Virginia Enacts LGBT Non-Discrimination Protections!

Virginia has become the first state in the Southern United States (former member of the Confederacy) to enact comprehensive civil rights protections for LGBT people. Last night Governor Ralph Northam signed the Virginia Values Act into law. The legislation (SB 868) goes into effect July 1, 2020 and in addition to prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing and credit on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, it also expanded public accommodations protections on the basis of these categories and others. According to the Williams Institute (at the UCLA School of Law) twenty-three states and the District of Columbia now have statutes specifically protecting LGBT civil rights.

The national LGBT advocacy organization, the Human Rights Campaign, described the new law:

In addition to sexual orientation and gender identity, the law also creates all-new protections for Virginians in private employment and places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, disability, and status as a veteran. Virginia is the first state in the South to have non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, the first state in over a decade to add both sexual orientation and gender identity to existing non-discrimination law, and the first state since 1993 to add a prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations (protecting all Virginians) where none existed before.

Virginia Governor Northam said:

"We are building an inclusive Commonwealth where there is opportunity for everyone, and everyone is treated fairly. No longer will LGBTQ Virginians have to fear being fired, evicted, or denied service in public places because of who they are."

The bill was shepherded through the Virginia legislature by two openly gay legislators, Senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and Delegate Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax). As a result of the 2019 legislative elections and the 2017 gubernatorial elections Democrats have complete control of the legislative process in Virginia for the first time in decades. Since I used to live and work in Virginia I am very excited to see this progress!

QUEER QUOTE: SCOTUS (finally!) Agrees To Decide Whether LGBT People Are Covered By Federal Civil Rights Laws

The Supreme Court finally has granted certiorari (agreed to hear and make a ruling in) for multiple cases of interest to LGBT citizens today. The question of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination "because of sex" includes sexual orientation (and gender identity) has been an increasingly important one. I say finally also because this question had been pending at every Friday meeting of the Justices since January 2019.

The 2019 Williams Institute Moot Court competition in Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law  (in which I was a volunteer judge)  revolved around this very question as well as whether the "ministerial exception" prevented an employment discrimination lawsuit by a bisexual employee under Title VII.

There is a current split between circuit courts on the question of whether gay people are covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and thus the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide this  question by consolidating Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. In Zarda, the Second Circuit ruled that Altitude Express impermissibly discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation against Don Zarda, a sky-diving instructor (who was killed tragically in 2014 but the lawsuit has continued in his name by his surviving partner and family). Altitude Express's appeal of that ruling is being consolidated with an 11th Circuit ruling in Bostock which refused to do an en banc reconsideration of its holding that child welfare services coordinator working for Clayton County did not have a right to sue for sexual orientation discrimination and gender stereotyping.

Additionally, the Supreme Court also agreed to hear, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case of a transgender employee fired by a funeral home; the business is challenging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's decision that gender identity is covered under Title VII's sex discrimination ban. Today's Queer Quote is the issue in that case:

Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

 Price Waterhouse is a longtime precedent case (from 1989) which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex (gender) stereotyping, ruling that this is covered under Title VII.

Presumably these will be some of the most significant cases of the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term, and be released as decisions in June 2020, right in the thick of the 2020 presidential campaign is heating up (hopefully both nominees will  be known by then).

The doubt over whether LGBT people are protected by federal law against invidious  discrimination based in sexual orientation and gender identity is why the Equality Act was introduced into Congress earlier this year.

Hat/tip to SCOTUSblog

Washington State Supreme Court Abolishes Death Penalty!

There are now twenty states that do not have the death penalty! Last week, the Washington State Supreme Court declared that state's death penalty unconstitutional in State v. Gregory, saying:

The death penalty is invalid because it is imposed in an arbitrary and raciallybiased manner. While this particular case provides an opportunity to specificallyaddress racial disproportionality, the underlying issues that underpin our holding are rooted in the arbitrary manner in which the death penalty is generally administered. As noted by appellant, the use of the death penalty is unequally applied—sometimes by where the crime took place, or the county of residence, or the available budgetary resources at any given point in time, or the race of the defendant. The death penalty, as administered in our state, fails to serve any legitimate penological goal; thus, it violates article I, section 14 of our state constitution.

