Connect with us

News

Arizona’s ‘turn away the gay’ bill part of national trend

As other measures defeated, Kansas could see resurrected bill this week

Published

on

Jan Brewer, Republican Party, Arizona, gay news, Washington Blade

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.) is considering legislation that would legalize LGBT discrimination in Arizona. (Photo by Gage Skidmore; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

An emerging trend of state legislation allowing businesses to refuse services on religious grounds — most recently in Arizona where a measure has reached the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer (R) — has triggered outrage among advocates who say the bills are intended to enable discrimination against LGBT people.

The bill passed by the legislature in Arizona, SB 1062, has become known as the “turn away the gay” bill after the Republican-controlled Arizona State House approved the measure Thursday by a 33-27 vote.

Despite her reputation as an ultra conservative, Brewer expressed uncertainty over the weekend over what action she’ll take on the bill, saying the measure is “very controversial.” She has five days to sign or veto the measure once it reaches her desk.

“We know that it has failed in a lot of states across the country,” Brewer told reporters. “I have not been in town currently. I’ve been reading about it on the Internet, and I will make my decision probably by next Friday, if I do decide to sign it. But it’s very controversial. So I got to get my hands around it.”

The measure never mentions the words “gay,” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” but expands the state’s definition of exercise of religion to allow any person — which under the bill could be an individual, a religious assembly or business — to deny services based on a religious belief.

Under the bill, the exemption could only be used in court if the refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief; the person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and state action “substantially” burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.

Critics say the legislation is intended to allow businesses to deny services or discriminate against gay people or same-sex couples — even though Arizona state law already permits discrimination in employment and public accommodations.

Eunico Rho, an advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union who works on state initiatives, said the measure would set “a dangerous precedent” because it would invite individuals and businesses in Arizona to discriminate.

“Arizona already has a law that says the government can’t unnecessarily burden somebody’s religious beliefs, but this takes that into the private sphere and says no private individual can burden somebody’s else religious beliefs,” Rho said. “Given how religiously diverse we are — and the state of Arizona is — it’s just such a dangerous and unprecedented on…the legislature’s part.”

Because certain localities in Arizona bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, Rho said the passage of the Arizona bill would complicate the enforcement of these ordinances.

Amid consternation over the legislation and scrutiny from national media, the anti-gay group that drafted the legislation said the concerns are overblown.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said in a statement Friday the measure is merely aimed at protecting religious liberties.

“Simply put, the fear-mongering from opponents is unrelated to the language of the bill, and proves that hostility towards people of faith is very real,” Herrod said. “It’s a shame we even need a bill like this in America. But growing hostility against freedom in our nation, and the increasing use of government to threaten and punish its own citizens, has made it necessary.”

Although major national LGBT rights groups were initially silent on the Arizona bill, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force issued statements on Friday after Brewer expressed uncertainty about the bill and gay blogger Joe Jervis criticized them for their silence.

Amid the wait over what action Brewer will take on the legislation, LGBT grassroots advocates have started a campaign to encourage her to reject the measure by asking businesses in Arizona to speak out.

Scott Wooledge, a New York-based LGBT netroots advocate, has set up a website, “Do AZ’s Top Businesses Support Or Oppose SB 1062?” monitoring the positions of Arizona businesses on the legislation.

“Together, the companies I approached employ more than a quarter million people in the state of Arizona,” Wooledge said. “This makes them all significant stakeholders in any business-related legislation, and SB 1062 is a business-related bill.”

Companies headquartered in Arizona identified on the website are US Airways, PetSmart, Apollo Group, GoDaddy, U-Haul, Cold Stone Creamery, Bashas’ Markets, Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc, Banner Health P.F. Chang’s, Best Western and Circle K. None were listed as having expressed a position as of Monday morning.

[UPDATE: On Monday evening, Apple Inc. and the CEO of American Airlines Group Inc called Brewer to ask her to veto the bill, according to the Associated Press.]

But both members of Arizona’s delegation to the U.S. Senate — Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have weighed in via Twitter to urge Brewer to reject the bill. Both were among the Senate Republicans who voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last year (although Flake twice voted against cloture.)

Others who have spoken out via Twitter to urge Brewer to veto the bill are Democrats representing the state in the U.S. House: Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) and bisexual Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Prior to House passage of the bill last week, Sinema said in a statement that Brewer must consider the negative consequences of the legislation should she sign it.

“The economic hit to our state, if this misguided bill is signed into law, will undoubtedly harm thousands of hardworking Arizonans, and is irresponsible at a time when we are just starting to recover from the economic downturn,” Sinema said. “Arizona is better than this. I call on Governor Brewer to show leadership and veto the bill if it is sent to her.””

