Tag: SCOTUS

Posted on

First Impressions From #MasterpieceCakeshop Arguments At SCOTUS

Mark Stern, reporter for Slate, offers his first impressions after attending the SCOTUS arguments today regarding Colorado baker Jack Phillips who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple for their wedding.

According to Stern, things may not look promising for the good guys.

Just got out of arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop. I think the anti-gay baker wins 5-4.

Kennedy doesn’t seem to agree that refusing to serve a same-sex wedding is inherently anti-gay discrimination. And he said Colorado has been “neither tolerant nor respectful” to the baker’s “religious beliefs.”

Kennedy did suggest that a baker who put an anti-gay sign in his window would create “an affront to the gay community.” But then he implied that Colorado is discriminating against Christian bakers.

Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch all obviously supported the anti-gay baker. Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer were extremely skeptical of his position.

I only see one way progressives win: Kennedy says compelled cake-baking isn’t speech, but religious discrimination may have infected this case. Then remand for further findings on free exercise.

I think there is a decent chance that there are 5 votes for this resolution. But I also think it’s more likely that 5 justices find a reason to rule for the baker.

David Badash, at The New Civil Rights Movement, posted this on Facebook:

It looks possible, even likely, LGBT civil rights will lose in today’s SCOTUS case. The is bad, not only for the LGBT community but for all minorities, and women.

Those who voted for Trump, Stein, Johnson, or wrote in someone other than Clinton, esp. in battleground states, helped put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. A Clinton win would have put a progressive on the Court, and we would have won this case.

If people who believe in equality lose this case, so many in America will suffer. This is what happens in a deeply divided society where every single vote is critical.
Go ahead, come at me.

Posted on

SCOTUS Will Let Stand Texas Ruling Denying Same-Sex Couples Equal Spousal Benefits

This is very bad.

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will let stand a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that said the right to a marriage license did not entitle same-sex couples to spousal benefits under employee insurance plans.

From The Texas Tribune:

The high court on Monday announced it would not take up the case — which centers on Houston’s policy to provide spouses of gay and lesbian employees the same government-subsidized marriage benefits it provides to opposite-sex spouses — just months after the city of Houston filed its appeal, arguing the state court’s June decision “disregarded” precedent.

In that decision, the Texas Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized marriage benefits, and it unanimously ordered a trial court to reconsider the case. The ruling found that there’s still room for state courts to explore “the reach and ramifications” of marriage-related issues that resulted from the legalization of same-sex marriage.

That’s despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015 and noted that now-defunct marriage laws were unequal in how they denied same-sex couples the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples.

In its decision, the Texas Supreme Court noted that Obergefell requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages just as they do opposite-sex marriages but did not hold that “states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

That does not mean Houston can “constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses,” the court added, but the issue must now be resolved “in light of Obergefell.”

Following the Obergefell ruling, public employers in Texas, including state agencies and public universities, quickly extended marriage benefits to spouses of gay and lesbian employees.

“Equal recognition of same-sex marriage requires more than a marriage license; it requires equal access to the constellation of benefits that the state has linked to marriage,” Houston attorneys wrote in their brief to the court.

This is particularly disconcerting as SCOTUS prepares to hear the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips tomorrow who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

All eyes will be on that ruling.

Posted on

Major Companies Urge SCOTUS To Take Up LGBT Workplace Discrimination Case

Major American corporations have signed on to an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the high court to rule that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace.

The Trump administration has taken the opposite opinion.

From the AP:

The 76 businesses and organizations – including American Airlines, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Starbucks and Microsoft – filed a brief Wednesday encouraging the high court to take up the issue. They want the court to take a case out of Georgia in which a gay woman who worked as a hospital security officer says she was harassed and punished for dressing in a male uniform and wearing her hair short. Jameka Evans, who worked at Georgia Regional Hospital at Savannah from 2012 to 2013, ultimately left her job and sued.

The question in her case is whether a federal law barring workplace discrimination “because of…sex” covers discrimination against someone because of their sexual orientation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Barack Obama took the view that it does. But President Donald Trump’s administration has argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on gender but doesn’t cover sexual orientation.

The businesses’ court filing says they and their employees would benefit if the court agreed to take the case and rule that Title VII covers sexual orientation discrimination.