The ruling is based entirely on the State constitution so it is not appealable to, or dependent on, the United States Supreme Court.

Hat/tip to ACLU

NSF Awards $9M To Advance STEM Leadership at HBCUs

The National Science Foundation has awarded up to $9 million to support the Center for the Advancement of STEM Leadership's goal of broadening participation by underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Specifically, the Division of Human Resources Development in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources has approved a 4-way collaborative award to Fielding Graduate University (1818424), North Carolina A&T University (1818459), University of the Virgin Islands (1818425) and the American Association of Colleges & Universities (1818447) to 1) examine how intuitive, unwritten codes of excellence in leadership result in the broadening participation success of HBCUs and to integrate this knowledge into STEM higher education reform; 2) provide a community of scholars with a world-class leadership development program that integrates personal and institutional histories into broadening participation research and practice; and 3) assimilate the HBCU institutional narrative into the national undergraduate STEM reform knowledge base through mainstream outreach and knowledge transfer outlets.

Here's a quote from the press release announcing the award:

The University of the Virgin Islands (UVI), which houses several other NSF-funded projects, will lead the research component of the project. The research will focus on studying the nature of the leadership styles and strategies associated with the stellar record of HBCUs in graduating African Americans in STEM and in being national leaders in preparing African Americans for doctoral study in STEM. 

“Our faculty and students have perfected various models of success that must be researched, studied, compared to others and disseminated throughout the nation,” said Dr. David Hall, President of UVI. “The future of the U.S. and world economy turns on the work that is occurring in various STEM fields, and HBCUs play a critical role in attracting, developing and inspiring future leaders in this field. This is an awesome and humbling task that we and our partners are ready and willing to undertake.” 

North Carolina A&T State University, a leading HBCU research university in the STEM fields, will team with Fielding Graduate University, long known for its leadership studies programs, to conduct leadership development programming in broadening STEM participation for emerging academic leaders. Based on CASL’s research findings, this effort will seek to establish the foundation for informing HBCUs and all of American higher education on the research-based strategies for producing new leaders to broaden STEM participation. 

“Fielding is proud to be a part of advancing leadership in the STEM fields through the establishment of this collaborative national Center,” said Fielding President Dr. Katrina Rogers. “Since its founding, Fielding and its faculty have pioneered a model of quality graduate education that links research and practice in support of social change and justice. Receiving support from the National Science Foundation for CASL is an affirmation of this legacy and its promise for the future.” 

“As an institution with a long history of leadership in STEM disciplines, North Carolina A&T State University is truly excited about the timely creation of this new center for STEM leadership,” added Chancellor Harold L. Martin Sr. “As we and so many of our peer institutions scale up to meet the growing national demand for highly educated, well-prepared graduates in STEM professions, the work of this center will provide meaningful support for these efforts. Having well-prepared leadership for this important work is essential, both now and well into the future.” 

The Association of American Colleges and Universities, recognized nationally and internationally as the leading association dedicated to advancing the quality, vitality, and public standing of liberal education and inclusive excellence in higher education, will lead the knowledge transfer and outreach efforts of CASL. It will leverage its research findings to rightfully place HBCUs at the center of our nation’s effort to produce a more diverse and competitively trained STEM workforce. 

“CASL is exactly what we’ve needed in undergraduate STEM education reform for a very long time,” says AAC&U President Dr. Lynn Pasquerella. “This important work is in perfect alignment with AAC&U and our more than 1,400 member institutions who recognize that HBCUs are vital to sustaining our competitive edge in scientific discovery and innovation. I applaud the CASL leaders for their vision and foresight.” 

Although I used to work at the NSF, I had nothing to do with this award (I was in a different division in the same Directorate) but I think this is a great development! I hope CASL is successful at achieving its goals.

Queer Quote: Indian Supreme Court Invalidates Sodomy Law (Finally)

In a victory for tens of millions of LGBT individuals, the Supreme Court of India has finally invalidated India's colonial-era sodomy law, decriminalizing homosexuality and ruling that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in a near 500-page decision.

