Connect with us

Opinions

Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ laws undermine protections for LGBTQ teachers, students

Measures must be stricken down, enjoined, or otherwise invalidated

Published

on

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Screen capture via NBC News)

Formally entitled the “Parental Rights in Education Act,” Florida House Bill 1557 amends Florida Statute § 1001.42 to add a new subsection 8(c)(3), which provides: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” In May of this year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 1069, which has been viewed as expanding H.B. 1557 by requiring that sex education classes in Florida teach that “sex is determined by biology and reproductive function at birth,” and that reproductive gender roles are “binary, stable, and unchangeable.” Among other things, the new bill also broadens the ban on classroom discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation so that it covers pre-kindergarten through eighth grade and prevents employees from using pronouns other than those that correspond with sex assigned at birth. Critics of these laws have labeled H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069 “Don’t Say Gay” laws. We share these critics’ concerns.

Below, we highlight the potential of these laws to undermine anti-discrimination protections for teachers and students at public educational institutions in Florida and summarize litigation challenging these laws.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). In a 6-3 decision, the Court interpreted existing federal law to protect LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in employment and public accommodations by recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of Bostock, LGBT individuals who work for an employer with fifteen (15) or more employees, and who have experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, now have the right to take legal action against their employer by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or taking their employer to court.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Florida Human Rights Commission issued a notice that clarified that the agency would now broaden its mandate to include combatting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Thus, after Bostock, LGBTQ Floridians, including teachers, gained vital anti-discrimination protections at work and in housing under both federal and state law.

Bostock v. Clayton County has been interpreted to protect LGBTQ students from discrimination as well. For instance, in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, 972 F.3d 586 (4th Cir. 2020),the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit relied on Bostock to hold that disparate treatment on the basis of a student’s sexual orientation and transgender status—in this case, barring transgender students from using school restrooms that align with their gender identity—is considered discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Id. at 618–19. These protections are especially important for LGBTQ students in conservative states like Florida; these students may face discrimination on a direct level as well as indirectly from institutions and political players who aim to promote homophobic and transphobic rhetoric and policies. 

Unfortunately, the victory represented by Bostock has been overshadowed by H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069.

II. Harm and Confusion Created by H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069 

While it is too soon to know how H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069 will impact the application of Bostock, there is cause for alarm. Under Florida law, if a parent raises a concern about compliance with H.B. 1557 and that concern is not “resolved by the school district,” the parent may proceed before a special magistrate or “[b]ring an action against the school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or practice violates [H.B. 1557] and seek injunctive relief.” Fla. Stat. § 1001.42(8)(c)(7)(b). If the parent prevails in the suit, the court may offer the parent damages and “shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs.” Id.

Undoubtedly, Florida’s LGBTQ teachers will face greater scrutiny and potential legal obstacles as a result of these laws. As critics have pointed out, these laws’ ambiguity and undefined terms represent a potential minefield for LGBTQ teachers. For instance, Florida law now bans instructing some students on sexual orientation. Would a gay teacher who mentions in class that he has a husband violate this law? Would a cisgender teacher with a nonbinary child be in violation if she referenced her child by their proper pronouns in front of her students? 

For transgender and nonbinary teachers, the environment is even more dangerous. H.B. 1069, which went into effect on July 1, 2023, states: “An employee or contractor of a public K–12 educational institution may not provide to a student his or her preferred personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex,” with “sex” defined in strictly “biological” terms. Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(1), (3). It is unclear whether this language (i) forbids a transgender or gender-nonconforming teacher from providing the teacher’s own preferred pronouns to students, or (ii) forbids a teacher from providing a transgender or gender-nonconforming student’s preferred pronouns to that student—or both. Ambiguities aside, this provision is likely to force transgender and nonbinary teachers in Florida back into the closet or ban them from teaching in Florida schools altogether. If transgender and nonbinary teachers are prohibited from truthfully representing their identities in front of their students, transgender and nonbinary identities are essentially banished from the classroom entirely. 

Already, headlines have been made by teachers who have fallen on the wrong side of these new laws. For instance, the Hernando County School Board placed a fifth-grade teacher in Brooksville, Fla. under investigation for showing her class a Disney film that depicted a gay character. In another instance, an assistant principal in Polk County was told that she couldn’t pass out LGBTQ-inclusive “safe space” stickers because it violated the new legislation. Some teachers have publicly decried that the laws make their jobs nearly impossible and others have decided to quit teaching altogether. 

While these laws are new and their impact on Florida’s LGBTQ teachers and other staff is only just beginning to be understood, the socio-political movement that paved the way for this legislation has been decades in the making. In 1977, singer and political activist Anita Bryant led an anti-LGBTQ campaign in Dade County, Florida, targeting housing and employment protections for gay individuals. Bryant was particularly concerned that the ordinance would prevent gay teachers from being fired for their sexual orientation and she argued that gay teachers posed a threat to Florida’s children. Unfortunately, the campaign was a short-term success for anti-LGBTQ activists, culminating with the repeal of a nondiscrimination ordinance. Historians note that this tactic of using the protection of children to restrict LGBTQ rights was seen even before Bryant’s crusade, with the infamous Johns Committee in 1958 targeting and eliminating LGBTQ individuals from Florida schools. 

Although Bryant initially won the repeal of the ordinance, her activism spurred LGBTQ mobilization that ultimately successfully countered her bigoted efforts.

III. Lawsuits to Enjoin Enforcement 

We are aware of two recently filed cases seeking to enjoin enforcement of H.B. 1557.

First is M.A. v. Florida State Board of Education, No. 4:22CV00134 (N.D. Fla.), a case that was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on March 31, 2022. In M.A., a group of students, parents, and teachers advanced claims arising from alleged violations of the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the First Amendment, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. On February 15, 2023, District Judge Allen Winsor, a Trump appointee, concluded that the plaintiffs had “not alleged sufficient facts to show standing” and dismissed the case. M.A. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 4:22-cv-134-AW-MJF, 2023 WL 2631071, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2023). In so holding, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to “allege facts showing any concrete future harm that is fairly traceable to [H.B. 1557’s] enforcement and redressable by an injunction prohibiting that enforcement.” Id. at *2. On March 20, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See M.A. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 23-10866, Dkt. 1 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023). In their appellate briefing, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred because the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to confer standing in the form of “three distinct injuries caused by H.B. 1557”: (i) a chilling effect on speech, (ii) denial of access to ideas and information in school, and (iii) stigma and unequal treatment in schools based on LGBT status. See M.A. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 23-10866, Dkt. 38, at 38 (11th Cir. May 31, 2023). As of this writing, the appeal remains pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

Second is Cousins v. School Board of Orange County, Florida, No. 6:22-CV-01312 (M.D. Fla.), which was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 25, 2022. The plaintiffs in Cousins were a group of students and parents, as well as a mission-driven non-profit called CenterLink, Inc, who advanced claims arising from alleged violations of the First Amendment and the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. On August 16, 2023, District Judge Wendy Berger, also a Trump appointee, dismissed the case for reasons similar to the reasons provided by Judge Winsor in the M.A. litigation. See Cousins v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., Fla., No. 6:22-cv-1312-WWB-LHP, Dkt. 143 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023). As of this writing, the plaintiffs have not appealed the decision.

It remains unclear whether and to what extent these two cases will succeed in enjoining enforcement of H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069. Settlement discussions are currently ongoing in the M.A. case, and we are cautiously optimistic that the plaintiffs in that case will be able to obtain some form of relief.

Whether through litigation, legislative repeal or some other means, Florida’s recently enacted anti-LGBT laws are harmful and should be stricken down, enjoined, or otherwise invalidated.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

He is 16 and sitting in a Cuban prison

Jonathan David Muir Burgos arrested after participating in anti-government protests

Published

on

Jonathan David Muir Burgos remains in a Cuban jail. (Graphic by Ignacio Estrada Cepero)

Jonathan David Muir Burgos is 16-years-old, and that fact alone should force the world to stop and pay attention. He is not an armed criminal, nor a violent extremist, nor someone accused of harming others. He is a Cuban teenager who ended up behind bars after joining recent protests in the city of Morón, in the province of Ciego de Ávila, demonstrations born out of exhaustion, desperation, and the growing collapse of daily life across the island.

Those protests did not emerge from privilege or political theater. They erupted after prolonged blackouts, food shortages, lack of drinking water, unbearable heat, and a level of public frustration that continues to deepen inside Cuba. People took to the streets because ordinary life itself has become increasingly unbearable. Families are surviving for hours and sometimes days without electricity. Parents struggle to find food. Entire communities live trapped between scarcity and silence.

Jonathan became part of that reality.

And today, he is sitting inside a Cuban prison.

The World Health Organization defines adolescence as the stage between approximately 10 and 19 years of age, a period marked by emotional, psychological, and physical development. That matters deeply here because Jonathan is not simply a “young protester.” He is a minor. A teenager still navigating the fragile years in which identity, emotional stability, and personal growth are being formed.

Yet the Cuban government chose to place him inside a high-security prison alongside adults.

There is something profoundly disturbing about a political system willing to expose a 16-year-old boy to the psychological brutality of prison life simply because he exercised the right to protest. A prison is never only walls and bars. It is fear, humiliation, emotional pressure, intimidation, and uncertainty. For a teenager surrounded by adult inmates, those dangers become even more alarming.

The situation becomes even more serious because Jonathan reportedly suffers from severe dyshidrosis and has previously experienced dangerous bacterial infections affecting his health. His condition requires proper medical care, hygiene, and adequate treatment, precisely the kind of stability that is difficult to guarantee inside the Cuban prison system.

Behind this story there is also a family living through a kind of pain impossible to fully describe.

Jonathan is the son of a Cuban evangelical pastor. Behind the headlines there is a mother wondering how her child is sleeping at night inside a prison cell. There is a father trying to hold onto faith while imagining the emotional and physical risks his teenage son may be facing behind bars. Faith does not erase fear. Faith does not prevent parents from trembling when their child is imprisoned.

And this is where another painful contradiction emerges.

While a Cuban pastor watches his son remain incarcerated, there are still political and religious voices outside Cuba romanticizing the Cuban regime from a safe distance. There are people who speak passionately about justice while remaining silent about political prisoners, repression, censorship, and now even the imprisonment of adolescents.

That silence matters.

Because silence protects systems that normalize abuse.

For too long, parts of the international community have spoken about Cuba through ideological nostalgia while refusing to confront the human cost paid by ordinary Cubans. The reality is not romantic. The reality is families surviving in darkness, young people fleeing the country in massive numbers, parents struggling to feed their children, and now a 16-year-old boy sitting inside a prison after joining a protest born from desperation.

No government has the moral right to destroy the emotional and psychological well-being of a teenager for exercising freedom of expression. No ideology should stand above human dignity. And no institution that claims to defend justice should remain indifferent while a child becomes a political prisoner.

Jonathan David Muir Burgos should not be in prison.

A 16-year-old boy should not have to pay for protest with his freedom. 

Continue Reading

Commentary

Celebrate Pride in Lost River, a slice of rural heaven

West Virginia LGBTQ getaway hosts events June 12-14

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“Country roads, take me home, to the place I belong, West Virginia …” Those immortal lyrics describe one of the best-kept secrets for LGBTQ Washingtonians: Lost River, W.Va.

Less than 2.5 hours from the D.C. metro area, Lost River, in Hardy County, W.Va., is a haven for LGBTQ Mountaineers and our nearby city neighbors. From queer-owned businesses and artwork to a vibrant community of LGBTQ residents, Lost River has been a destination for LGBTQ visitors seeking a mountain getaway for nearly 50 years. For some, our rural community has become home for those who want to trade city life for country living.

Because Lost River welcomes all, we celebrate Pride each year in our slice of heaven.

