Paxton lawsuit also relies on old, false, and bigoted tropes about transgender people, saying allowing them to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identity, “puts many women and children at risk.”

A June 2020 landmark Supreme Court found that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination. The Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission used that ruling to form policy that mandates workplace guidance, including on who can use which restrooms.

Curiously, and for no discernible reason, Paxton’s lawsuit also promotes the Texas Dept. of Agriculture (TDA), which is headed by conspiracy theorist Sid Miller.

“TDA has both unisex single-occupancy bathrooms and bathrooms that are designated by sex. It interprets ‘sex’ as referring to biological sex rather than gender identity,” the lawsuit says. “If any employee wanted to use the bathrooms designated for the opposite sex, TDA would reject such a request.”

Paxton has a long and ugly history of attacking transgender people.

Newsweek adds that Paxton’s lawsuit “says that the TDA interprets sex to mean biological sex, rather than gender identity. The complaint says, ‘If any employee dressed as a member of the opposite sex, TDA would consider such conduct to be a violation of its standards.’”

It also says the TDA would reject requests for “any employee wanted to use the bathrooms designated for the opposite sex” or any employee who “wanted TDA to require other employees to use pronouns based on gender identity.”

Written by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement. Image via NCRM.

Catholic Bishops Spend Nearly $240,000 to Fight Michigan Group’s Goal of Expanding Protections for LGBTQ People

|

Topics: , , , , ,

Attempts to expand LGBTQ rights in Michigan have run up against some well-funded opposition from higher-ups in the Catholic Church. But LGBTQ advocates in the state are not giving up.

Catholic Bishops in Michigan have spent over $238,000 – nearly a quarter of a million dollars – to fight a civil rights group’s goal of expanding protections for the state’s LGBTQ people via a proposed 2022 ballot initiative.

“Campaign finance reports filed on Monday show the Lansing-based Michigan Catholic Conference, which bills itself as ‘the official voice of the Catholic Church in Michigan on matters of public policy,’ has made $238,874.80 in direct and in-kind contributions to Citizens for Equality, Fairness and Justice, an organization formed in April that has actively opposed the LGBTQ initiative,” MiBiz’s Andy Balaskovitz reports. “The MCC made up nearly all of the committee’s $204,175 in direct contributions this funding cycle.”

The ballot initiative is supported by many major businesses. According to the group that initiated the ballot drive, Fair and Equal Michigan, business leaders including Jim Fitterling, Chief Executive Officer, Dow; Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer, Apple; Andi Owen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Herman Miller; and Ron Bieber, President of the Michigan AFL-CIO, support the initiative.

“The Catholic Church’s opposition to LGBTQ equal rights is unfortunate, but it was not unexpected,” Fair and Equal Michigan spokesperson Josh Hovey told the Michigan Advance. “It is well known that they have been out of touch with the majority of voters in Michigan and across the country on this issue, and that we are thankful that campaign finance disclosure laws make their anti-equality position known to all.”

“At the end of the day,” Hovey added, “what opponents to our initiative are asking for is to continue being able to use religion as a license to discriminate.”

Currently, the ballot initiative is stalled. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers says Fair and Equal Michigan has not secured enough valid signatures to get the issue on the ballot. The group plans to appeal.

Written by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement. Image: Fair and Equal Michigan/Facebook

Federal Lawsuit Seeks License to Discriminate Against LGBTQ Workers Based on Religion, Anal Sex, Grindr Use

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

Anti-LGBTQ activists in Texas are attempting to find a way around last year’s Supreme Court decision forbidding employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers by making their discrimination equal across genders. And the court just might go for it.

June 15 will be the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers. 

As if to mark the occasion, a group of anti-LGBTQ activists and churches based in Texas asked a federal judge this week to issue a sweeping ruling that could seriously undermine Bostock. 

In its 6-3 decision last June, the high court affirmed that the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling upheld a position that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which administers and enforces civil-rights laws, has taken since 2015. 

The Texas-based group, which includes hate-group leader Steve Hotze (pictured) as well as the U.S. Pastor Council, is seeking exemptions to both Bostock and EEOC policy that would allow employers to discriminate against LGBTQ workers based on sincerely held religious beliefs, under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and/or the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. 

“The plaintiffs have sincere and deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is limited to a man and a woman, that sex is to be reserved for marriage, and that men and women are to dress and behave in accordance with distinct and God-ordained, biological sexual identity,” the plaintiffs wrote in a brief filed Monday. “Title VII, as interpreted in Bostock, requires that the plaintiffs operate their businesses contrary to their religious beliefs by denying them the ability to prescribe standards of conduct and deportment for their employees. At the same time, the plaintiffs believe that they are called by God to obey the civil authorities. So they are caught in a bind, and until this Court grants the declaratory relief that the plaintiffs seek, the plaintiffs have no way to avoid violating their religious beliefs.” 

Moreover, the plaintiffs allege, Bostock should not bar employers from enacting policies, for religious or non-religious reasons, that target “practicing homosexual and transgender individuals” based on “homosexual or transgender conduct.”