The battle to have Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code struck down has taken decades. In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled the nation's sodomy law unconstitutional but the ruling was appealed to the highest court in the land even though the Indian Government agreed to abide by the decision in 2012. Then in 2013 that Court upheld the law in a shocking ruling that maintained the ban on "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." However, the Court agreed to re-hear that decision in 2014 and today's result follows that litigation.

The opinion is quite comprehensive and ends with some stunning conclusions:

(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual
sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;
(ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to
the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by
the Constitution;
(iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual
intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour
are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;
(iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal
citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law;
and
(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled.

This an amazing victory for sexual minorities! Note the highlighted section which indicates that the ruling goes far beyond just striking down sodomy laws (like 2003's Lawrence vs Texas).

Today's Queer Quote is from Jessica Stern of OutRight Action International (formerly the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), who reacted to the ruling by saying, "The sodomy law that became the model everywhere, from Uganda to Singapore to the U.K. itself, premiered in India, becoming the confusing and dehumanizing standard replicated around the world [and] today’s historic outcome will reverberate across India and the world."

Woo hoo!

Harvard University Mathematics Department Hires SECOND EVER Female Tenured Full Professor

Harvard University is considered the acme of most things academic, with its 37 billion dollar endowment and its perennial placement at the top of the college rankings. The  Mathematics department at Harvard is not the very best in the country (that distinction usually goes to Princeton University) but it is definitely well-known. The fact that they have been atrocious in the area of doversity for so long is widely known.

This week comes news that things are starting to change at Harvard, as they announced they have hired their second ever tenure female full professor, ending a six-year stint in which they literally had zero tenured female professors (by contrast Princeton has had two senior female math professors for years: Maria Chudnovsky and Sun-Yung Alice Chang).

The Daily Crimson reports:

University of California at Berkeley math professors Lauren K. Williams ’00 and Denis Auroux will join Harvard’s math department as senior faculty at the start of the next academic year, Department Chair Curtis T. McMullen said in an interview last week. 

Auroux has served as a math professor at UC Berkeley since 2009 and has published articles on subjects ranging from “symplectic submanifolds” to “Lefschetz pencils.” Williams, a former math concentrator, won a tenured associate professorship at UC Berkeley in 2013—and a full tenured professor position there in 2016—and has written extensively about cluster algebras and tropical geometry.

As a friend of mine said on Twitter this weekend in commenting on the news. "It's 2018."

REPORT (NPR): LGBT Discrimination Is Pervasive

A new report on LGBT discrimination was released recently by National Public Radio. It was conducted jointly with Harvard Chan School of Public Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and NPR. The main result is that discrimination against LGBT people is pervasive in the United States.

The primary conclusion (on page 29-30 of the 64 page report) is excerpted here:

LGBTQ Americans report significant personal experiences of discrimination related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. In the context of individual or interpersonal discrimination, a majority of all LGBTQ people have personally experienced slurs (57%) or offensive comments (53%) about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, a majority of all LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have personally experienced threats or non-sexual harassment (57%), sexual harassment (51%), or violence (51%) because of their sexuality or gender identity, and 34% say they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been harassed or questioned about their presence in a bathroom.  

In the context of institutional discrimination, at least one in five LGBTQ people report being personally discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity when applying for jobs (20%), when being paid equally or considered for promotions (22%), or when trying to rent a room or apartment or buy a house (22%). More than a quarter of LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been unfairly treated by the courts (26%) or by the police (26%) because of their LGBTQ identity.

I encourage you to read the entire report, "Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views of LGBTQ Americans," for yourself.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Party Affiliation Influences Perceptions of Bias

The topic of how different groups of people view the prevalence and salience of discrimination against various groups is a subject that I have often blogged about here. Five Thirty Eight looks at the polling data from PRRI that I had previously discussed and makes an argument about how in the Trump era notions of "civil rights" and "discrimination" and what the government should do about these issues is going to be very different than what it was in the Obama and Bush administrations.

What we can say already, however, is that in its first 100 days, Trump’s administration has in some ways redefined who the U.S. government views as facing discrimination or marginalization. 

