Opinions
Celebrate Bostock, for now
Religious questions continue to shape scope of legal protections
In what is at least the biggest victory for LGBTQ Americans since the 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, last month the Supreme Court held that employers who fire employees for their sexual orientation or gender identity violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
But under what circumstances will religious employers be subject to, and their employees protected by, the rule the Court announced?
Let’s start with the positive. The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and the two cases consolidated with it arguably expands the civil rights of LGBTQ Americans more broadly than the Court’s previous gay rights decisions. While the Court’s earlier decisions affirmed for LGBTQ people what retired Justice Anthony Kennedy dubbed “equal dignity in the eye of the law,” in practice they benefited LGBTQ people primarily in the context of our romantic, marital, and sexual relationships. Monday’s decision establishes the equality of LGBTQ individuals as individuals, of sexual orientation and gender identity as categories of human personhood.
This should be a time of nearly unalloyed celebration for LGBTQ Americans, our families, friends, and allies. Though we mourn the loss of two of the plaintiffs in the cases, Donald Zarda and Aimee Stephens, who did not survive to see justice done, the decision has far-reaching implications we have waited a long time for. But the Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and the court’s four liberal members, also signaled where the next front in the battle for LGBTQ equality will be drawn.
Religion, as Justice Stephen Breyer commented at October’s oral arguments, “is the elephant in the room.” It was not for nothing that numerous faith-based organizations attempted to sway the Court’s thinking. National evangelical associations and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops weighed in on behalf of employers who had fired gay and transgender employees, warning that a decision like the one the Court handed down this week “will trigger open conflict with faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions.” But the Court heard from religious voices on the other side of the spectrum as well, with progressive Muslim, Jewish, and Christian groups urging the justices to affirm the God-given equality of all individuals and prohibit discrimination in our increasingly pluralistic society.
Justice Breyer was right about the place of religion in the cases decided in June, because they did not explicitly feature arguments about religious freedom. Title VII does include an exception for religious organizations that wish to make employment decisions on the basis of their employees’ religious beliefs. Over the past 40 years, lower courts and the Supreme Court have added a separate, judge-made exception that, in the name of avoiding First Amendment problems, frees religious institutions from Title VII when it comes to the hiring and firing of those whom the courts deem “ministers.” And, as Justice Gorsuch observed, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) might also “supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.”
But most objections to the full equality of LGBTQ Americans rest on religious grounds, and so it is not surprising that questions about religion continue to shape the scope of legal protections for LGBTQ citizens.
We will not have to wait long for the next salvo in what has become an ongoing conflict between antidiscrimination laws and assertions about religious freedom.
In May, two Trump administration cabinet departments proposed enabling healthcare providers and homeless shelters to turn away, for reasons of conscience, those who identify as transgender. Later this term—maybe even this week—the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in a second set of discrimination cases. Teachers at two Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles claim they were fired for legally impermissible reasons: one because of a cancer diagnosis that rose to the level of a disability, the other because of age. The schools have argued that because the teachers performed “important religious functions,” they are covered by Title VII’s “ministerial exception” and, therefore, the schools’ employment decisions merit categorical immunity from antidiscrimination laws.
Whether in the context of sexuality, disability, or age, situations like these demand that courts and legislators walk a very narrow tightrope. The success of our pluralistic society requires that we neither ignore sincerely held doctrines religious institutions follow when deciding whom to permit to minister in their name, nor that we defer so blindly to religious institutions that any invocation of faith becomes a shield against laws written to govern everyone, including antidiscrimination laws. It is troubling that, in recent years, some courts and administrative agencies have refused to decide disputes involving religiously affiliated employers, hesitating even to inquire whether they have jurisdiction in individual cases.
The Supreme Court did not need to, and therefore did not, resolve these complex questions in its landmark ruling in Bostock. But the questions keep turning up, in cases involving bakers and photographers, teachers and organists. For the peace of mind of all who work in and patronize institutions with a religious mission, sooner or later the Court will have to decide. Whether that day will also be a day of celebration for LGBTQ Americans remains to be seen.
Patrick Hornbeck is chair and professor of theology at Fordham University, where he is also a JD candidate at Fordham Law School.
Opinions
Corporate LGBTQ Pride 2026 on life support
A rainbow washout as marketing dollars disappear
Terrified of becoming targets of right wing media and activists, businesses and brands are fleeing Pride support in 2026. The fear of boycotts and retribution have seen Pride sponsorships plummet to previously unseen levels. Further, there is now a complete corporate reevaluation of marketing and advertising activities in the LGBTQ consumer sector writ large.