“It is easy to imagine rules that comply with Bostock by applying equally to men and women, yet operate to exclude homosexual or transgender individuals from employment,” the plaintiffs wrote, before proposing the following examples: 

• “No employee, male or female, may enter a gay bar or gay bathhouse.”
• “No employee, male or female, may engage in the sexual practices associated with homosexuality.”
• “No employee, male or female, may engage in ‘deviate sexual intercourse,’ as that term is defined in section 25.02 of the Texas Penal Code.”
• “No employee, male or female, may use Grindr (or other dating apps used primarily by homosexuals).”
• “No employee, male or female, may seek or obtain hormone therapy unless it is prescribed for a medical condition other than gender dysphoria.”
• “No employee, male or female, may undergo surgery to modify their genitals, unless that surgery is needed for a medical condition other than gender dysphoria.” 

Elsewhere in the brief, the plaintiffs argue that Bostock should apply only to gay and transgender workers, and should not prohibit employers from discriminating against people of other sexual orientations, including bisexual folks. 

In addition to summary judgment and a permanent injunction against the EEOC, the plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their lawsuit. And, sadly, they seem likely to prevail — at least at the district court level.

The case is in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas, which is presided over by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who is among the nation’s most notorious right-wing federal judges. O’Connor previously  issued high-profile decisions striking down the Affordable Care Act and gutting Obama-era transgender protections.

Back in February, after O’Connor initially allowed the Bostock religious exemption lawsuit to move forward, LGBTQ advocates slammed the decision. 

Adrian Shanker, executive director of Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center, told the Philadelphia Gay News: “Judge O’Connor’s ruling misrepresents the clarity the Supreme Court provided in Bostock in favor of unnecessary and harmful religious exemptions to basic civil rights protections. Conservatives like to complain about judicial activism. But Judge O’Connor is the poster child for it with his repetitively fringe rulings that only a far-right zealot would find sensible. His ruling is a reminder that it is so critical that Congress passes explicit federal non-discrimination protections this year.”

Justin F. Robinette, a civil-rights attorney, told the newspaper he is expecting “another unfavorable ruling from Judge O’Connor and potential appeals.”

“The underlying lawsuit is part of a worrisome trend of putative Christian groups reframing the enforcement of LGBT-inclusive antibias laws as a form of discrimination against their religion,” Robinette said. “They want to create a right to discriminate that — taken to its extreme — would exempt them from every civil law, including the civil rights laws and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Bostock.”

Attorneys representing the EEOC from the Department of Justice have not yet filed a response to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. You can read the plaintiffs’ brief in support of the motion at U.S. Pastor Council v. EEOC.

Written by John Wright, The New Civil Rights Movement. Photo via NCRM.

Arkansas Governor Signs Pro-Religious Discrimination Bill Allowing Doctors to Refuse to Treat LGBTQ Patients

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

Late last week, Arkansas’s Governor signed into law the “Medical Ethics & Diversity Act,” which — in classic Republican doublespeak fashion — actually legalizes discrimination against LGBTQ patients for reason of “conscience.”

Arkansas Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson Friday afternoon signed into law a bill designed to give medical professionals, hospitals, insurance companies, and other medical providers – including students – legal protections to discriminate against LGBTQ patients while claiming they have a religious or moral right of “conscience” to do so. SB 289, the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” is a sweeping law that could have devastating implications on the health and well-being of every LGBTQ person in the state.

SB 289 is sponsored by Republican state Senator Kim Hammer, a Missionary Baptist preacher and hospice pastor who earlier this year declared war on Democrats after then-President Donald Trump had been impeached.

As NCRM reported earlier, when Hutchinson’s “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act” goes into effect this summer a physician could refuse to treat a transgender person, a mental health professional could end treatment with a young teenager who just revealed to them he is gay, a pharmacist could refuse to dispense contraceptive medication even if prescribed for non-pregnancy-related illnesses, and a student nurse could refuse to assist with an abortion, even if it were medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

But that’s not all. The new law is so broad that it allows hospitals and even insurance companies to refuse service for – including refusing to pay for – anything their polices claim violates their conscience. Catholic hospitals for decades have been refusing to allow abortions to be performed, but now an insurance company could refuse to pay for HIV medications, or even PrEP. They could refuse to pay for gender confirmation surgery.

Gov. Hutchinson signed the possibly unconstitutional legislation less than a day after signing another anti-LGBTQ bill into law, one that bans transgender girls and women from playing women’s sports.

Hutchinson, who is possibly considering a 2024 presidential run, is term limited and will be out of office after the 2022 election.

Last week the governor signed into law an anti-abortion bill he fully admits was designed to go to the Supreme Court in a far right wing effort to kill Roe v. Wade. Hutchinson back in 2015 signed into law an anti-LGBTQ “religious freedom” law he himself had called “divisive,” after having a small portion of the language changed. That same year Gov. Hutchinson allowed a bill prohibiting towns from enacting non-discrimination ordinances to become law.

Written by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement. Image via NCRM.