Posted on

Podcast: Trump Administration Backs Anti-Gay Baker; Ellen Admits She Was Told To Tone Down The Gay; New Music From Jeb Havens

In this week’s podcast from The Randy Report:

• The Trump administration throws it’s support to an anti-gay baker from Colorado at the US Supreme Court

• A new study in the UK shows gay folks are still afraid to hold hands in public

• A new computer algorithm can determine sexuality by scanning a photo – not a good thing

• Ellen DeGeneres admits she was told to tone down the gay talk in the early years of her talk show

• Trans actress Laverne Cox books another network series

• Out international recording artist Jeb Havens offers a moving, emotional cover of Pink’s “What About Us”

All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report!

Posted on

News Round-Up: September 7, 2017

(image via Instagram)

Some news items you might have missed:

• Woofy Eliad Cohen serves up some #ThrowBackThursday to his army days. Did you know that Cohen’s native Israel requires 32 months of compulsory military service for men? #MenInUniform

• The owner of High Times has acquired LGBTQ publications The Advocate, Out, Pride, Plus, and Out Traveler.

• Speaking of The Advocate, the cast of Will & Grace covers the venerable LGBT publication this month:

• Virulently anti-LGBTQ pastor Kevin Swanson announced on his radio program today that the Supreme Court must immediately reverse its Roe v. Wade and Obergefell decisions before the wrath of God is brought upon the U.S. in the form of Hurricane Irma. #SRSLY

• At this writing, 86 GOP members of Congress have signed an amicus brief in support of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Donald Trump’s Justice Department also filed a brief in support of the baker’s right to discriminate against LGBTs.

• Check out the latest from Maroon 5: the poppy, upbeat “What Lovers Do” featuring 2017 breakout R&B star, SZA.

Posted on

Podcast: HGTV’s Gay Married Hosts, SCOTUS To Review Denying Services For Same-Sex Weddings, Pentagon Delays Trans Recruits

In this week’s headlines on The Randy Report podcast:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether a Colorado baker can refuse to sell a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

• The Pentagon hits “delay” on allowing transgender recruits to join the U.S. military

• The Texas Supreme Court gets it wrong on same-sex married couples rights

• HGTV has it’s first show hosted by a married gay couple

All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Review Trump Muslim Travel Ban

The Supreme Court announced today that it will review the constitutionality of President Trump’s revised Muslim travel ban this fall.

The decision includes allowing part of the ban to go into effect.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures.

Two federal appeals courts have blocked critical parts of the order.

The administration had asked that the the lower-court ruling be stayed while the case moves forward. The court granted part of that request in its unsigned opinion.

“We grant the government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of” Mr. Trump’s executive order “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last month that the limits on travel from the six countries violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. Relying on Mr. Trump’s statements during the presidential campaign, where he called for a “Muslim ban,” the court said the order “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, recently blocked both the limits on travel and the suspension of the refugee program. It ruled on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, saying Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority granted him by Congress.

So, if you are a foreign national in one of those six Muslim-majority countries with a close family member in the United States, or a job offer from an American company, or an invitation to lecture an American audience, or an offer of admission from an American university, you can obtain a visa.

If you have no concrete ties or true business connection to the U.S., the Trump ban can keep you out of the U.S.

What I don’t understand is: the purpose of the ban was to give the Trump administration 90 days to examine immigration processes. I’m assuming they’ve been doing this review anyway? By October we’ll be long past 90 days. By October shouldn’t the review be concluded and immigration rules adjusted?

Posted on

Podcast: Where The Bears Are, SCOTUS U-Turns On Trans Rights, LOGO’s “Fire Island”

In this episode of The Randy Report podcast:

• Hunky Ian Parks of Where The Bears Are chats on the upcoming 6th season of the popular web series.

Where the Bears Are is a comedy/mystery web series that has accumulated over 23 MILLION VIEWS over five seasons and won the “BEST GAY WEB SERIES” award from several LGBT media outlets.

The show – described as a cross between The Golden Girls and Murder She Wrote – features four Bears living in the hills of Silverlake forever finding themselves in the middle of a murder mystery. There’s constant tongue in cheek humor and big, hairy men thrown in for eye candy.

