President Trump and Vice President Pence (image via Flickr/White House – public domain) As we begin National Adoption Month, the Trump administration has proposed a change in regulations aimed at allowing tax-payer funded adoption agencies to refuse to place children with LGBTQ families due to religious objections. The new policy, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, would reverse an Obama-era rule that prohibited organizations with contracts with the federal government, including adoption agencies, from discriminating based on sexual orientation. By removing sexual orientation and gender identity from the current list of factors that violate the HHS rules, religious-based adoption, and foster care agencies would be able to accept federal taxpayer money while treating same-sex marriages differently from opposite-sex marriages. Earlier this year, the Trump administration issued a waiver that permits adoption agencies in South Carolina to receive tax dollars while refusing to follow the current non-discrimination policies. The proposed change would go further, however, allowing all recipients of HHS grants to turn away LGBTQ people under the guise of ‘religious freedom.’ Homeless youth shelters, HIV and STI prevention programs, opioid programs, substance-use recovery programs and more would all be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBTQ advocacy groups were outraged at the news. Julie Kruse of Family Equality issued a statement that read, in part, “The American public overwhelmingly opposes allowing taxpayer-funded adoption and foster care agencies to turn away qualified parents simply because they are in a same-sex relationship.” “Children should never be denied the opportunity to join a stable, loving family – even if that means the family is LGBTQ,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD. “Research has shown LGBTQ families provide the same kind of love, protection, and support as other families and no child should be denied that kind of environment.” “The Trump Administration has once again demonstrated how they prefer to prioritize the gross work of anti-LGBTQ activists over the safety and well-being of our children,” she added. From Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality:
“This rule is an abuse of taxpayer dollars in the name of empowering hatred and bigotry towards society’s most vulnerable members. Stigma and prejudice are fueling a public health crisis among transgender people across the country, one that manifests itself as suicide, addiction, intimate partner violence, and HIV. Enabling providers of life-saving services to worsen these crises by rejecting transgender people is a moral crime and a severe abdication of HHS’s mission to preserve public health.”
More from Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign’s Charlotte Clymer:
This rule will openly encourage discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, AND religion in *all* HHS programs.
This is all horrifically true. Trump and Pence have proposed a regulation that would allow ALL programs that receive funding from HHS to discriminate against LGBTQ people, religious minorities, etc. https://t.co/fiKNn6V5tJ
Anti-LGBTQ Christian conservatives, however, were thrilled. Tony Perkins, of the anti-LGBTQ Family Research Council, announced, “Thanks to President Trump, charities will be free to care for needy children and operate according to their religious beliefs and the reality that children do best in a home with a married mom and dad.”
Sgt. Keith Wildhaber (image via Wildhaber) I reported earlier this week on the discrimination lawsuit brought by St. Louis County police officer Sgt. Keith Wildhaber who says he was told to “tone down the gayness” if he ever wanted to be promoted to lieutenant. At the end of a weeklong trial, the jury deliberated only three hours before awarding the 22-year-veteran nearly $20 million, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Here’s the breakdown of the damages per the jury: • $1.9 million in actual damages • $10 million in punitive damages • $999,000 for actual damages for retaliation allegations • $7 million in punitive damages for retaliation allegations The jury foreman told reporters, “We wanted to send a message. If you discriminate you are going to pay a big price…You can’t defend the indefensible.” Several jurors shared with the press that an array of photos presented in court Friday became key evidence in coming to their decision. Earlier in the week, Donna Woodland, a widow of a former county police officer, testified that Capt. Guy Means called Wildhaber “fruity” while attending a police charity event in 2015. According to Woodland, Means added that Wildhaber would never be promoted because he was “way too out there with his gayness and had to tone it down.” Means later testified he didn’t remember attending the event and didn’t know Woodland saying he wouldn’t be able “to pick her out of the jury box if she was sitting there.” On Friday, Woodland returned with an array of photo booth pics from the event showing Means posing with her, including one instance where he was giving her a big hug. Hardly the kind of pose you do with someone you “don’t know.” In the opening of the trial, Wildhaber told the jury he was “sickened” when a former member of the St. Louis County Police Board of Commissioners, John Saracino, told him in 2014 to “tone down the gayness” if he wanted a promotion. Wildhaber’s lawsuit alleged he had been passed over for promotion 23 times despite high scores on promotions tests. On the opening day of the lawsuit, lawyers representing Wildhaber characterized Chief