The administration is not proposing less intervention from the federal government, which is the typical Republican approach, but rather it is seeking to wield federal power, just as Obama did. But whereas Obama’s policies focused on protecting African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, people who are gay or transgender, and other groups that most Americans view as marginalized, Trump and his team are focusing on defending different groups: Christians, police officers, victims of crimes by undocumented immigrants, and people who fear Latino immigrants are taking their jobs or redefining U.S. culture, among others. 

This approach is akin to civil rights for the Trump coalition, a shift in focus away from groups that Democrats (and the data) view as facing more discrimination and toward groups Republicans believe are more often marginalized.

This idea is part of today's discussion of Saturday Politics.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Partisan Difference In Views On Discrimination Prevalence

I previously blogged about the difference in attitudes towards LGBT discrimination by various religious denominationt, as reported by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

Today I want to discuss how perceptions of the prevalence of discrimination against various groups changes with partisan identification. The PRRI summarizes their findings by discussing how Republicans and Democrats view discro,omayopmthis way:

Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian, Transgender People
More than six in ten Americans say gay and lesbian people (61%) and transgender people (64%) face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today. 

However, there are sharp partisan differences on this question. Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to say gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination in the country today (79% vs. 40%, respectively). Notably, a majority (57%) of Republicans do not believe gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination. Independents largely reflect the views of the public overall. An identical number (79%) of Democrats believe transgender people face a lot of discrimination, while fewer than half (48%) of Republicans agree. Again, the views of independents generally align with Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Whites vs. Blacks
Nearly six in ten (58%) Americans say blacks face a lot of discrimination in American society today, while only three in ten (30%) say the same of whites. More Americans now say blacks face a considerable degree of discrimination in U.S. society than in 2013 when slightly more than half (52%) of the public expressed this view.² 

Notably, Republicans are significantly more likely to say that whites, rather than blacks, experience a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today (43% vs. 27%, respectively). Democrats and independents are far more likely to say blacks experience a lot of discrimination than to say the same about whites (82% vs. 19% and 59% vs. 30%, respectively). The partisan gap in perceptions of discrimination against blacks has increased substantially over the last four years, driven primarily by shifts among Democrats. In 2013, about two-thirds (66%) of Democrats compared to roughly one-third (32%) of Republicans expressed the view that discrimination against blacks in the U.S. is common. Notably, white and nonwhite Democrats recorded nearly identical changes in opinion. 

Discrimination Against Christians vs. MuslimsA similar pattern emerges in views of the relative amount of discrimination faced by Muslims and Christians in American society. Americans are twice as likely to say Muslims face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (66% vs. 33%, respectively). Again, there are sizable differences by party affiliation, religious background, and generation. 

Democrats are more than four times as likely to say Muslims (85%) face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (21%). Republicans, in contrast, are about equally as likely to say both Christians (48%) and Muslims (45%) experience a lot of discrimination in the US today. Independents’ attitudes mirror those of Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Immigrants
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans say immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today, while one-third (33%) believe they do not. Americans are sharply divided by party and generation. 

Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to say immigrants face a substantial degree of discrimination in society (82% vs. 41%, respectively). Roughly two-thirds (65%) of independents also believe immigrants confront a great deal of discrimination.

There's a lot more information at the PRRI website. I encourage you to check it out!

QUEER QUOTE: North Carolina Enacts Bill To Replace #HB2 With Even Worse Law!

Hmmm! Lots of people had hoped that with the election of a Democratic Governor, Richard Cooper, North Carolina's anti-LGBT public policy would change. The previous Republican governor, Pat McRory, had championed HB2, invidious legislation which overturned local LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances, prevented the enactment of new ones at the local level, and purported to legislate that everyone in the state must use the bathroom that matches their birth gender in state-owned buildings.

The backlash to HB2 was intense, with the NCAA refusing to hold sporting events in the states, leading to extreme economic fallout for the state which is estimated in the billions of dollars. The gubernatorial election was considered a referendum on HB2, and Cooper, who was the Attorney General of the State who refused to defend it in court when North Carolina was sued by the federal government.

Today comes news that Gov. Cooper has signed into law a bill which purports to repeal HB2 but which also enacts public policy which freezes North Carolina's anti-LGBT public policy in place until 2020!