In recent weeks, the movement of the legislation to enable discrimination by expanding religious liberties hasn’t been limited to Arizona. As previously reported by the Washington Blade, progress on these bills is apparently a new tactic from anti-gay groups in response to the advancement of marriage equality.

Laura Durso, director of the LGBT project for the Center for American Progress, said the proliferation of these bills puts at risk all Americans, not just LGBT Americans.

“Bills like Arizona’s SB 1062 open the door to all types of discrimination, not only in wedding-related services but among healthcare providers and other licensed professionals,” Durso said. “The first amendment protects our right to practice our religion as we see fit and these types of laws threaten our social contract — that we treat others as we wish to be treated and abide by the same rules in the public marketplace.”

In Kansas, the State House approved legislation allowing businesses to refuse services to same-sex couples. And unlike the Arizona bill, the Kansas measure explicitly mentions same-sex couples, saying no individual should be required to provide a service related to a same-sex wedding or civil union ceremony.

Numerous media outlets, including the Blade, reported last week the legislation, House Bill 2453, was dead in the Senate following public outcry, but one LGBT advocate in the state said he’s not so sure.

Thomas Witt, executive director of the Kansas Equality Coalition, said he expects the legislation to reappear in the Senate — possibly with slightly different language as an insert to a larger bill — as early as Wednesday.

“The radical right in the House is pushing real hard to bring this bill back, not under that number,” Witt said. “The number is dead. The Senate is not going to let that number come back up, but they’re looking for a way to stuff the language in a different bill.”

Similar religious exemption bills that have died have come in Maine, where the House last week defeated a measure by a 89-52 vote, as well as in South Dakota, Tennessee and Idaho, which all died in committee.

Lawmakers pushing the bills are drawing on recent stories of individuals facing penalties for refusing services to same-sex couples, such as a Colorado baker who was found to have violated a couple’s civil rights for refusing to bake a cake for them or the New Mexico photographer who got in trouble after refusing to take a picture of a same-sex wedding ceremony.

ACLU’s Rho noted that lawmakers in Arizona and Kansas have been drawing on these stories to advocate for the enactment of religious exemption bills, but said she doesn’t think the bills are anything new.

“I think in Arizona, they’ve made it quite clear, that that was one of the main reasons for expanding the religious refusal bill into this extraordinary scope,” Rho said. “But as I said, people claiming the right to refuse services is certainly nothing new.”

Despite the proliferation of these bills, no LGBT advocate is calling on President Obama to publicly condemn them — even though they’ve asked for his help for other LGBT rights causes.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had little to say Monday when asked about the Arizona bill by CNN.

“I haven’t spoken with the president about that,” Carney said. “I don’t have an official position. It certainly doesn’t sound particularly tolerant, but I don’t have a position at this time.”

But LGBT advocates say Obama’s voice against advancing the bills in these Republican-dominated states will fall on deaf ears — and might even encourage lawmakers to enact the measures.

Rho said she thinks an appropriate response would be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar many employers from discriminating against LGBT workers across the country, as opposed to vocal opposition from Obama.

“Unfortunately, I think a lot of the state legislatures and the governors who are endorsing these kind of measures don’t care much for what the president says or thinks, so I don’t know if Sam Brownback cares much for President Obama’s opinion,” Rho said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Study shows ‘pervasive mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement’

Findings claim nationwide police misconduct, including in D.C., Va., Md.

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

The LGBTQ supportive Williams Institute, an arm of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, released a report last month citing multiple research studies conducted over the past 25 years showing past and “ongoing” mistreatment of LGBTQ people by law enforcement throughout the United States.

“Findings show that LGBTQ communities – particularly LGBTQ people of color, youth, and transgender and gender nonconforming individuals – have faced profiling, entrapment, discrimination, harassment, and violence from law enforcement for decades, and this mistreatment continues to be widespread,” according to a Williams Institute statement.

“Experiences of police mistreatment may discourage LGBTQ people from reporting crimes or engaging with law enforcement,” Joshua Arrayales, the report’s lead author and Williams Institute Law Fellow said in the statement.

“Reporting crimes is essential for accurate crime statistics, property allocation of crime prevention resources, and support services that address the unique needs of LGBTQ survivors,” he said.

The 59-page report cites the findings of two dozen or more studies and surveys of LGBTQ people’s interaction with police and law agencies for the past 25 years through 2024 conducted by various organizations, including the ACLU, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the Williams Institute, and local government agencies.