Jon Belmar as “having a penchant for promoting masculine men that dominates all promotional decisions and said that he will retaliate against anyone who questions them, as Wildhaber did by filing his lawsuit.” After filing his lawsuit, Wildhaber said he faced retaliation by being transferred to the Jennings precinct which nearly tripled his daily commute to work. And he was moved from afternoon shifts and put on midnights. Wildhaber told the court, “It’s what’s known as a ‘geography lesson’ in the department.” Chief Belmar later testified that Wildhaber’s lawsuit was a factor in denying the sergeant any promotions, which Wildhaber’s lawyers called “the best sound bite” for the case. According to the Post-Dispatch, a spokesperson for county officials said they “will be exploring all of our legal options this weekend and we are going to do what’s best for the county.” I fully expect the jury’s decision to be appealed and the amount of the damages to be reduced. But, a win is a win. As I previously reported, Missouri has no laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ people in the workplace. (source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Sgt. Keith Wildhaber (image via Wildhaber) In the spring of 2014, St. Louis County police Sgt. Keith Wildhaber says he was told he would need to “tone down his gayness” if he hoped to be promoted to lieutenant. The comment, according to Wildhaber, came from a former member of the St. Louis County Police Board of Commissioners, John Saracino, a short time after Chief Jon Belmar took over the department. “I was sickened by it,” said Wildhaber on the first day of his employment discrimination lawsuit against the department, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I think I said, ‘I can’t believe we are having this conversation in 2014.’ It was devastating to hear,” Wildhaber told the jury. “We had never spoken of my sexuality before, and I thought he was just trying to be helpful to me and looking out for my best interest in the promotional process.” Saracino later denied making the comment. Wildhaber filed the lawsuit in 2017 after being passed over for promotion 23 times. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported at the time Wildhaber ranked third among 26 people who took a promotions test in February 2014. In February 2015, he again placed third in a second round of tests. On the opening day of the lawsuit, lawyers representing Wildhaber characterized Chief Belmar as “having a penchant for promoting masculine men that dominates all promotional decisions and said that he will retaliate against anyone who questions them, as Wildhaber did by filing his lawsuit.” “The police department under Chief Belmar is big on high-testosterone, type A masculine personalities, and my method of policing doesn’t conform with that,” testified Wildhaber, who contends he would have been promoted if he weren’t openly gay. “This chief is very heavy on promoting the SWAT, masculine type of guys, and I wasn’t doing that.” Wildhaber’s attorneys told the jury that, after filing his lawsuit, Wildhaber was transferred to the Jennings precinct which nearly tripled his daily commute to work. And he was moved from afternoon shifts and put on midnights. Wildhaber told the court, “It’s what’s known as a ‘geography lesson’ in the department.” Lawyers for the department told the jury the police chief had reasons not to promote the 22-year-veteran, who is still with the department. The department’s attorney’s pointed to a three-day suspension in 2011 for failing to file 23 out of 6,000 police reports during his tenure as a fraud detective. The lawyer’s also said Wildhaber had been the subject of an FBI investigation and hadn’t told Belmar. They accused him of tipping off a suspect the FBI was investigating. But Wildhaber denied the allegations saying, “I didn’t do that,” adding that he informed his supervisor after being questioned by the FBI. Attorneys for Wildhaber say there have been several officers with larger disciplinary issues in their file than Wildhaber who have been promoted to lieutenant. The trial will continue on Wednesday. Missouri has no laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ people in the workplace. A bill to add sexual orientation to the state’s non-discrimination laws was passed by the state Senate on May 17, 2013, but the state House of Representatives adjourned that session without taking up the bill for consideration. (source: Post-Dispatch)
A Virginia restaurant operator has agreed to pay $40,000 to resolve a lawsuit that claims its employees routinely harassed a gay server with homophobic epithets and taunted him about his sexuality.
A federal judge on Thursday signed off on the settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Mejia Corp., which does business as El Tio Tex-Mex Grill restaurant in Gainesville.
The commission’s September 2018 lawsuit claimed restaurant employees also harassed the gay server’s heterosexual friend, a busser, based on their friendship.
The settlement calls for the server and his friend to split the $40,000 payments from the company. The agreement also bars the restaurant from engaging in or condoning sex-based harassment of any employee.
The EEOC determined that the two men had legal standing to sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Recent court cases have found that discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under the prohibition of “sex” discrimination under Title VII.
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for October 8 on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in banning LGBTQ discrimination.