The response from several prominent LGBT advocacy groups in to the enactment of a "fake repeal" of HB2 is today's Queer Quote:

“After more than a year of inaction, today North Carolina lawmakers doubled-down on discrimination,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “This new law does not repeal HB2. Instead, it institutes a statewide prohibition on equality by banning non-discrimination protections across North Carolina and fuels the flames of anti-transgender hate. Each and every lawmaker who supported this bill has betrayed the LGBTQ community. HRC will explore every legal action to combat this dangerous legislation, and we urge all businesses, sports leagues and entertainers who have fought against HB2 to continue standing strong with the LGBTQ community attacked by this hateful law.” 

"HB2 was hastily passed without any input from the LGBTQ community just one year ago," said Chris Sgro Equality NC Executive Director. "Today, we returned to the legislature with a deal made between Governor Cooper, Phil Berger and Tim Moore that once again left out the ones most impacted by the discriminatory law - LGBTQ North Carolinians. Lawmakers and Governor Cooper have failed to resolve the problems with HB2 by doubling down on discrimination. Once again, the North Carolina General Assembly has enshrined discrimination into North Carolina law." 

“This bill and those like it are based on the vicious lie that trans people represent some type of danger to others,” said NCTE Executive Director Mara Keisling. “When, in fact, there are thousands of school children who have been terrorized by HB 2, and thousands of parents constantly worried about the safety of their children. The best thing North Carolina can do is to simply repeal HB 2 outright, not this outrageously veiled attack on anti-discrimination."

The statement goes on to reference the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans and its ruling striking down a Colorado anti-gay constitutional amendment due to the animus (i.e homophobia) reflected by the legislation.

We shall continue to be following this situation closely.

Hate Don't P(l)ay: North Carolina Loses 2017 NBA All-Star Game Over Anti-LGBT #HB2 Law

Well, well! The backlash over North Carolina's discriminatory HB2 continues to build, as today the National Basketball Association announcing a decision to move the 2017 All-Star Game out of Charlotte, North Carolina because that hateful law is still in effect in the Tarheel State.

The NBA released a statement:

"The NBA has decided to relocate the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte with the hope of rescheduling for 2019.
"Since March, when North Carolina enacted HB2 and the issue of legal protections for the LGBT community in Charlotte became prominent, the NBA and the Charlotte Hornets have been working diligently to foster constructive dialogue and try to effect positive change. We have been guided in these discussions by the long-standing core values of our league. These include not only diversity, inclusion, fairness and respect for others but also the willingness to listen and consider opposing points of view.
"Our week-long schedule of All-Star events and activities is intended to be a global celebration of basketball, our league, and the values for which we stand, and to bring together all members of the NBA community -- current and former players, league and team officials, business partners, and fans. While we recognize that the NBA cannot choose the law in every city, state, and country in which we do business, we do not believe we can successfully host our All-Star festivities in Charlotte in the climate created by HB2.
"We are particularly mindful of the impact of this decision on our fans in North Carolina, who are among the most passionate in our league. It is also important to stress that the City of Charlotte and the Hornets organization have sought to provide an inclusive environment and that the Hornets will continue to ensure that all patrons -- including members of the LGBT community -- feel welcome while attending games and events in their arena.
"We look forward to re-starting plans for our All-Star festivities in Charlotte for 2019 provided there is an appropriate resolution to this matter.
"The NBA will make an announcement on the new location of the 2017 NBA All-Star Game in the coming weeks."

Let's hear it for the good guys!

Hopefully the NBA moves the game (and its estimated $100 million in economic impact!) to a city and state with LGBT protection.s New Orleans, which appears to be the top contender, is in Louisiana which has no statewide ordinance banning LGBT discrimination.

Meanwhile North Carolina has two years to get its %*%#@ together and Repeal HB2!

QUEER QUOTE: NC Gov Signs Exec Order To Try To Stem Backlash Against Anti-LGBT Law

Republican Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina is attempting to mitigate the severe backlash that his state has received since he signed into law HB-2, a bill that explicitly discriminates against GBT citizens. On Tuesday he announced that he was issuing an executive order to prohibit discrimination in state employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. But this does not make up for specific ways that the original bill will damage and harm LGBT citizens in North Carolina.

