Amid a series of court rulings in favor of marriage equality, anti-LGBT forces are responding in state legislatures with bills that would allow discrimination to continue against same-sex couples.
The introduction of these bills — which range from allowing businesses to refuse services to same-sex couples to cutting off funds for the purposes of granting marriage licenses — comes as many conservative states are facing the reality of marriage equality delivered through court order and as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliver a nationwide ruling on the issue later this year.
Many of these bills, named Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, have the stated purpose of prohibiting the government from burdening an individual’s exercise of religion except to achieve a compelling interest, and only if that burden is the least restrictive means of reaching that interest.
But the wording in such legislation is seen as a thinly veiled attempt to enable discrimination by allowing businesses, such as florists and bakeries in the wedding business, to refuse services to same-sex couples, or by allowing court clerks to refuse to issue them marriage licenses.
Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the bills are problematic not only because they would allow discrimination against LGBT people, but also because they are constitutionally suspect.
“Some of these bills single out same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment, and we believe that poses a potential constitutional problem,” Rho said. “But it also obviously violates the principle that you’re being paid by the public, you’re being paid by taxpayer dollars, you should be serving all taxpayers.”
The center stage for these bills is Oklahoma, where lawmakers have introduced no fewer than eight pieces of anti-LGBT legislation at the start of the 2015 legislative session. Marriage equality became legal in the state as a result of a decision striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage from the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Supreme Court refused to review in October.
Two of these bills were introduced by State Rep. Sally Kern, the anti-LGBT lawmaker who gained notoriety in 2008 when she claimed homosexuality posed a greater danger to the country than terrorism, saying, “Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country.”
According to a coalition of LGBT groups monitoring Oklahoma — the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Freedom Oklahoma — the eight bills were submitted just before the filing deadline.
Troy Stevenson, executive director of the statewide LGBT group Freedom Oklahoma, pledged in a statement to defeat each of the bills in partnership with other organizations.
“Our community is under attack, and we are fighting back,” Stevenson said. “We won marriage last year, and in retaliation, a tiny handful of lawmakers have lashed out at us with an unprecedented amount of discriminatory legislation.”
The two bills introduced by Kern are the Freedom to Obtain Conversion Therapy Act, which would legitimize “ex-gay” sexual orientation conversion therapy and allow parents to seek the widely discredited practice for their children, and House Bill 1597, a bill that would allow Oklahoma businesses to deny services and accommodations to “any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association.”
Other bills would allow discrimination against LGBT people in the name of religious freedom. One bill, “Oklahoma Religious Freedom Reformation Act,” would allow individuals the freedom to refuse services based on sexual orientation for religious reasons or to refuse to consider a same-sex marriage as valid.
Another bill, the “Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act,” would prohibit the state from asserting a government interest in requiring a person to take part in a marriage ceremony contrary to a person’s religious beliefs.
Four more bills would undermine the newly achieved right of same-sex couples to wed in the state. The “Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act” would prohibit state and local officials from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages and cut off government funds for issuing or recognizing a same-sex marriage license. The “Protection of Religious Freedom in Sanctity of Marriage Act” provides a broad carve-out to allow individuals and religious organizations to refuse services to recognize a same-sex marriage.
Another bill, House 1125, seeks to do away with marriage licenses altogether in Oklahoma and instead require court clerks to file marriage certificates that recognize common law marriages or marriage ceremonies. Finally, House Bill 2215 seeks to stigmatize transgender people by requiring them to be designated as transgender on any marriage application and any marriage license.
Marty Rouse, HRC’s national field director, said the bills “are nothing more than despicably vile direct attacks” on LGBT people in Oklahoma.
“It’s astounding that extreme anti-equality politicians are making such drastic attempts to harm LGBT families,” Rouse said. “We call on all fair-minded Oklahomans to stand up for equality and help stop these horrific bills.”
Oklahoma is but one state where anti-LGBT bills have been introduced at the start of the 2015 legislative session. Other legislation has been introduced in states where courts recently made same-sex marriage legal — Colorado, Indiana, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming — and in states where marriage equality may come soon — Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi and Texas.