No more rainbow washing. For the past 30 years, corporations have literally wrapped their brands in rainbow colored monikers during the month of June. This practice, know as “rainbow washing,” sought to ingratiate companies with the over $1 trillion LGBTQ consumer segment. From rainbow filled Oreos to rainbow wrapped Burger King Whoppers, brands actively engaged in developing relationships with this coveted consumer. Now, it’s considered taboo.
No more multi-million dollar beer sponsorships in the aftermath of the Bud Light disaster. For the first time since the over 100 Pride festivals accepted marketing opportunities, major brands including Bud Light, Miller and Corona have decided that reputational risk, boycotts and the like are more dangerous than the commercial reward. Their non-participation and the significance of this loss cannot be overstated.
When right-wing bloviators co-opted the meaning of the word woke, they turned a positive definition into a pejorative. Now, corporations and brands are petrified of being labeled as woke, and in turn, are curtailing marketing outreach to niche consumer segments, LGBTQ included.
Anti-woke legislation has now appeared in a multitude of states, primarily around transgender issues. Bathroom bills, as they are known, are ubiquitous. Boys playing in girls sports,is portrayed as a national emergency. These issues are a constant presence on social media as well as at every level of government, and have had a major impact on LGBTQ-related corporate activities.
But perhaps most devastating, is the federal government effort to enact elements of the right-wing’s Project 2025 agenda, seeking to eradicate DEI at every level. Companies, universities, and nearly all institutions that previously championed diversity, equity, and inclusion, have rapidly and radically disbanded and defunded all DEI efforts and activities within their organizations. Discontinuing supplier diversity initiatives, defunding support for internal ERG’s (employee resource groups), and decamping from participation in HRC’s (Human Rights Campaign) Equality Index. Importantly, this index is considered the gold standard for corporate DEI evaluation, and its repudiation is having a profound effect on corporate behavior.
DEI is now in the ICU on life support, with little chance of resuscitation. Companies that once embraced DEI have retreated in fear, in spite of critical positive facts. In 2023, McKinsey and Company, no bastion of liberalism stated, “that for five years, our research has shown a positive, statistically significant correlation between company financial outperformance and diversity, on the dimensions of both gender and ethnicity.”
What happens next is unknown. We have entered uncharted territory where the confluence of so many factors is having negative effects. June 2026 has seen many companies severely curtail or fully exit partnerships with Pride organizations and LGBTQ marketing programs in general, citing among other things, economic concerns. However, no company can honestly deny that overall fear and the increasingly hostile climate for DEI and LGBTQ issues have prompted brands to rethink their overall support and initiatives. This, despite pressure from stakeholders and shareholders, and vital employee recruitment and retention efforts.
Political winds have outcomes. It would be naïve to think that there might be an immediate rethinking should the Congress or presidency change parties. Business cycles, though more agile than government, take longer to work through. Years, not months. So just as quickly as “rainbow washing” has come to a precipitous end, so too is the arrival and reckoning with the blistering Rainbow Washout.
Andrew A. Isen is the founder and president of WinMark Concepts, a D.C.-based marketing and communications firm. For 35 years, WinMark has been advising companies and brands on defining and developing effective LGBTQ business strategies.
Opinions
Cowardly corporations abandon LGBTQ America
Execs are hiding in the closet this Pride season. Should we ever welcome them back?
I had a thought provoking conversation with Billy Porter over Memorial Day weekend. The talented and opinionated star asked me how things were going at the Blade and in D.C. given the current administration in the White House.
It was a loaded question. The short answer is that things in D.C. are pretty terrible these days — the economy is down, inflation and gas prices are up; small businesses and non-profits are struggling amid widespread government funding cuts; and, yes, media outlets large and small are also feeling the pinch. Even the aesthetics of our once beautiful city are suffering (see the White House lawn).
For queer-identified businesses, the news is worse, as major corporations across the country have reduced or eliminated support for anything deemed “DEI,” which includes LGBTQ causes and support for Pride celebrations.
When I explained all of this to Porter, he replied with a quick and definitive comment that has left me thinking for weeks: “And when the pendulum swings back, don’t let those companies back in. Ever.”
There are certainly some big companies that continue to live their values and stand by the LGBTQ community — Absolut, Marriott, Walmart, Coca-Cola. But so many others have abandoned us at a challenging time — Target, Bud Light (and most beer brands), PepsiCo, Accenture, among a long list.
There’s a lot of cynicism about so-called “rainbow capitalism,” or the practice of companies profiting off of the LGBTQ community especially during Pride month. We’ve seen all sorts of silly pandering in recent years — rainbow Oreos and Doritos come to mind.