Today's Queer Quote is from Lambda Legal's response to McCrory's action:

The devastating blow of HB 2 will not be fixed by the band-aid of an executive order. While this is an improvement for the state employees it impacts, HB 2’s reach goes far beyond what the executive order addresses and that’s why we are challenging this extreme and discriminatory measure—in order to ensure that everyone who lives in and visits North Carolina is protected under the law. 

HB 2 is an attack on fairness in employment, education, and local governance that encourages discrimination against thousands of LGBT people who call North Carolina home, and it particularly targets transgender people.

Sorry, Governor. When even your state's Attorney General won't defend your hate measure in court because they think it is flagrantly unconstitutional and you're trying to fix the measure with executive order, don't you think you should just admit you made a mistake and #repealHB2?

QUEER QUOTE: Governor Deal Vetoes Anti-LGBT "License To Discriminate" Bill

The governor of Georgia announced on Monday that he would be vetoing HB 757, what LGBT groups call a "license to discriminate" bill but which its sponsors and supporters refer to a "religious freedom" bill. His veto message is today's Queer Quote:

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the “hands-off” admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take. 

Some of those in the religious community who support this bill have resorted to insults that question my moral convictions and my character. Some within the business community who oppose this bill have resorted to threats of withdrawing jobs from our state. I do not respond well to insults or threats. The people of Georgia deserve a leader who will make sound judgments based on solid reasons that are not inflamed by emotion. That is what I intend to do. 

As I've said before, I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia of which my family and I are a part of for all of our lives. Our actions on HB 757 are not just about protecting the faith-based community or providing a business-friendly climate for job growth in Georgia. This is about the character of our State and the character of its people. Georgia is a welcoming state filled with warm, friendly and loving people. Our cities and countryside are populated with people who worship God in a myriad of ways and in very diverse settings. Our people work side-by-side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to. We are working to make life better for our families and our communities. That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way.

This is great news but it doesn't change the fact that Georgia has no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

WHOA! North Carolina Enacts Statute Explicitly Enabling LGBT Discrimination Statewide

Wow! The North Carolina legislature passed and the Republican Governor signed into law HB 2, a measure which would ostensibly overturn a recently passed Charlotte, NC ordinance which provided public accommodations protections based on gender identity.

However the law enacted not only overturns the Charlotte ordinance but also ordinances that protected LGBT people in 7 other municipalities and allows discrimination in employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity anywhere in the state of NorthnCarolina.

The ACLU of North Carolina made the stakes around this legislation starkly clear:

“The manner in which legislators passed the most extreme anti-LGBT bill in the nation – voting hours after it was unveiled without adequate public debate – flies in the face of fairness and democracy. Legislators have gone out of their way to stigmatize and marginalize transgender North Carolinians by pushing ugly and fundamentally untrue stereotypes that are based on fear and ignorance and not supported by the experiences of more than 200 cities with these protections. Transgender men are men; transgender women are women. They deserve to use the appropriate restroom in peace, just like everyone else."

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

FDA Reduces Lifetime Ban On MSM Blood Donations To 1 Year

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency responsible for protecting the United States blood supply has finally issued regulations on changing the discriminatory (and patently offensive) policy on preventing any man who has said sex with another man (MSM) from donating blood. The decades-old policy of a lifetime ban was replaced with a "1-year deferral" for men who have had (any kind of) sex with another man.

From the FDA press release issued today:

As part of today’s finalized blood donor deferral guidance, the FDA is changing its recommendation that  men who have sex with men (MSM) be indefinitely deferred – a policy that has been in place for approximately 30 years – to 12 months since the last sexual contact with another man. These updated recommendations better align the deferral period for MSM with the deferral period for other men and women at increased risk for HIV infection – such as those who had a recent blood transfusion or those who have been accidentally exposed to the blood of another individual. The FDA examined a variety of recent studies, epidemiologic data, and shared experiences from other countries that have made recent MSM deferral policy changes. 

“In reviewing our policies to help reduce the risk of HIV transmission through blood products, we rigorously examined several alternative options, including individual risk assessment,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Ultimately, the 12-month deferral window is supported by the best available scientific evidence, at this point in time, relevant to the U.S. population. We will continue to actively conduct research in this area and further revise our policies as new data emerge.” 

