Connect with us

homepage news

Biden’s LGBTQ promises complicated by coronavirus, impeachment crises

Equality Act may not reach Biden by 100-day plan

Published

on

Biden’s LGBTQ agenda may be complicated by coronavirus, impeachment crises.

President-elect Joe Biden will have his hands full upon his inauguration next week with coronavirus cases surging and impeachment proceedings in Congress, which may complicate his efforts to act on campaign promises to the LGBTQ community, especially signing the Equality Act into law with 100 days.

Biden, however, seems ready to pull the trigger on one LGBTQ initiative: Just before the holidays, Biden’s team told LGBTQ leaders in a conference call that Biden on his first day in office Jan. 20 would direct the Defense Department to dismantle the transgender military ban, individuals familiar with the call told the Washington Blade.

It may take an entire year before the Pentagon is completely able to undo the ban, which President Trump initiated by tweet in July 2017.

But after that day one action, things get more complicated. The cornerstone of Bidenā€™s commitment to LGBTQ people during his presidential campaign was the Equality Act, which Biden called his No. 1 legislative priority and pledged to sign within 100 days of his administration. The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to expand the prohibition on anti-LGBTQ discrimination under federal law.

Expectations are tamped down, to say the least, with coronavirus infections and deaths hitting record highs, an unsatisfactory rollout of the vaccines and the upcoming impeachment trial of President Trump, which would bar him from holding office in the future. The impeachment trial alone may hamper efforts in the U.S. Senate to confirm Biden’s Cabinet officials, which need to be addressed before significant action on any piece of Biden’s agenda can happen.

For the most part, LGBTQ advocates who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity for greater candor, were open to granting Biden leeway amid the coronavirus and impeachment crises.

ā€œI think we’ve gotten the commitments that we expected and hoped for and sought from the Biden team and from legislative leadership, and what that means for us now is holding them accountable, but also understanding that the country, our democracy, and the ability of people to actually live is going to take priority,ā€ said one LGBTQ advocate.

The LGBTQ advocate pointed out the committee of jurisdiction for the Equality Act in the Senate is the Judiciary Committee, the same panel responsible for coordinating Trumpā€™s impeachment trial.

But the idea that leeway should be granted to Biden on LGBTQ issues amid national crises isnā€™t shared by everyone, and it remains to be seen how much patience LGBTQ movement leaders will have before they start calling him out for not acting on his campaign promises. If the Equality Act stalls out in Congress, the handful of advocates who had called for a LGBTQ policy staffer on the Biden campaign and transition team, may feel vindicated.

ā€œThe notion that our government can only focus on one thing at a time isnā€™t acceptable,ā€ one Democratic insider told the Blade. ā€œYou canā€™t have the agenda and policy goals that Biden does and not have the process to move faster.ā€

Instead of watching the Equality Act become law in 100 days, the billā€™s supporters may have to settle for having the legislation passed in one chamber of Congress within the 100-day timeframe. One LGBTQ advocate said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately signaled she would bring up the Equality Act in the U.S. House early on during the Biden administration, which is expected to translate to a floor vote within 100 days.

Pelosiā€™s office, however, hasnā€™t responded to repeated requests from the Blade since September on when sheā€™d hold a vote on the Equality Act in the next administration.

In the Senate, one LGBTQ advocate predicted the U.S. Senate wouldn’t take up the legislation until summer or fall, and that would be only for the initial steps of committee action. Other LGBTQ advocates, however, strongly pushed back on that assessment and said no decisions have been made about the timing for Senate action on the Equality Act.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has sponsored the Equality Act in the U.S. Senate. He told the Blade through a spokesperson heā€™d continue to push for the legislation.

ā€œThe Equality Act is one of Sen. Merkley’s most critical legislative priorities for 2021, and he will be urging leaders in both chambers to move expeditiously and seize the window of opportunity to pass this historic legislation,ā€ Martina McLennan, a Merkley spokesperson, said.

With the Senate in a 50-50 party split, another wrinkle in the Equality Act is having to overcome the legislative filibuster, the Senate tradition requiring 60 votes to move forward with debate on a bill if one member objects. Would the Equality Act be the piece of legislation that would be the tool to end the filibuster, which has been criticized as a relic of structural racism? Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has emphatically signaled he wonā€™t vote to junk the legislative filibuster, so that idea might be dead on arrival.

If the 60-vote threshold remains intact, the billā€™s supporters would have to find 10 Republicans willing to vote for the bill, which would be a tall order especially within the 100-day timeframe Biden has envisioned. The only Senate Republican who has previously signaled support is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The offices of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) didnā€™t respond to a request Wednesday from the Blade to comment on the Equality Act.

With passage of the Equality Act in question, LGBTQ advocates are instead renewing calls on Biden to sign an executive order directing federal agencies to implement fully the U.S. Supreme Courtā€™s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, thus illegal under existing civil rights law.

The Center for American Progress on Tuesday issued a new report, ā€œImproving the Lives and Rights of LGBTQ People in America: A Road Map for the Biden Administration,ā€ which makes the executive order to implement a centerpiece in their proposal.

Sharita Gruberg, senior director for LGBTQ research and communications at the Center for American Progress, said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday the Biden transition team has been ā€œreceptiveā€ to the requests in the report, but any declined to specify if any timing commitments were made.

ā€œWe get the impression that the Biden administration definitely prioritizes these issues and understands the need for immediate action,ā€ Gruberg added. ā€œThe Equality Act is competing with a lot of other very critical priorities, but again, we have received every indication from champions, as well as the administration that this remains a critical priority.ā€

The executive order to implement Bostock, however, wouldnā€™t be as sweeping as the Equality Act because no law bans sex discrimination in federal programs or public accommodations. The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act to ban sex and anti-LGBTQ discrimination in those venues and expand the definition of public accommodations to include retail stores, banks, transportation services and health care services.

