Connect with us

Opinions

Celebrate Bostock, for now

Religious questions continue to shape scope of legal protections

Published

on

Bostock, gay news, Washington Blade
Gerald Bostock speaks to reporters on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building on Oct. 8, 2019. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.

A pledge to fight antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia

Published

on

Former D.C. Council member Kenyan McDuffie speaks at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Capital Stonewall Democrats on March 20. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Kenyan McDuffie is the right person to lead our city forward in these difficult times. We are different from other cities, and Kenyan understands that. We don’t have a state to bail us out, and we don’t control all our own destiny. We are 700,000 strong, who don’t have a vote in Congress, don’t control our courts, or our national guard. We have Home Rule, but it’s not absolute. Congress kept the right to review our legislation and budget. 

Recently, we found out how destructive that is. So, we need a mayor who will fight for our rights, all of our rights. The rights of immigrants, Latinos, the LGBTQ community, Black residents, women, Asians; all whose rights may still be at risk. Kenyan will fight for full statehood but understands the tightrope the D.C. mayor must walk to keep us from losing more control. 

McDuffie said, “leadership is measured by delivering results, not rhetoric.”  From his days as a union mail carrier, serving D.C. neighborhoods door-to-door, to his work as a civil rights attorney in President Obama’s Department of Justice, to his service as a citywide lawmaker, he has approached every challenge with the same values: stand up for working people, fix broken systems, and demand accountability from those in power. 

As he has committed to, “focusing on delivering what matters most to D.C. families: lowering the cost of living, expanding opportunity in every ward, and strengthening public safety with a government that answers to all D.C.” Kenyan believes every resident deserves to live in a safe and affordable home recognizing housing remains one of the largest costs for D.C. families. On the Council he authored laws expanding the supply of affordable housing, helped direct hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve and build more affordable homes across the city. As mayor he is committed to expanded home purchase and down payment assistance programs for first-time homebuyers, and District employees. Providing additional resources for housing providers to preserve and expand existing affordable housing stock, while overseeing the responsible use of taxpayer dollars dedicated to building more. He is committed to creating more family-sized units in affordable housing developments to prevent displacement of longtime residents and ensuring families of all sizes have access to safe, affordable, homes. He will streamline the process for regulatory approvals prioritizing growth, and modernize zoning to increase supply, and lower per-unit construction costs.

Kenyan is committed to expanding access to childcare and early learning, recognizing D.C. families face the highest childcare costs in the nation. He understands affordability begins at birth, which is why he helped secure funding for birth-to-three, and early learning providers. He knows strong early childhood systems support both parents’ workforce participation, and children’s long-term success. As mayor, Kenyan will expand the Local Child Tax Credit to help families cover childcare costs. He will provide incentives to employers to help expand their employees’ childcare benefits, and repurpose District-owned space, to reduce providers’ costs and expand subsidized care in neighborhoods that have been historically underserved and neglected. He supports more mixed-use project development incorporating family amenities, including childcare centers. He will secure updated zoning to allow more high-quality home-based and neighborhood childcare options. Kenyan will work to provide more District-supported early learning, and out-of-school-time programs. Programs that will consider working family schedules, including non-traditional hours.

Kenyan has always supported strong public traditional and charter schools, both essential to our children’s success, and to a thriving, inclusive, D.C. economy. He secured millions each year for school and recreation center modernizations, nonprofit youth sports programs, and ensured our children are able to have safe passage to and from school and recreational activities. He supports Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs, which better align with workforce needs, industry demand, and good-paying career opportunities. He will expand access to these programs for students in every ward. As mayor, Kenyan is committed to expanding access to reliable out-of-school-time programming across all wards, strengthening literacy, classroom quality, and responsible technology integration in vocational training, CTE programs, and career academies for high-demand sector jobs. He is committed to programs to reduce chronic absenteeism with measurable public dashboards, and full access for children who need appropriate special education, mental health, and school health services. He believes while preparing students for college, schools must also help them prepare for good-paying careers should they choose not to go to college. Kenyan understands all this must happen if we are to close the large racial wealth gap in our city.  

Kenyan understands how dependent our city is on its “Arts, Culture, Nightlife, Sports, and Entertainment Economy” and will work to reinvigorate all of those sectors, making sure our residents are fully prepared for jobs in each of them.

Kenyan McDuffie is best able to defend Home Rule and shield residents from harmful federal overreach. As a Council member, he always stood strong for civil rights and local autonomy. He understands how Donald Trump and the Republican Congress, have repeatedly interfered in our self-governance. As a former prosecutor, and civil rights trial attorney, Kenyan is ready to fight for all D.C. and has said he will make clear on Day One: “Enough is Enough.” He understands how to do this without putting us in more jeopardy.  He has said he will issue a day-one directive ending MPD cooperation with ICE. He will make sure there is a civil right-to-counsel protection program for immigrant families. He will bolster the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel for constitutional challenges, working closely with the District’s Attorney General. He will strengthen the mayor’s office with regard to federal advocacy efforts, to fight for statehood. Until we win that fight Kenyan will work to expand legislative and budget autonomy and defend home rule. Kenyan has authored pioneering laws that reformed D.C.’s juvenile justice system, created a public health framework for violence prevention and intervention, and improved police accountability. His record demonstrates accountability and opportunity go hand in hand. He will work to right-size MPD through smart recruitment, home purchase assistance, and he will invest in community safety programs. He will expand the cadet program to build a pipeline of D.C. residents who want to go into law enforcement. He will work to modernize the 911 and 311 systems for faster response and transparency. And he will add more neighborhood-based prevention pilots to take an “All hands-on deck” approach to crime. 

For all these reasons and more, I support Kenyan McDuffie. One of those more, is his response to the growing antisemitism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and homophobia, in the country. Kenyan said, “Leadership matters in moments like this. As your next mayor, I will bring people together across all lines of difference. I will engage with every community in this city, especially when it is not easy, or politically convenient. Washington must be a city where every resident — regardless of faith, race, gender, or identity — feels safe, respected, and heard.” That is the kind of city I want Washington, D.C. to be, and why I urge everyone to cast their vote for Kenyan McDuffie for Mayor.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Cuba

Cuba under pressure and without answers

Cubans talk about survival, not geopolitics

Published

on

A Pride flag hangs above Havana's oceanfront avenue in 2018. Cubans are struggling to meet their basic needs amid growing tensions between the U.S. and their government. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Tensions between the U.S. and Cuba are rising again. This is not new, but the current moment feels different. Recent measures from Washington aim to further restrict the Cuban government’s financial channels, limit its sources of revenue, and apply pressure to key sectors of the economy. This is not symbolic. It is a deliberate policy.

From the U.S. perspective, the message is clear. The goal is to force change that has not happened in more than six decades. There is also a domestic political dimension, shaped by sectors of the Cuban exile community that have long demanded a tougher stance. All of this is part of the landscape.

But that is only one side.

On the Cuban side, the response follows a familiar script. The government speaks of external aggression, economic warfare, and a tightening embargo. Each new measure becomes an opportunity to reinforce that narrative and close ranks. There is no room for public self-criticism. The blame always points outward.

Meanwhile, life on the island follows a different logic.

The energy crisis Cuba is facing today did not begin with these recent measures. It has been building for years. The electrical system is deteriorated, poorly maintained, and increasingly unreliable. Blackouts are not new. What has changed is how severe and how constant they have become.

For years, oil entered Cuba, especially from Venezuela. There were supply agreements. There were resources. And yet, the daily life of ordinary Cubans did not improve. Electricity remained unstable. Fuel was rationed. Transportation was still a daily struggle.

So the question is not new.

If the oil was there, why didn’t anything change?

Where did those resources go?

Where is the money that was generated?

Today, restrictions on oil are often presented as the main cause of the current crisis. They are not. They make an already fragile situation worse, but they do not fully explain it.

There is a deeper, longer story that cannot be ignored.

The same applies to Cuba’s international medical missions.

For years, they were presented as acts of solidarity. And in many cases, they were. Cuban doctors worked in difficult conditions, saving lives and supporting health systems abroad. That is real.

But they also functioned as one of the Cuban state’s main sources of income.

Many of these professionals did not receive the full salary for their work. A significant portion was retained by the government. In some cases, they had little or no control over the money they generated.

And there is a harsher reality.

If a doctor chose not to return to Cuba, that income often did not reach their family. It was withheld.

Today, several countries are reevaluating or canceling these agreements. Once again, the official response is to point outward. But the same question remains.

Is this the loss of international cooperation, or the collapse of a system built on control over its own professionals?

Inside Cuba, the conversation sounds very different.

People are not speaking in geopolitical terms. They are talking about survival. About getting through the day. About blackouts, food shortages, transportation problems, and a life that keeps getting harder.

Some see the new U.S. measures as a form of pressure that could lead to change. Not because they want more hardship, but because they feel the system does not change on its own. There is a deep sense of stagnation.

But that sense of expectation exists alongside a harsh reality.

Sanctions do not hit decision-makers first. They hit ordinary people. The ones standing in line. The ones losing food during power outages. The ones who cannot move because there is no fuel.

That is the contradiction.

The Cuban government calls for international solidarity. And it receives it. Countries send aid. Organizations mobilize. Public voices defend the island.

But another question is also present.

Does that aid actually reach the people?

The lack of transparency in how resources are distributed is part of the problem. Because this is not only about what enters the country, but about what actually reaches those who need it.

Reducing Cuba’s reality to a dispute between two governments avoids the core issue.

There are shared responsibilities, but they are not equal.

The U.S. exerts external pressure with real economic consequences. That cannot be denied. But inside Cuba, there is a system that has had decades to reform, to respond, to open, and it has not done so.

That part cannot continue to be ignored.

I write this as a Cuban. From what I lived. From what I know. From the people who are still there trying to make it through each day.

Because at the end of the day, beyond what governments say or decide, the reality is something else.

Cuba today is under more pressure, yes. But it has also spent years carrying problems that no one has seriously confronted.

And as long as that remains the case, it does not matter what comes from outside. The problem is still inside.

Continue Reading

Opinions

D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America

Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor

Published

on

Members and supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America march in a 'No Kings' protest on Oct. 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.

That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.

My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.

The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.

But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.

That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.


Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.

Peter Rosenstein responds:

I am responding to a column by Hayden Gise who says in her column she is a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and supports having the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in Washington, D.C. She is definitely as entitled to her view on this, as I am to mine. However, I was surprised she clearly felt it important in her column to attack me personally, without even knowing me. 

What she didn’t do is respond to the issues in the DSA platform I have a problem with and I asked candidates endorsed by the DSA to respond to. Are they for the abolition of the State of Israel? What is their definition of a Zionist? What is their definition of antisemitism? Will they meet with Zionist organizations? Do they support BDS? The DSA is also clear no person can be a member of a local DSA without being a member of the national organization.

Just so Gisa has a better idea of who I am she should know: I was a teacher and a union member. I worked for the most progressive member of Congress at the time, Bella S. Abzug (D-N.Y.), and supported her when she introduced the Equality Act in 1974, to protect the rights of the LGBTQ community, and have fought for its passage ever since. I have spent a lifetime fighting for civil rights, women’s rights, disability rights, and LGBTQ rights. I have no idea what Hayden Gise’s background is, or what her history of working for the causes she espouses is. But I would be happy to meet with her to find out. She should know, I take a backseat to no one in the work I have done over my life fighting for equality, including economic equality, for all. So, I will not attack her, as I don’t know her, and contrary to her, don’t personally attack people I don’t know much about. 

I have, and will continue to attack, what the government of Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, and now to those in Lebanon and Iran. I will also attack the government of my own country, and the felon in the White House, and his sycophants in Congress, for what they are doing to our own people, and people around the world, and will continue to work hard to change things. 

However, I will also continue to stand for a two-state solution with the continued existence of the State of Israel, calling for a different government in Israel. I also strongly support the Palestinian people and believe they must have the right to their own free state.  

Continue Reading

Popular