News
Arizona’s ‘turn away the gay’ bill part of national trend
As other measures defeated, Kansas could see resurrected bill this week
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.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
Congress
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Protesters interrupted Secretary of State Marco Rubio during hearing
U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday arrested 10 HIV/AIDS activists who protested Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The activists from Housing Works, Health GAP, the Treatment Action Group, and ACT UP held signs and chanted “Rubio’s Cuts Kill People with AIDS, PEPFAR Saves Lives!” before officers removed them from Dirksen Senate Office Building room where the hearing took place.
A media advisory the Washington Blade received before the protest noted “mounting evidence of Rubio’s attempts to sabotage PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, U.S. bilateral AIDS program) and vital global health programs.” The press release specifically highlighted three specific points:
• Eliminating Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) lifesaving PEPFAR programs, which currently support approximately 12 million people on HIV treatment across 51 countries. Instead, Rubio intends to dismantle CDC’s current PEPFAR role and stamp out their global footprint in disease outbreak and surveillance for pandemics beyond HIV. Experts including eight former CDC Directors under Republican and Democratic administrations have spoken out against this effort to dismantle PEPFAR. Recent PEPFAR data showed sharp decreases in the numbers of people newly tested, diagnosed, and treated for HIV, but these data would have been even worse if not for CDC’s PEPFAR programs.
• Withholding $2 billion in Congressionally appropriated FY25 funding, including $330 million to combat HIV, $250 million to fight malaria, $320 million for maternal and child health programs, and nearly $650 million in global health security programs.
• Negotiating secret bilateral deals blackmailing African governments by demanding access to critical mineral wealth as a condition of access to HIV treatment and prevention funding.
The groups have staged several protests against the Trump-Vance administration’s HIV/AIDS policies since it took office.
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates.
The New York Times last summer reported Vought “apportioned” only $2.9 billion of $6 billion that Congress set aside for PEPFAR for fiscal year 2025. (PEPFAR in the coming fiscal year will use funds allocated in fiscal year 2024.)
Bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate prompted the Trump-Vance administration last July withdraw a proposal to cut $400 million from PEPFAR’s budget. Vought a few weeks later said he would use a “pocket rescission” to cancel $4.9 billion for HIV/AIDS prevention and global health programs and other foreign aid assistance initiatives that Congress had already approved.
The White House in January expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the original regulation, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. Advocacy groups insist the expanded rule will adversely impact HIV prevention efforts around the world.
“Congress must stop Secretary Rubio before he dismantles PEPFAR,” said Treatment Action Group’s Kendall Martinez-Wright. “Rubio continues to defy the will of Congress and the American people who want this program restored and repaired. Under his leadership he is diverting funding and trying to eliminate the essential role of technical experts in global HIV and global health, while program performance is flailing.”
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
Claudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