Including Oklahoma, a dozen states have anti-LGBT legislation pending before their state legislatures, according to a list compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Colorado — House Bill 1037 would prohibit public institutions of higher education from denying a religious student group a benefit solely based on the group’s requirement that its leaders adhere to religious beliefs or a standard of conduct, which could enable discrimination against LGBT students.
Georgia — House Bill 29 is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, although under this bill no employee may assert rights against an employer that isn’t the government.
Indiana — One pending bill, Senate Bill 127, would allow religious organizations contracting with the state to give preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion and require all employees to conform to the tenets of the religion to extent possible under Title VII, which could enable discrimination against LGBT workers.
Two other identical bills, House Bill 1632 and Senate Bill 568, are Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that would also allow individuals to file private litigation if they feel their religious beliefs are burdened.
Michigan — Senate Bill 4 is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would broadly define government to include “a person acting under the color of law.”
Missouri — Two identical bills — House Bill 104 and Senate Bill 248 — would prohibit institutions of higher education from denying benefits or discriminating against religious student associations from requiring leaders to adhere to the association’s beliefs or comply with standards of conduct, which could enable discrimination against LGBT students.
Mississippi — House Bill 858 would prohibit a state higher education institution from refusing to grant recognition to a religious student organization on the basis of the religious content of the group’s speech or from conducting internal affairs.
South Carolina — One bill, Senate Bill 116, would allow anyone employed by a judge of probate or clerk of court or any other officer authorized by law to issue a marriage license to refuse same-sex couples if doing so would violate a sincerely held religious belief.
Another bill, House Bill 3032, would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds or government salaries for paying for an activity that includes licensing or support of same-sex marriage. In the event an employee recognizes, grants, or enforces a same-sex marriage license, that person will be no longer eligible for a salary, pension and benefits from the state.
Texas — Two measures, House Joint Resolution 55 and Senate Joint Resolution 10, are constitutional amendments along the lines of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. For the House version, the term “government” could be a county, municipality or other political subdivision of Texas.
Another bill, House Bill 623, would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to license or support same-sex marriage. An employee who issues a license to a same-sex couple or recognizes their marriage would forfeit their salary, pension and employee benefits.
Utah — One bill, House Bill 66, would allow a person authorized to solemnize a marriage to refuse if that marriage violates a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Another measure, House Joint Resolution 5, is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the form of a constitutional amendment, that would allow religious organizations and individuals acting in connection with those religious organization from offering any service or rite that conflicts with their faith.
Virginia — One bill, House Bill 1409, would prevent any public entity from requiring its contractors to abide by non-discrimination policies that are more inclusive than the state law, which would leave out protections for LGBT people. Another bill, House Bill 1414, would allow people seeking to renew a state license to refuse assisting with same-sex marriage if that would violate religious or moral convictions.
Wyoming — House Bill 83 is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would enable a burdened party to bring a claim against a “government or person acting under color of state law.” House Bill 26, much like existing law, would enable an ordained minister to refuse to perform a ceremony of marriage.
Another religious freedom bill is expected to be reintroduced in Kansas, although the bill hasn’t been introduced yet. Last year, the Kansas House approved legislation that would enable individuals and business to refuse services for same-sex weddings, but the bill never came up for a vote in the Senate.
And this list doesn’t take into account what bills may emerge at the federal level. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) confirmed to the Washington Blade last week that he plans to introduce a U.S. constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from overturning state marriage laws. Also expected is the Marriage & Religious Freedom Act, which is purportedly aimed at prohibiting discrimination in the tax code against organizations that exercise “religious conscience” against same-sex marriage.
At least one campaign has already emerged with the intent of stopping bills in the Georgia General Assembly. Georgia Unites Against Discrimination has launched with the goal of stopping anti-LGBT bills from passing in the state and to legalize statewide LGBT non-discrimination protections.
Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, outlined the goals of the coalition in a statement, saying personal stories will be a component of the work.
“Through these coalition efforts, we will educate, organize and activate the citizens of Georgia to stop this dangerous legislation,” Graham said. “We will highlight the stories of real Georgians as we work to make the case that in our state, discrimination against anyone is wrong, and that includes people who are gay, lesbian or transgender.”