Several countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, currently have 12-month deferrals for MSM. During the change in Australia from an indefinite blood donor deferral policy for MSM to a 12-month deferral, well-conducted studies evaluating over 8 million units of donated blood were performed using a national blood surveillance system. These published studies document no change in risk to the blood supply with use of the 12-month deferral. Similar data are not available for shorter deferral intervals.

The website fivethirtyeight.com and Williams Institute conducted an analysis on the numerous proposed changes to the lifetime blood ban on MSM donations and these are summarized:

There should be an estimated 2 million more people eligible to donate blood, with 190, 000 of them likely to do so.

However, as the New Civil Rights Movement blog points out, the revised policy still continues the stigma of homosexuality, since a married gay couple who only have sex with each other (even with condoms!) is technically barred from giving blood for a year while a straight guy could be having sex every day for a year with sex workers or other high-risk individuals and the straight person is not bared from donating blood under this policy. This communicates the message that homosexuality is inherently more "dangerous" than heterosexuality.

I applaud the progress from the ridiculously stigmatizing lifetime ban on men who have sex with men but would urge the FDA to consider a policy that is neutral based on the gender of the person the potential blood donor has sex with.

QUEER QUOTE: Rand Paul Says LGBT Civil Rights Are 'Difficult'

The LGBT blogosphere reacted with surprise and dismay at a statement made by GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul which appears to say that if LGBT people don't want to be subject to employment discrimination then they should stay in the closet.

The statement he made is today's Queer Quote:

“I think really the things you do in your house, if you could just leave those in your house, they wouldn’t have to be part of the workplace, to tell you the truth,” Paul replied. The candidate continued to say the question of whether employers can fire someone for being gay is “difficult” because making additional protected classes would enable LGBT people to sue employers. “I don’t know that we need to keep adding to different classifications to say the government needs to be involved in hiring and firing,” Paul said. “I think society is rapidly changing, and if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you.”

Disapproving reaction was swift, with probably the best response coming from Hillary Clinton:

Senator Paul (R-KY) tried to "clarify" his statement today on CNN but didn't really change his position that denies the viability of LGBT civil rights:

"I don’t think anybody should be fired for being gay," Paul told Wolf Blitzer. "I do also, though, believe that your personal life should be personal and shouldn’t affect anyone firing you. So, I don’t think the decision whether to hire or fire you should be based on things from your personal life." 

[...] 

"I do worry about a workplace where, every sort of classification of person then becomes something where, 'Oh, I lost my job, maybe then I'll sue because I also happen to be gay.'" 

"It’s always 'he said, she said,'" Paul claimed. "Nobody puts signs up saying that. If they do, then I think you would have an action or a cause for action. What I’m saying is I think it should not enter into the workplace in the sense that you shouldn’t be hired or fired because you’re gay."

Notice how he also impugns the character of anyone person who tries to enforce their civil rights by filing a lawsuit that claims they have been fired due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Hat/tip to The New Civil Rights Movement

QUEER QUOTE: Boy Scouts Rescind Homophobic Ban On Openly Gay Adult Troop Leaders

The Boy Scouts of America announced on Monday that their board of directors had voted to lift their blanket ban on openly gay scout leaders, simultaneously allowing individual chapters sponsored by religious groups to maintain their own separate bans on openly LGBT scout leaders.

Both LGBT groups and the Mormon church are unhappy with the Scouts announcement. Their responses are excerpted below and are today's Queer Quote.

Zach Wahls of Scouts for Equality said:

“While we still have some reservations about individual units discriminating against gay adults, we couldn’t be more excited about the future of Scouting. We look forward to collaborating with our supporters, progressive faith partners, allied non-profit organizations, and the Boy Scouts of America to ensure a fully inclusive Scouting movement.”

Human Right Campaign's Chad Griffin said:

"[I]ncluding an exemption for troops sponsored by religious organizations undermines and diminishes the historic nature of today's decision.  Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period. BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion that does not allow discrimination against anyone because of who they are."