There will be three cases regarding Title VII heard that day. The crux of the cases concerns whether anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
LGBTQ advocates say discrimination against gay people is sex discrimination because anti-gay bias is borne out of opposition to people who love others of the same sex.
A brief filed by the ACLU last week read, in part, “Firing a man because he is attracted to other men is like refusing to hire a woman because she has school-age children, failing to promote a woman because she is too ‘macho,’ or countenancing the sexual harassment of a man who is perceived by his coworkers to be vulnerable.”
Some court watchers say they are not overly-hopeful for a pro-LGBTQ ruling in light of Donald Trump’s choices for far-right leaning justices on the high court.
But Chief Justice John Roberts has, at times, surprised the LGBTQ community.
During arguments for the Obergefell decision in 2015, which made marriage equality the law of the land, Roberts made comments wondering if banning same-sex marriage would constitute a kind of sex discrimination.
The list of companies includes big tech like Facebook, Apple and Adobe; food giants like Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Domino’s Pizza; also Uber, Zillow, MGM Resorts, Hilton, HSBC Bank and more.
The Human Rights Campaign reports the amicus brief has the largest number of business signers than any other brief filed in an LGBTQ discrimination case.
The brief reads, in part, “Even where companies voluntarily implement policies to prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, such policies are not a substitute for the force of law.”
“Only a uniform federal rule can enable businesses to recruit and retain, and employees to perform, at their highest levels,” says the brief.
The brief was organized by several LGBTQ advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign, Out & Equal, Freedom for All Americans and Lambda Legal.
A Jesuit high school in Indiana can no longer call itself “Catholic” because it employs a teacher engaged in a same-sex marriage, the Archbishop of Indianapolis says.
Archbishop Charles Thompson’s decree, dated June 21, means that Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School in Indianapolis will no longer be recognized or identified as a Catholic institution within the archdiocese.
Thompson said the church considers Catholic school teachers to be “ministers” of the faith.
“To effectively bear witness to Christ, whether they teach religion or not, all ministers in their professional and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic Church teaching,” the Archdiocese of Indiana said in a statement on Thursday.
In a statement, leaders from Brebeuf Jesuit Prep School said it has “respectfully declined the Archdiocese’s insistence and directive that we dismiss a highly capable and qualified teacher due to the teacher being a spouse within a civilly recognized same-sex marriage.”
The Rev. Brian Paulson, who heads the Midwest Province of Jesuits, said that the teacher does not teach religion and “is a longtime valued employee of the school.” The teacher is not named in any of the statements.
“To our knowledge, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented,” said the letter from the school’s president, the Rev. William Verbryke, and two members of the board of trustees.
“This is a unique action among the more than 80 Jesuit secondary/pre-secondary schools which operate in dioceses throughout North America.”
Brazil’s high court has ruled that acts that discriminate against LGBTQ people will now be included in the South American country’s laws prohibiting racism.
In an 8-3 vote, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court agreed to criminalize discrimination against LGBTQ people.
Passed in 1989, the country’s statutes outlawing racism allow prison sentences of up to five years.
USA Todayreports that Justice Carmen Lucia noted in her ruling that “the LGBT community is treated differently in Brazil’s ‘discriminatory society,’ and as a result face a higher rate of violence.”
Although Brazil legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, violence against LGBTQ individuals is common.
Grupo de Bahia, an organization that tracks LGBT hate crimes, reported in January 2018 that there were 387 murders in Brazil during 2017. All of those were directly related to homophobia or transphobia. In 2018, the number of LGBTQ people murdered rose to 420.
Activists say the increase in violence correlates to some degree with the election of virulently homophobic President Jair Bolsonaro, who took office in January this year.
Bolsonaro has made no secret the disdain he holds for LGBTQ people.
His record as a lawmaker includes a long history of anti-LGBTQ votes, and he promised to erase pro-LGBTQ and pro-women movements during the 2018 campaign.
In a 2011 interview, he told Playboy Brazilhe would prefer to have a dead son than a gay son
And the new president has also downplayed “gay tourism” in his country.
“If you want to come here and have sex with a woman, go for your life,” he told Crusoe Magazine in April. He added that Brazil “cannot be a country for gay tourism because we have families here.”
The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld its 2017 ruling which found florist Barronelle Stutzman had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws when she refused to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple in 2013.
Stutzman’s legal team had appealed the original ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but last June the high court punted.