Lost River Pride Weekend will be held June 12–14, the weekend prior to Capital Pride. If you haven’t been, our Pride is a little different from the urban Pride events most people are used to. In Lost River, forget the multinational corporate sponsors. Instead, think about local talent, grassroots community organizations, and our version of patriotism on full display. Most of all, we welcome people from all walks of life to live authentically as themselves, regardless of where they come from, how they think, or how they love. We truly welcome everyone.

Coincidentally, Lost River Pride Weekend is being held on President Trump’s birthday weekend, including a variety of traffic-jamming events in the D.C. area and the upcoming fight on the White House lawn. Why not come visit Lost River for the day or the weekend (we have some wonderful places to stay) and get a taste of West Virginia living?

While our town has only about 500 people at any given time, we swell to over twice that during Pride weekend. Friday evening includes an intimate cabaret at the Inn at Lost River (whose general store is on the National Register of Historic Places). Our centerpiece, the Lost River Pride Festival, is hosted on Saturday at the local farmers market, followed by an afternoon drag pool performance and an evening performance by the world-renowned Tom Goss at the Guesthouse Lost River. Finally, we finish the weekend with a closing brunch at the Inn to reaffirm our Pride. In between events and throughout the weekend, visitors and locals indulge in local art, restaurants, and more.

We recognize that West Virginia isn’t always seen as welcoming to LGBTQ people. State law does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and cultural stereotypes remain persistent. Additionally, trans girls are prohibited from participating in sports of their affirmed gender in schools. In a state considered one of the most conservative, it can be difficult to see progress.

However, our community exists to prove that progress is possible. In fact, due to the work of statewide groups such as Fairness WV, 21 municipalities have passed local ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, covering more than 13 percent of the West Virginian population. Last year, Lost River Pride sponsored the first-ever equal cash prize for the nonbinary category of the Lost River Classic, a local bike race held annually. There is hope in every corner of our community.

Recently, Lost River Pride was the only West Virginia contingent in the 2025 World Pride Parade, which was held during Capital Pride Weekend. I will always remember our rugged truck coming down 14th Street to a sea of diverse, friendly faces, while waving our state flag and hearing many voices singing “Country Roads” in every remix available (trust me, there are many).

Lost River Pride is one of only a handful of Pride organizations in West Virginia and one of the few structured as a nonprofit. We sponsor the only LGBTQ scholarship in Eastern West Virginia for a graduating senior from a local high school. Moreover, we provide monthly community programming and make frequent donations to local allied nonprofits, including the fire department, food pantry, and schools.

I encourage you to attend Lost River Pride Weekend, especially this year’s Lost River Pride Festival on Saturday, June 13, from 12-4 p.m., at the Lost River Farmers Market (1089 Mill Gap Road, Lost City, W.Va. 26810). Feel free to reach us at [email protected] or visit our website at lostriverpride.org for more information.


Tim Savoy is president of the board of directors of Lost River Pride.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Protection should mean protection

Disbelief as court modifies protective order against Pasha

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk/Bigstock)

There is a particular kind of disbelief that Black queer women know intimately. It is not always explicit. It shows up in hesitation, in “both sides” framing, and in systems that require us to prove, again and again, that we are worthy of safety. 

We see that disbelief happening now with the temporary protection order (TPO) involving an individual, D. Pasha. He is accused of repeatedly harassing staff, board members, and volunteers at the Capital Pride Alliance, which led the organization to ask the court for protection. 

The Capital Pride Alliance did not seek this order lightly. They spent over a year documenting his harassment, and several witnesses gave almost two hours of testimony about a pattern of behavior that caused real fear. The organization also spent months working out how to legally protect its staff, volunteers, board, and contractors from this individual. 

At first, the Court agreed and issued a stay-away order that included CPA’s office and other locations, setting a clear boundary to protect staff, volunteers, and community members. 

But that protection did not last. 

After the order was issued, Pasha spoke with a reporter from the Washington Blade and learned that CPA shares office space with the DC LGBTQ Center. It is important to note that he didn’t know this detail before. He then sought an emergency hearing, claiming he needed access to “vital services” from the CPA and DC LGBTQ Center shared offices.  