But the report does not provide a breakdown of where police abuse against LGBTQ people occurred by specific police departments or locations. Instead it provides survey research findings of large groups of LGBTQ people who responded to a survey in different  locations of the U.S.

Among other things, those surveys have found “LGBTQ people are more likely than non-LGBTQ people to report being stopped by police, searched by police, arrested, and falsely accused of an offense,” the Williams Institute statement accompanying the report says. “LGBTQ people also report substantial rates of verbal harassment, physical harassment, sexual harassment, and assault,” it says.

The report itself cites surveys of LGBTQ people’s interactions with police in D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia but does not give specific cases or identify specific police departments or agencies.   

“A 2022 study based on interviews with 19 Black transgender women from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. identified a theme of re-victimization while seeking help from police,” the report says. “One participant noted that male officers asked what she did to cause her own abuse,” according to the report.

“Other participants expressed that when a knowledgeable officer was present, such as an LGBTQ+ liaison, they felt more inclined to reach out for help,” it says. 

The report also states, “A 2024 study based on interviews with 44 transgender people in Virginia documented two instances of transgender women being pulled over for broken tail lights and then being mistreated once officers discovered they were transgender based on their IDs.” The report does not reveal the specific location in Virginia where this took place.

Other locations the report cites data on anti-LGBTQ conduct by police include New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Newark, N.J., and Austin and San Antonio in Texas.

The full report can be accessed at williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Continue Reading

Research/Study

HRC study reveals GOP efforts to undermine LGBTQ rights and services in 2026

House Republicans are pushing numerous anti-LGBTQ measures in FY26 bills, that could threaten healthcare, nondiscrimination protections, and LGBTQ rights.

Published

on

Potesters marching in front of HRC offices in honor of trans visibility on Aug. 24, 2024. (Washington Blade Photo by Erkki Forster)

A new study by the Human Rights Campaign shows House Republicans continue to push anti-LGBTQ legislation, despite overwhelming nationwide support for nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people.

The study found that Trump-supporting Republicans are attempting to pass 52 anti-LGBTQ riders—unofficial amendments to legislation with little chance of passing on their own—across 12 of the must-pass FY26 federal appropriations bills.

If enacted, these riders would become a significant vehicle for undermining LGBTQ+ equality.

Chart from the HRC’s most recent study highlighting the use of riders to pass anti-LGBTQ policy that would otherwise fail. (Chart courtesy of HRC)

The riders impose broad anti-LGBTQ measures, including blocking gender-affirming care, erasing sexual orientation and gender identity data, restricting nondiscrimination protections, limiting support for LGBTQ+ communities, targeting global LGBTQ+ rights and public health, interfering in medical decisions, and curtailing LGBTQ+ participation in sports, education, and civic life.

In addition to the riders, congressional Republicans have used the rescissions process—where the government takes back money already approved for programs deemed no longer necessary—to remove funding from Biden-era programs that have served as major lifelines for the most vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community, particularly low-income individuals, transgender youth, and people living with or at high risk for HIV.

Together, these efforts, combined with an already hostile White House eager to remove funding from anything deemed too “woke” or “wasteful,” have created a sizable gap in federal funding for programs once seen as foundational. Funding for nondiscrimination, public health, housing, and civil rights is now at risk, as Republicans follow Trump’s lead.

The HRC report shows that these proposed bills would drastically affect many aspects of LGBTQ existence, highlighting actions that will harm LGBTQ Americans.

These include establishing a “First Amendment Defense Act,” which allows individuals, businesses, universities, and federally funded agencies to refuse services to LGBTQ+ people in the name of personal belief; pushing drag bans on military bases and in U.S. foreign aid programming; minimizing gender-affirming care by reducing funding and punishing medical providers; and even applying a global gag rule to gender-affirming care in U.S.-supported foreign assistance programs.

The study also highlights attempts to block Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement for gender-affirming care and efforts to restrict PrEP, HIV testing, and sexual health services—policies that will particularly harm transgender people. It details extensive Republican efforts to redefine “sex” as strictly biological in standalone bills, appearing in riders that would gut Section 1557 protections and affect access to HIV prevention, Ryan White services, Title X reproductive health, and HOPWA housing programs.

Chart from the HRC’s most recent study showcasing various anti-LGBTQ policies being pushed by MAGA Republicans. (Chart courtesy of HRC)

Additional bills listed criminalize or stigmatize LGBTQ identity and are informing restrictions on community health education, HIV prevention campaigns, school-based health centers, and public health research funding at the CDC and NIH.