Instead of reviewing the case, SCOTUS vacated the Washington state Supreme Court ruling and ordered the state’s top court to take another look at the caseto ensure they did not rule with any religious bias.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued a statement which read, “Washington state law protects same-sex couples from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, the same way it protects Washingtonians from discrimination based on their religion, veteran or military status, disability, race and other protected classes.”
The case began when Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed were planning to marry in 2013 after Washington state legalized same-sex marriage the year before.
They approached Stutzman for flowers for their event, Stutzman refused citing her Christian beliefs.
Washington state’s public accommodation laws specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Stutzman was fined $1,000 and ordered to sell floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if she were to continue selling arrangements for heterosexual weddings.
Although she cried about financial burdens due to the ongoing court case, it’s worth noting that over $174,000 was raised via crowd funding for Stutzman. GoFundMe eventually shut down the campaign based on the company’s policy that campaigns can’t be used to raise funds for legal cases where formal charges have been filed.
However, Stutzman was allowed to keep the $174,000.
Following Wednesday’s ruling, Stutzman’s attorneys (from the virulently anti-LGBTQ law firm Alliance Defending Freedom) say they plan to take their appeal (again) to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Brazil’s highest court has found the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from the country’s anti-discrimination laws to be unconstitutional.
Six judges on the 11-member Supreme Federal Court voted in favor of the ruling Thursday. While the other five members have not yet voted on the issue, the majority secured the court’s decision. A ruling will be issued once the remaining judges register their votes on June 5.
The ruling comes as attacks on LGBTQ people have seen a sharp increase since the election of virulently anti-gay President Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro, whose record as a lawmaker includes a long history of anti-LGBTQ votes, promised to erase pro-LGBTQ and pro-women movements during the campaign.
He has famously declared he would prefer to have a dead son than a gay son.
And the new president has also downplayed “gay tourism” in his country.
“If you want to come here and have sex with a woman, go for your life,” he told Crusoe Magazine in April. He added that Brazil “cannot be a country for gay tourism because we have families here.”
Although same-sex marriage was legalized in 2013, local news site Rio On Watch reports Brazil is the “LGBT murder capital” of the world. In 2016, 331 LGBTQ murders were recorded which equaled one LGBT-related killing every 25 hours.
The Rio Times reports that in 2018 that Brazil had the highest number of transgender people murdered in the world.
Since 2001, anti-LGBTQ discrimination bills have been proposed in the country’s Congress, but have never been brought to a vote by lawmakers.
Brazil’s Senate is currently debating legislation would punish hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity with a five year prison sentence, but a carve-out for religious beliefs is being considered for the slow-moving bill.
The inability of lawmakers to take meaningful action on the issue was, in part, what prompted Judge Luiz Fox to cast the sixth and deciding vote on Thursday.
“Parliament doesn’t act,” said Fox during the hearing, according to The Washington Post. “This is no guarantee the bill will pass, and even if it does, it can be vetoed and homophobia will continue. The judiciary must act in defense of minorities against violence by the majority.”
While several states in Brazil have laws in place to protect against LGBTQ discrimination, the new ruling by the Supreme Federal Court will be the first federal law to make LGBTQ discrimination a crime nationwide.
A gay couple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, have been ordered to remove their Pride flag from the outside of their apartment home or be evicted.
Kevin Kollman and Merle Malterer told their local NBC News affiliate they received a note from their landlord at the Country Oaks Apartments on Wednesday informing them flying their Pride flag outside their home was a breach of their lease.
They were given five days to remove the flag.
“It’s a symbol of America, it’s a symbol of our pride in America,” Kollman told NBC2. “Personally, I feel like we’re being singled out here because of what it is.”
When contacted by NBC2, the landlord said the conflict wasn’t a ‘discrimination issue’ but an issue with the appearance of the property.
According to the landlord, “No one is allowed to have flags anywhere, and it’s against the lease agreement.”
The couple was asked in January to remove a Packers flag as well.
However…
A neighbor in the apartment complex, Ken Miller, flies flags outside his apartment and hasn’t received the same written warning.
“I’ve been here for three years, and I’ve had these flags up for at least two years, and I’ve never had any issues with the flags,” Miller said.
In the NBC2 report, several flags could be seen throughout the complex.
Kollman and Malterer say they aren’t backing down, and will continue to fly their Pride flag.
“It’s part of my house, it’s part of who I am,” said Kollman. “My neighbors don’t care – why should he?”
The couple told NBC2they are looking into possible legal action.