But corporate America has frequently been called upon to play an important role in advancing equality. From implementing inclusive and affirming hiring and workplace practices (especially in places lacking legal protections) to using their influence to advance public policy, our corporate allies have helped us in myriad ways. To suggest we don’t need them ignores the many accomplishments corporate leaders have made on our behalf. They stepped up to fight bathroom bills in North Carolina and they successfully blunted Mike Pence’s notorious “license to discriminate” law in Indiana.
That was then. Fast forward to 2026 and under pressure from the corrupt Trump administration, our former corporate allies have run for cover. They are cowards. Their cynical abandonment of the LGBTQ community has grave consequences. New York City Pride ran $800,000 short last year after major sponsors like Mastercard and Nissan pulled out, according to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal. San Francisco Pride fell $300,000 in debt last year when Anheuser-Busch and others pulled out, the Journal noted. Phoenix Pride has filed for bankruptcy. There will be many other casualties.
The topic of how to respond if and when the pendulum swings back is a popular one right now in the LGBTQ movement. Do we replace corporate sponsorship dollars with grants and individual donations? That’s easier said than done. Do we take their money and forgive these transgressions? Or do we follow Porter’s advice and tell them to fuck off?
Nonprofits, Pride organizations, and queer media outlets like the Blade have some thinking to do about this. No one is in business to turn away sponsors and ad dollars. But we have a responsibility to our customers, readers, and community to operate ethically. An ad in the Blade carries a lot more subtext and meaning than an ad in the Washington Post.
To those companies and executives hiding in the closet this Pride season: Shame on you. To the companies standing with us: Our sincere gratitude. Our community’s memory is long and we will not forget those who resisted Trump’s anti-DEI crusade to stand on the right side of history.
Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].
Opinions
Confronting homophobia at school
Queer students should feel comfortable and safe in the classroom
A couple weeks ago, I was walking into my school’s cafeteria, about to get lunch. As I navigated around groups of students, I heard a student shouting “ fa**ot!” over and over again at one of his friends, as some kind of joke or playful insult. How do I know it was a joke? Because I’ve seen countless amounts of people at my school call each other this slur, or other homophobic language while bantering with their friends. The prevalence of homophobia in my school, even if it’s not directed at queer people, is troubling.
As an openly queer student, I’ve experienced homophobia in school since middle school. During middle school, I was teased, bullied, and ostracized just because I tried to live as my authentic self. My classmates knowingly asked me uncomfortable and invasive questions about my sexuality, and I was called all types of dehumanizing names. The bullying was so bad that I would frequently isolate myself during school, just so I could get a break from all of the harassment I went through. I felt like I was an outcast, so I’d constantly hide myself behind books or my computer. I started to develop depressive and suicidal thoughts, and every day I had to go to school was a nightmare for me.
When I eventually graduated middle school and started high school, I was elated to discover that there were many more queer students at my school, some of whom I’d eventually get to know and become friends with. However, the homophobia I faced did not go away, but instead took a new form. Instead of hearing homophobic slurs directed at me, they’re now used as if they were another insult, like “stupid” or “idiot,” despite the fact that they carry much more weight. I still have to face the effects of the normalization of homophobia and homophobic language in schools, and it isn’t just my school that has this problem.
According to the District of Columbia Public Schools Panorama Survey, only 45 percent of gay and lesbian students, 37 percent of bisexual students, and 39 percent of transgender or nonbinary students in DCPS schools say that students in their school show them respect. Across the entire district, over half of LGBTQ students feel as if they are not respected in school which is both heartbreaking, yet not surprising to see as a queer student myself. And this is a consistent trend across all of America. According to Glisten’s 2025 National School Climate Survey, which polls LGBTQ youth about their school climate, two-thirds of LGBTQ students said they felt unsafe at school due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, 63 percent of students reported hearing homophobic remarks from peers, and 62 percent and 68 percent of participants experienced harassment or assault based on sexual orientation or gender identity respectively.
School should be a place where queer students should feel comfortable and safe, a place where they can learn and prosper. Instead, so many are mistreated and abused, and feel as if they’re an outsider in their own community. Teachers and administrators should be striving to create a LGBTQ+ friendly space where all kinds of students can work toward their goals in an environment where they feel accepted and loved.
(This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Quinn McPherson is a rising sophomore at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. YMG founder, former USA Today health policy reporter Jayne O’Donnell, contributed to this report.)
N.Y. governor’s race presents stark contrast on LGBTQ rights
Rehoboth’s ‘Poodle Beach’ to be honored with historical marker
McDuffie concedes to Lewis George in D.C.’s mayoral primary
Obama Center opens with tributes to marriage equality, LGBTQ progress
Intersex teacher alleges Fla. school fired him over perceived trans identity
PHOTOS: Lost River Pride
David Archuleta on Mormon faith, ‘Idol,’ more in new book
PHOTOS: Pride on the Pier
The advantages of owning your home