The Court granted it, allowing access with a 24-hour notice to CPA. According to the Court, the modification was based on Mr. Pasha’s claim that denying him entry to the DC Center would prevent him from accessing essential support services provided there. Although CPA objected and highlighted the lack of recent service usage and the availability of alternatives, the Court determined that his stated need for services warranted an exception to the stay-away order. 

Let’s be clear about what this means. 

There is no record of him accessing services or being at the DC LGBTQ Center in over a year. Numerous organizations across DC provide the same services he cited: food, clothing, computers, Wi-Fi, without placing him in proximity to the people who testified against him. 

And yet, the Court modified the order to allow exactly that. 

Then it escalated. Following the modification, he sent more than 20 emails and text messages in attempts to gain access to our office space, triggering another emergency hearing. At that second emergency hearing, the court maintained its previous decision, allowing Mr. Pasha continued access to the location. 

This is not a technicality. This is a failure of real protection. 

The outcome was shaped not just in the courtroom, but in how it was presented afterward. 

Recent coverage centered the acceptance of a less restrictive order, while giving the person at the center of this case a platform to define the narrative in his own words. He was described as an LGBTQ activist, quoted at length, and presented with his name, voice, and image, including statements like “I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” “even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up,” and that “the truth will come out.” 

That framing does not exist in a vacuum. It omits important context about the pattern of conduct that led to this case, including the history and the events that followed the Court’s initial order. It also gives weight to claims about access to services that are not reflected in actual usage. 

At the same time, the hours of testimony describing a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress are reduced to a small part of the story. The individuals who came forward are largely unnamed, unseen, and unheard. The record that was built in court is condensed, while his narrative is expanded. 

When one side is given visibility, voice, and narrative, and the other is reduced to summary, that is not balance. It is distortion. 

We also need to be honest about who is being asked to bear the consequences of that failure. 

Two Black queer women testified. They followed the process. They showed up, told the truth, and trusted the system to do what it is designed to do: protect them. 

Instead, the system created a pathway back to proximity, back to fear. 

That is not a neutral outcome. It is a choice about whose safety matters most and whose safety can be compromised. 

This is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader pattern in how systems fail Black women, survivors, and LGBTQ+ people, especially at the intersections of those identities. 

According to the Human Rights Campaign, data shows that over 60% of bisexual women and more than 40% of lesbian women experience physical violence or stalking.  

Violence does not start with homicide. It starts with being dismissed, with being minimized, and with systems that do not act fairly or quickly when harm is reported. 

It starts when people question the credibility of Black queer women. 

When access is granted to those who cause fear, instead of protection being fully extended to those who experience it. 

And it continues when we treat these outcomes as unfortunate, rather than unacceptable. 

Capital Pride Alliance believes in access. We invest in it. We help sustain the very services being cited in this case. But access cannot come at the expense of safety, especially when alternatives exist, and risk is known. 

The question here is not complicated: what does protection actually mean, and who deserves it? 

If a court acknowledges harm but still allows proximity, is that protection? 

If Black queer women testify and are still placed within reach of the person they testified against, what message does that send? 

We cannot keep calling these systems fair if they keep putting the same people at risk. 

Courts need to think about safety in a broader sense, one that reflects real life rather than just following procedures. This means looking at not only direct threats, but also ongoing harassment, intimidation, and the real fear survivors feel when they must share space with someone who has harmed them. 

Real changes could include ensuring stay-away orders are enforced even in shared spaces, working with community groups to offer alternative ways to access services, and asking survivors about their safety needs before changing protection orders. Courts should also get training on the experiences of Black queer women and LGBTQ+ survivors, so their voices and realities are at the center of decisions. 

Our community needs to work toward real safety and protection. Because visibility without safety is not liberation. Protection that can be so easily undone is not protection at all. 

May 28 is LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day.  

#SeenAndBelieved is a call to action: recognize the harm, trust survivors, and create systems that truly protect them. 


June Crenshaw is COO of the Capital Pride Alliance.

Continue Reading

Popular