The show has a world-wide fan base and the creators/stars have been flown to Europe, Australia, and Mexico.

The Bears promise Season 6 to be one of their most ambitious yet featuring a spy plot line, a murder AND the return of one of their most notorious villains!

Hit the play button below to listen to Ian talk on the new season – click here for more info about Where The Bears Are.

Plus:

• A new reality show from LOGO, “Fire Island,” focuses on beach life on Fire Island.

• The Supreme Court u-turns on hearing an important case regarding transgender rights.

• South Dakota earns the dubious distinction of passing the first anti-LGBT law in this legislative session.

Posted on

Transgender Rights Case Scrapped At SCOTUS

Gavin Grimm

There will be no historic ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on transgender rights. At least not this year.

From Chris Johnson at The Washington Blade:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday scrapped consideration of the case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of transgender student Gavin Grimm, who’s seeking to use the boys’ room in Virginia schoool consistent with his gender identity.

In a notice of the court, justices grant summary disposition in the case, remanding it to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the aftermath of the Trump administration revocation of Obama-era guidance assuring transgender students can use the restroom consistent with their gender identity.

The 4th Circuit Court based it’s ruling in great part on the Obama-era guidance. In the aftermath of the Trump administration’s decision to rescind those guidelines, the ruling falls apart.

#ThanksTrump

Important to note: SCOTUS decided to “vacate” the case. Had the 8 justices simply decided to not take the case, Grimm’s win at the lower court would have stood. “Vacating” sends the case back to the appeals court to start all over again.

GLSEN issued this statement:

“The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to end the painful discrimination currently faced by tens of thousands of transgender students nationwide,” said Dr. Eliza Byard, GLSEN Executive Director in response to SCOTUS’ decision to decline to hear the case of transgender student Gavin Grimm, instead referring it back to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The position previously taken by the Departments of Education and Justice lifted up best practices for K-12 schools to improve the lives of students and provide a clear path to opportunity. We remain confident the courts will ultimately stand with Gavin and other transgender students in seeking access to school facilities that correspond with their gender identity and determining their gender-affirming name and pronouns, but in the meantime trans students are left without clear protections from our Federal government while the case is reheard.

“Additionally, the federal government continues to backtrack on their commitment to supporting transgender students, making it more important than ever that educators, schools, school districts, and state governments make explicitly clear their support through inclusive school values statements and comprehensive policies.”

From Joshua Block, the lead ACLU attorney representing Gavin Grimm:

Posted on

Laverne Cox Puts Upcoming SCOTUS/Transgender Rights Case In Grammy Spotlight

Laverne Cox

Out transgender actress Laverne Cox, of Netflix’s Orange Is The New Black and the upcoming Doubt on CBS, had the LGBT moment of the Grammy Awards last night when she used her time center stage to bring attention to transgender high school student Gavin Grimm and his fight for equal rights that is headed to the Supreme Court.

Before introducing Lady Gaga and Metallica, Cox told the audience, “Please Google Gavin Grimm. He’s going to the Supreme Court in March. #StandWithGavin.”

Grimm is the 17-year-old student whose fight for the right to use a bathroom that matches his gender identity at his local Virginia school district has garnered headlines in the national LGBT press.

More about Gavin’s case from the ACLU:

Gavin is a 17-year-old boy. But because he is transgender, his school board passed a policy barring him from sharing facilities with the rest of his peers. Rather than use the boys’ restroom that all other boys use, Gavin is forced into a converted utility closet or another, separate, stigmatized space every time he needs to use the restroom during the day.

Gavin’s case will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28th.

According to the Washington Post, Grimm had no idea Cox was going to bring up his case:

Grimm, now 17 and a high school senior, said Sunday night that he had no idea Cox was going to mention his name and was not watching the Grammys. But his mother Deirdre was in another room, and Grimm found out only when she “started shrieking.”

“I was just so thrilled because I love her. She’s just a beautiful person inside and out,” Grimm said. “I was really touched and thrilled and honored that that was the first thing out of her mouth.”

Grimm, once painfully shy, has become the unlikely standard-bearer for transgender student rights.

“At this point, that’s the role I occupy and I want to make sure I’m using that platform for positive,” Grimm said. “I definitely didn’t set out at the beginning wanting to or expecting to shouted on the Grammys.”