One Democratic insider close to the transition team said dozens of executive orders are before Biden in draft form and heā€™d ā€œsign a steady series of themā€ beginning next week, but whether or not a directive is among them implementing the Bostock decision is unclear.

Another emerging request from the American Civil Liberties Union is an executive order directing federal agencies to update government-issued IDs and to remove medical documentation requirements for a change in gender marker and the selection of a non-binary option, which would be consistent with both Bidenā€™s and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’s campaign pledges to allow for a third-gender option.

Arli Christian, national political campaign strategist with the ACLU, said Biden team members were supportive about the idea of an executive order to implement the president-electā€™s campaign promise for self-attestation of gender and a gender-neutral option on government IDs, but said they were still figuring out details on the path moving forward.

ā€œThis executive order would go beyond cleaning up the mess of the last four years and actually move the ball forward on rights and recognition of trans and non-binary Americans,ā€ Christian said. ā€œItā€™s a way the new administration can really show that they’re a proactive champion of trans rights.ā€

Bidenā€™s comprehensive LGBTQ plan, which he proposed during the Democratic primary, also puts additional timelines on Bidenā€™s LGBTQ plans. According to the plan, Biden ā€œon his first day in officeā€ would direct the Department of Education to reissue Title IX guidance requiring schools to grant transgender kids access to sports, bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, which was rescinded during the first year of the Trump administration.

The guidance could be folded into an executive order implementing the Bostock decision because they both relate to interpreting laws on sex discrimination, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, to apply to cases of anti-LGBTQ discrimination. In any event, Biden is expected to reverse the Department of Educationā€™s interpretation of Bostock under the Trump administration, which just last week issued a memo excluding transgender kids from Title IX in contravention of widespread interpretation of the law.

Another campaign promise Biden made to the LGBTQ community with a timeline in his comprehensive plan was a presidential memorandum within one week after inauguration prioritizing his administrationā€™s support for LGBTQ+ human rights and development worldwide. Itā€™s unclear where the memorandum stands in the week before Biden takes office.

LGBTQ-specific appointments Biden pledged to name as part of his administration who would help push along his LGBTQ commitments remained undecided, including the White House LGBTQ liaison and the State Department envoy for international LGBTQ rights.

Among leaders in the LGBTQ movement, thereā€™s widespread expectation Reggie Greer, who handled LGBTQ outreach for the Biden campaign, will become White House LGBTQ liaison. Greer would have support from LGBTQ movement leaders as an alum of the LGBTQ Victory Institute.

For the position of State Department LGBTQ envoy, one name enumerated by LGBTQ advocates in foreign affairs as a potential contender ā€” and who has support in the LGBTQ movement ā€” is Jessica Stern of OutRight International. Another contender is Todd Larson, senior LGBTQ coordinator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, whom sources say is gunning for the job.

Insiders also said thereā€™s talk of naming a Foreign Service officer to the role, but LGBTQ movement leaders have said they don’t want a gay white male for the position, and the LGBTQ candidates who could be chosen from that pool are overwhelmingly gay white men.

Jamal Brown, a spokesperson for the Biden transition team, affirmed Biden remains committed to his campaign promises to the LGBTQ community and would act on his first day in office, but declined to elaborate on details.

“President-elect Biden is committed to advancing the most pro-equality agenda in history and his administration will begin implementing that vision on day one,ā€ Brown said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

homepage news

Honoring the legacy of New Orleansā€™ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire

Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later

Published

on

Fifty years ago this week, 32 gay men were killed in an arson attack on the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans. (Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

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 Orleansā€™ 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, ā€œUnited We Standā€ by the Brotherhood of Man. 

ā€œUnited we stand,ā€ the men would sing together, ā€œdivided we fallā€ ā€” the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to todayā€™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 ā€” 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: ā€œSome thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.ā€ 

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 ā€œhelp our bereaved brothers and sistersā€ ā€” and shatter officialdomā€™s code of silence. 

Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. ā€œItā€™s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,ā€ 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. 

ā€œThis fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,ā€ Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. ā€œI do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.ā€ 

Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath ā€” and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business. 

ā€œPhil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,ā€ recounted Esteveā€™s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. ā€œPhil wouldnā€™t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.ā€ 

The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. ā€œHow dare you hold your damn news conferences!ā€ 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. ā€œReverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,ā€ recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.

(Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge storyā€™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 ā€” some with visible burn scars ā€” gathered but were discouraged from singing ā€œUnited We Stand.ā€ 

New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the cityā€™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, ā€œWhere are the gay activists in New Orleans?,ā€ Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. ā€œWe donā€™t feel weā€™re discriminated against,ā€ Esteve said. ā€œNew Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere elseā€¦ Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.ā€ 

(Photo by H.J. Patterson/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

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 ā€” with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charleneā€™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: ā€œA tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.ā€ 

Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneiderā€™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 ā€” more than 18 years after the fire. 

ā€œI believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,ā€ Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteveā€™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. Whatā€™s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world ā€” 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 pastā€™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 ā€” and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally ā€” 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 ā€” in the spirit of voices who once gathered ā€˜round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, ā€œUnited We Stand.ā€ 

(Photo by Philip Ames/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of ā€œTinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.ā€

Continue Reading

homepage news

New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences

Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court is to set consider the case of 303 Creative, which seeks to refuse design services for same-sex weddings. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

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 ā€” 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 ā€” whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit ā€” 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. Coloradoā€™s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actorā€™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 Smithā€™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.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Published

on

Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

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.

ā€œIā€™m honored and ready to lead HRC ā€” and our more than three million member-advocates ā€” as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,ā€ Robinson said. ā€œThis 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.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

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 ā€” and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.ā€

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.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular