Home Blog Page 456

LGBT activist ends meeting with Polish president in protest – Associated Press

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — A gay rights activist in Poland said he ended a meeting with the country’s conservative president without saying goodbye Wednesday after the politician defended recent remarks about an alleged LGBT “ideology” by citing his right to free speech.

President Andrzej Duda invited several activists to meet after a weekend event where he described the LGBT rights movement as more dangerous than communism and endorsed another conservative official’s observation that “LGBT is not people, it’s an ideology.”

Duda, who is seeking a second term in Poland’s presidential election this month, also signed a “Family Charter” last week that pledges to “ban the propagation of LGBT ideology in public institutions” and oppose same-sex marriages and adoption.

ADVERTISEMENT

The president’s actions came amidst a competitive campaign for Poland’s presidency. The election is scheduled for June 28, with a likely runoff on July 12 between Duda and Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, who has voiced support for LGBT rights.

After angry protesters greeted Duda at a campaign stop on Monday, he invited activists and a left-wing presidential candidate who is gay, Robert Biedron, and the candidate’s mother to the presidential palace.

Only one activist showed up to meet with the president. Biedron and his mother refused to go unless Duda made a public apology.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Biedron accused the president of using language about LGBT people that was offensive to many Poles.

Duda’s spokesman, Blazej Spychalski, described the meeting with the LGBT activist, Bartosz Staszewski, as “good and constructive.”

Staszewski gave a different story. He said he arrived at the meeting with photos of young LGBT Poles who had died by suicide while under the psychological strain of discrimination.

He laid them on a table along with a book about homosexuals imprisoned at Auschwitz, and told him of how gay people in Poland have been attacked at pride marches.

“I wanted to show him those pictures, look in his eyes and show him that I am not an ideology,” Staszewski, a 29-year-old filmmaker, told The Associated Press.

He said he and the president spoke for about an hour but that when Duda cited freedom of speech to defend his words about “LGBT ideology,” he became angry and stood up and left without shaking the president’s hand.

U.S. Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher said on Twitter on Tuesday that “the U.S. condemns discrimination or hatred based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.”

Mosbacher denied a report in a Polish newspaper saying that the U.S. Embassy had intervened directly with Duda over his recent comments.

LGBTQ Inclusion in the Workplace: Updating Policies and Training – SHRM

0

Many employers already have policies and practices in place that are inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) workers, and now is a good time to review those programs in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that LGBTQ workers are protected by federal employment anti-discrimination law. 

In a 6-3 ruling on June 15, the high court said that an employer who fires a worker merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Although this ruling was widely anticipated, many state and local laws already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” said David Ritter, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg in Chicago.

Those existing state and local laws that explicitly protect applicants and employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity will remain in place, explained Chai Feldblum, an attorney with Morgan Lewis in Washington, D.C., and former commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Supreme Court decision now protects LGBTQ workers nationwide. 

Even before the Supreme Court ruling, employers for a large segment of the workforce already adopted LGBTQ-inclusive polices, observed Adam Sencenbaugh, an attorney with Haynes and Boone in Austin, Texas. “But for those who haven’t, now is the time to do it.”

Anti-Discrimination Policies

See the anti-bias checklist“As a practical matter for all the companies that already have anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies for LGBTQ+ people, this is simply an affirmation of their existing policies,” Feldblum said. “Employers that had not previously prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity should obviously do so now in their various policy documents.” 

Those employers can make clear that they understand that the prohibition against sex discrimination, which they have been complying with for years, also includes a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, she suggested.

“Expanding your policy to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity is not only the right thing to do, but it will provide evidence that your company intends to comply with Title VII’s protection of ‘sex’ in its totality,” said JoLynn Markison, an attorney with Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis.

Employers should also undertake a comprehensive review of their job application, hiring practices and ongoing work processes, noted Randy Coffey, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Kansas City, Mo. Employers should conduct a thorough review of how they respond to internal concerns and ensure that processes are fair and decisions are not being made in ways that would adversely affect LGBTQ employees.

Supervisor Training

Regina Faul, an attorney with Phillips Nizer in New York City, recommended that employers review their training protocols to ensure that they adequately address the extended protections. “Additionally, further training of managers, supervisors and employees should be contemplated and should include best practices for implementing and maintaining a diverse workforce with a culture of inclusion and acceptance,” she said.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that the focus of Title VII is on individuals, not groups, Coffey explained, and managers and supervisors should understand that discrimination can still occur even without the intention to harm an employee because of his or her sex.

The Supreme Court used the following example to illustrate this point:

So an employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. But in both cases the employer fires an individual in part because of sex. Instead of avoiding Title VII exposure, this employer doubles it.

“It is not a function of labels or terms,” Coffey said. Congress chose to use a broad term in Title VII, prohibiting discrimination because of “sex,” and did not include any categories or sub-categories for exclusion from that mandate. 