But the heterosexual supremacists of the Mormon Church were not happy either, and intimated they might sever their relationship with the Boy Scouts over the move:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America. As a global organization with members in 170 countries, the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available. Those worldwide needs combined with this vote by the BSA National Executive Board will be carefully reviewed by the leaders of the Church in the weeks ahead.

There ya go!

SATURDAY POLITICS: Texas Sup Ct Tells Houston "Repeal Equal Rights Measure Or Place On Ballot"

The Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday handing opponents of Houston's Equal Rights ordinance (HERO) a victory when it said that the City Council must decide by August 24th to either repeal the measure or place it before voters for a vote on the November 2015 municipal ballot. The Houston City Council enacted HERO last summer with openly lesbian Mayor Annise Parker's strong support. This is a shocking ruling because earlier the religious extremists who opposed HERO had turned in double the number of signatures needed to pace the measure on the ballot but more than half of those petitions were deemed invalid by the City Attorney. However the City Secretary had certified that there were enough signatures and it is this certification that the Texas Supreme Court has said must be obeyed. The court suspended the non-discrimination ordinance, and gave the city counvil 30 days to decide to repeal the ordinance or place it before voters.

In response to the Republican-dominated state high court ruling, Mayor Parker issued a statement which said:

"Obviously, I am disappointed and believe the court is in error with this eleventh hour ruling in a case that had already been decided by a judge and jury of citizens. Nonetheless, we will proceed with the steps necessary for City Council to consider the issue. At the same time, we are consulting with our outside counsel on any possible available legal actions. Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance is similar to measures passed by every other major city in the country and by most local corporations. No matter the color of your skin, your age, gender, physical limitations, or sexual orientation, every Houstonian deserves the right to be treated equally. To do otherwise, hurts Houston’s well-known image as a city that is tolerant, accepting, inclusive and embracing of its diversity. Our citizens fully support and understand this and I have never been afraid to take it to the voters. We will win!"

Of course t's always a bad idea to be forced to vote on the civil rights of other people but if that's what the haters want, we will be ready!

SATURDAY POLITICS: Jeb! Comes Out (In Favor Of Equal LGB Employment Rights) At The State Level

Freedom For All Americans is a new group formed in the mode of Freedom to Marry that is a campaign to "ensure that all LGBT Americans are afforded comprehensive protections from discrimination."

Despite the EEOC ruling this week that existing federal law protects LGB people nationwide from discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation, there are a lot of other areas where LGBT people are still subject to discrimination without a legal recourse.

FFAA got a boost this week when Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush endorsed LGBT-inclusive protections against discrimination at the state level by saying:

“I don’t think you should be discriminated because of your sexual orientation. Period. Over and out.”

It will be interesting to see if his rivals for the GOP nomination will join him or condemn him for taking this stance.

EEOC Rules Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination Is Barred By Federal Law

Another bad day for heterosexual supremacists! We will have to start calling the summer of 2015 "rainbow summer"! Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner is reporting that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has (finally) ruled that sexual orientation is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This means that nationwide, under federal law, you can not be discriminated against based on your sexual orientation. The EEOC had previously ruled in 2012 that gender identity or expression was covered under the term "sex," which meant that discrimination against transgender individual was illegal under federal law.


Geidner explains:

The commission found that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination for several reasons. Among the reasons, the commission stated, is because sexual orientation discrimination “necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex” and “because it is associational discrimination on the basis of sex.”   

After a review of the case law regarding similar challenges to employment practices alleging a violation of Title VII where the initial understanding of the law would not have included that coverage, the commission stated, “The courts have gone where the principles of Title VII have directed.”

“Our task is the same,” the decision found. “We therefore conclude that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex. We further conclude that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex.”

This is a huge deal! This means that in the  28 states which do not have state laws containing protections against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, LGB people will have access to the EEOc process based upon federal law. This issue will become more salient as now that marriage equality is the law of the land nationwide, people's marital status may "out" them in the workplace, thus causing them to be subject to anti-LGB animus in many jurisdictions. This EEOC decision will provide many people with some measure of protection and recourse. However, we should not forget that LGBT people will still be able to be discriminated against in housing, credit, education and public accommodations in more than half the states.