What could make stopping these bills difficult is massive Republican victories in state legislatures as a result of the GOP wave last year. The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers, which is the highest number in the history of the party, although the Republican presence in legislatures already controlled by the GOP is about the same.
History could prove to be a guide. Last year, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act approved by the Republican legislature after a massive outcry in the media and from Republican leaders and LGBT advocates. Similarly, a religious freedom bill approved by the Michigan House during the lame duck session of the legislature never came up in the Senate.
However, passage of another Religious Freedom Restoration Act succeeded in Mississippi, where Gov. Phil Bryant signed a measure into law in April despite objections from those who feared it would legitimize discrimination in the state.
ACLU’s Rho said the failure of these bills last year gives hope they will die this year — even in Republican legislatures — because it demonstrates opposition to them “cuts cleanly across partisan lines.”
“Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill in a very public way in Arizona with very prominent Republicans urging her to do so,” Rho said. “And we have seen in other states allies that you think would naturally be aligned with one party versus the other, such as the business community, really rising in opposition to these kinds of bills. And so, I don’t think the election outcomes of 2014 necessarily determined how the issues will fare, but we are obviously very concerned and will be very, very vigilant about the movement of these bills.”
Featured Local Savings
Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire
Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later
On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.
The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleans’ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, “United We Stand” by the Brotherhood of Man.
“United we stand,” the men would sing together, “divided we fall” — the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to today’s queer safe havens.
Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment.
For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal.
On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history — and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America.
As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.
As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: “Some thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.”
For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to “help our bereaved brothers and sisters” — and shatter officialdom’s code of silence.
Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. “It’s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,” Perry said.
Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals.
“This fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,” Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. “I do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.”
Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath — and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business.
“Phil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,” recounted Esteve’s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. “Phil wouldn’t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.”
The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. “How dare you hold your damn news conferences!” one business owner shouted.
Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. “Reverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,” recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.
Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge story’s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge — some with visible burn scars — gathered but were discouraged from singing “United We Stand.”
New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the city’s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt.
When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, “Where are the gay activists in New Orleans?,” Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. “We don’t feel we’re discriminated against,” Esteve said. “New Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere else… Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.”
An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking.
Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation — with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charlene’s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider.
By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: “A tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.”
Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneider’s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 — more than 18 years after the fire.
“I believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,” Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteve’s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989.
Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. What’s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world — a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.
When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire.
Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing.
The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the past’s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference?
I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy — and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally — resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation.
Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered.
Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens — in the spirit of voices who once gathered ‘round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, “United We Stand.”
Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of “Tinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.”
New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences
Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings
The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.
“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”
The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.
And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.
Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”
“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”
One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.
As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.
Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.
Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”
Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.
“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”
Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.
One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.
“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”
Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.
With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.
Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.
“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign
Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.
Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.
“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”
The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”
The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.
New Workforce Program Aims to Help Expand Economic Opportunity for the Trans Community
Longtime D.C. resident, humanitarian Eric Scharf dies at 65
HRC ad campaign slams ‘extremist’ House GOP’s role in looming government shutdown
Barbara Lee: PEPFAR is ‘more in peril’ than ever before
Dignity Washington holds Catholic mass in honor of woman priest
Federal judge: drag is ‘vulgar and lewd,’ ‘sexualized conduct’
D.C. rentals: DIY or seek professional help?
Eight jailed across Canada during anti-LGBTQ sex ed rallies
Lawsuit seeks to force Virginia Beach schools to implement state guidelines for trans, nonbinary students
Flight attendants union endorses Sarah McBride
Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast
U.S. Federal Courts4 days ago
Federal judge: drag is ‘vulgar and lewd,’ ‘sexualized conduct’
Real Estate3 days ago
D.C. rentals: DIY or seek professional help?
Canada5 days ago
Eight jailed across Canada during anti-LGBTQ sex ed rallies
Virginia4 days ago
Lawsuit seeks to force Virginia Beach schools to implement state guidelines for trans, nonbinary students