Employers should be sure to have clear anti-harassment and anti-discrimination standards, Sencenbaugh said. Train managers to understand that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex discrimination and make sure they know how to respond appropriately—and take matters seriously—when they get complaints.

Employers in some states, such as California, are required to provide harassment-prevention training that covers sexual orientation and gender identity. “The good news for our friends in other states is that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” said Michael Warren, an attorney with McManis Faulkner in San Jose, Calif. Employers can incorporate these topics into any training they already provide on curbing workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 

US Supreme Court ruling ‘extremely positive’ for LGBT community, says UN Rights Expert – UN News

0

Victor Madrigal-Borloz, UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, called the ruling a “very significant step towards breaking the cycle of discrimination that often condemns lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender-diverse persons to social exclusion, and ultimately, to poverty”.

The ruling clarifies that Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which bans discrimination based on sex – is applicable to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The court’s decision was issued in relation to three cases: Gerald Bostock, who was fired from a county job in the United States state of Georgia after he joined a gay softball team; Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who was fired after disclosing he was gay to a client; and Aimée Stephens, who was fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home two weeks after telling her boss she intended to live full-time as a woman.

In most UN Member States, national laws do not provide adequate protection from employment-related discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, Mr. Madrigal-Borloz said. In the absence of such laws, employers may fire or refuse to hire or promote people, simply because they are – or thought to be – gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse.

The UN Independent Expert has been outspoken about the need for policy makers to collect more data in efforts to understand the causes of violence routinely directed at LGBT communities across the world.

“The judgement will have an extremely positive impact in addressing stigma, promoting sociocultural and economic inclusion, and furthering legal recognition of gender identity – all of which have been identified by my mandate as fundamental to address the root causes of violence and discrimination,” Madrigal-Borloz said.

The case also illustrates the vital role that victims can play in furthering justice. “It is sad to note that two of the victims in these cases did not live to see the outcome of their struggle, but uplifting to know that their resolve, their resilience and their determination will now benefit millions of LGBT persons,” he added.

Victor Madrigal-Borloz (Costa Rica) assumed the role of UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity on 1 January 2018, for a three-year term. He is a senior visiting researcher at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Programme.

The Independent Experts are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Two conservative justices joined decision expanding LGBTQ rights – CNN

0
(CNN) —  

Five years after the US Supreme Court declared a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry, the justices produced another landmark for the gay rights movement by ruling that federal anti-bias law covers millions of gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

Monday’s decision came at the hands of an unusual six-justice coalition on the nine-member bench, cloaked in legalistic, textualist reading of the statute but nonetheless reflecting a cultural transformation in America.

The ruling joins the annals of high court decisions over the last quarter century that have helped drive gay progress on myriad fronts, including the 2003 decision striking down statutes that criminalized sodomy and a 2013 action that invalidated a federal law that denied married same-sex couples the Social Security and other benefits given opposite-sex married couples.

Even with a newly cemented conservative majority, it appears the high court will continue moving forward on LGBTQ rights. There is still a question of how such rights will fare when religious objections emerge or questions about shared locker rooms and bathrooms are invoked in a transgender dispute – issues Monday’s opinion specifically did not address.

The 6-3 decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first high court appointee and an unyielding conservative on most disputes.

Equally significant, the decision was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, who had never signed an opinion endorsing gay rights.

The legal milestone mirrors cultural changes and brings LGBTQ rights into a new realm of the law. While the 2015 decision finding a right to same-sex marriage marked a climax in domestic life, Monday’s decision ushers in equality on the job.

The majority ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination “because of” sex, extends to people who face job bias arising from their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Gorsuch said the “message” of the law is “simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

More than 7 million people in the US identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA. Of those, about 4 million currently live in states where laws do not protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Chief Justice Roberts joins the opinion

As much as Gorsuch’s vote has dismayed conservatives on the court and off, the vote of Roberts, also usually on the right wing, was not predictable.

In his 15 years as chief justice, Roberts’ dissent in the 2015 gay marriage case marked his first and only oral dissent from the bench.

Roberts argued then that the majority had put itself in the role of an elected legislature and ignored the limits of the Constitution. Roberts went so far as to compare it to the Dred Scott ruling of 1857 that said blacks could not be citizens.

“If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage,” Roberts also wrote at the time, “by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. … Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

The three dissenters on Monday similarly criticized the majority for encroaching on what they said was the domain of legislators, not judges.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissenting, tried to emphasize that he was not against gay rights and noted the historic nature of the decision. But Kavanaugh was not going to be part of it.

“This Court has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans ‘cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’ But we are judges, not Members of Congress.”

Not a new liberal court

The 6-3 ruling should not be taken as a sign of a new liberal court. Rather, it is a reflection of kind of cross-ideological consensus that can emerge when individual conservative justices have specific interests that align with those of the four liberal justices.