“This country deserves leadership that uses its power to help meet the needs of the people. Instead, MAGA Republicans make everything about attacking transgender people,” said David Stacy, Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Government Affairs.

“They have now spent three years attempting to poison these must-pass bills with anti-LGBTQ+ riders that polarize the House appropriations process and weaponize the federal government against our community, while doing nothing to address the urgent needs of their constituents. The American people have been clear: anti-equality politicians should stop shirking responsibility and actually serve all of their constituents. Pro-equality members of Congress must defeat the latest wave of anti-LGBTQ+ provisions and hold the line against hate.”

On election night, HRC released a memo showing anti-trans ad campaigns are failing and Americans overwhelmingly support equality. Nearly two-thirds of Americans back federal nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people, including 58% of independents and 42% of Republicans.

Almost 7 in 10 say politicians are too uninformed about transgender youth healthcare to make fair policies, and nearly half think lawmakers shouldn’t focus on transgender issues at all. And 70% percent worry politicians are targeting LGBTQ youth to divide the country and score political points.

Continue Reading

The White House

SPJ calls for take down of Trump’s ‘media offenders’ website

White House launched online database on Monday

Published

on

The Society for Professional Journalists has called out the White House for creating a website that targets individual journalists and news outlets that publish unfavorable coverage of the Trump-Vance administration.

In a letter to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday, the SPJ — the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, which works to protect the free practice of journalism with high ethical standards — asked the White House to take down its website singling out journalists for negative coverage of the administration.

“Journalists have a constitutionally protected and societally encouraged duty to hold power to account. They are not political opponents to be tracked, cataloged or punished,” the letter signed by SPJ National President Chris Vaccaro and SPJ Ethics Committee Chair Dan Axelrod.

“By publishing reporters’ names, outlets and specific stories, the White House is naming and shaming members of the press in a highly charged political and social environment. SPJ regards this as a form of online harassment that exposes journalists to potential threats and even violence.”

The website currently lists 23 outlets as “Media Offenders of the Week,” singling out national organizations like CBS News, the Boston Globe, and the Independent. The website says these particular organizations “misrepresents and exaggerates President Trump.”

The letter goes on to explain that there are more civil ways to disagree with published stories without singling out people for doing the only constitutionally protected job in the country.

“There are well-established ways of resolving disagreements over the fairness or accuracy of stories. The White House web page attacking so-called ‘media offenders’ ignores these principles and instead denigrates and attacks reporters.”

It also highlights how Trump often attacks women journalists in particular, noting that two weeks ago he told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg News to be “quiet piggy” after she asked questions related to Trump’s relationship with sex offender Jeffery Epstein on Air Force One.

“Journalists, particularly women, already face an enormous amount of online harassment, and this can convert into physical violence. As you know, women journalists have also been publicly insulted by the president in recent weeks.”

The letter also explains that attacks like this on the legitimate press can cause tensions between journalists who attempt to hold those in power responsible and the public who consumes the rhetoric.

“This page, which categorizes reporting as ‘lies,’ ‘left-wing lunacy,’ and ‘malpractice,’ has a chilling effect on coverage. It undermines the healthy democratic relationship in which journalists hold power to account.”

The letter also draws a connection to how the Russian authoritarian dictatorship references media it dislikes, saying, “The president’s new ‘media offenders’ list mirrors a 2017 initiative by the Kremlin that labeled independent journalism as ‘fake news.’ The United States should not follow that example.”

“SPJ believes civility must be restored between the media and the Administration. Removing this page would be a vital first step toward lowering the temperature and reinforcing America’s commitment to free expression.”

The SPJ’s code of ethics, widely regarded as the ethical standard for good journalism, has four main pillars: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent. The code was adopted in 1926 from the American Society of Newspaper Editors and has been revised multiple times since then, including in 1984, 1987, 1996, and most recently in 2014.

NLGJA, the The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists is the journalist-led association that works within the news media to advance fair and accurate coverage of LGBTQ+ communities and issues, provided a statement to the Blade on the website and supports the SPJ’s public call for removing the website to restore faith in journalistic freedom in the U.S.

“We stand with SPJ in urging the Trump administration to remove its website targeting so-called “media offenders.” While NLGJA believes that media organizations should be held to the highest standards of accuracy and ethical reporting, this website does nothing to support a healthy press environment,” National Board President Ken Miguel told the Blade via email. “Instead, it undermines public trust in the free press, enables the harassment and targeting of journalists, and hinders their ability to cover the news fairly and accurately. Journalists must be able to do their work without fear of government retaliation.”

The White House has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the letter.

Continue Reading

Popular