That type of pattern tends to be specific to the subject at hand, perhaps influenced by a national atmosphere and trends.

One LGBTQ rights test on the horizon will come next session in a case from Philadelphia. It centers on foster-care agencies that will not accept same-sex parents on religious grounds.

The Trump administration had argued against Monday’s outcome, and the ruling may have seemed improbable after the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had been the author of all gay rights opinions dating to 1996 and was often the deciding vote on a bench riven on the cultural dilemma.

Unlike the 2015 marriage case rooted in constitutional protections, Monday’s trio of disputes, consolidated as Bostock v. Clayton County, involved a statutory interpretation. They were brought on behalf of two gay men fired from their jobs, as a skydiving instructor and a child welfare services coordinator, and on behalf of a transgender woman who lost her position as a funeral home director.

The employers argued that firing gay or transgender individuals did not violate Title VII.

As the court majority ruled otherwise, Gorsuch avoided the often-elevated tone of Kennedy’s decisions and in his 33-page explication focused on a close reading of Title VII. In adhering to his textual conservatism, Gorsuch said the words of the statute and its focus on “individuals, not groups” lead to a single interpretation.

He acknowledged that Congress likely would not have anticipated Monday’s result when it passed the law in 1964, but he said the prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” necessarily covers people who face bias because of they are gay, lesbian or transgender.

“When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another,” Gorsuch wrote, “it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

That Gorsuch wrote the opinion was no accident. Roberts, as the senior justice in the majority, had the authority to choose who would write for the court. He selected the conservative textualist, rather than himself or any one of the four liberals: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Debate over Scalia’s desires

Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Kavanaugh.

In his dissenting opinion, Alito, joined by Thomas, scoffed at Gorsuch’s approach, contending he “attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice (Antonin) Scalia, but no one should be fooled.

“The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated – the theory that courts should ‘up-date’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society,” Alito added.

Gorsuch argued that he was doing the opposite, interpreting the words as written in 1964.

“Ours is a society of written laws,” Gorsuch concluded. “Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

Gay Fashion Icons: 17 Queer Legends Who Serve Major Style Inspiration – StyleCaster

Scroll To See More Images

The decline of societal gender norms when it comes to fashion has been a long time coming—and we’re still not all the way there. The progress we have made in embracing personal style regardless of identity has definitely been thanks to gay and queer fashion icons who have pushed—and continue to push— the boundaries. Although celebrations for queer fashion trailblazers are often reserved for Pride, we should celebrate these style icons every single day. Considering many of their looks are part of history, often worn in updated ways even decades later, it only makes sense to carve out a part of our everyday lives to pay a bit of homage to how far we’ve come. Let’s take a trip down the rainbow-paved memory lane, shall we?

From Freddie Mercury and his jaw-dropping stage ensembles to Laverne Cox and her ethereal red carpet looks, there’s certainly no shortage of incredible fashion from queer icons. As the LGBTQ+ community becomes more mainstream—in a good way!—and queer celebrities continue to defy gender norms, we no longer have to search high and low for fashion inspiration of all kinds. Masculine and feminine? Don’t know them! Fashion and style know no gender or sexual orientation—and the 17 queer style icons below are proof.

Take a few moments to feast your eyes on some of the most incredibly well-dressed members of the LGBTQ+ community throughout history. Whether it’s Kristen Stewart and her impeccable sense of style (and constantly-changing hairstyles) or Billy Porter’s effortless ability to one-up himself with each and every ensemble, you’re sure to gain some serious inspiration from these stars. Just don’t blame us if suddenly everything in your closet looks subpar in comparison! Remember, these queer celebrities were blessed with good taste, but they also have access to stylists and high-end designers, too. So be kind to yourself (and your wardrobe), and enjoy these 17 swoon-worthy looks in no particular order.

1. Billy Porter

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons | Billy Porter

Image: Matt Baron/Shutterstock.

Whether it’s gorgeous gowns overflowing with tulle or custom designer red carpet looks, Billy Porter is never one to shy away from a bold fashion moment. The Pose star has been blessing us with incredible style for a while, but the past few years have really brought Porter into the spotlight—and for that, we are eternally grateful. Give this man all the awards.

2. Sarah Paulson

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Broadimage/Shutterstock.

Sarah Paulson is consistently blessing us with incredible looks both on and off screen. And while her TV characters are often queer style icons themselves (I’m obviously referring to some of her American Horror Story looks.) Paulson is definitely a style maven IRL. She often switches between the classic masculine and feminine aesthetics—occasionally throwing in some edge as well—so what she wears is almost always a fun surprise.

3. Janelle Monáe

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons | Janelle Monae

Frazer Harrison/Getty Images.

One of the most refreshing aspects of Janelle Monáe’s style is that it’s so specific to her. Whether she’s wearing an outfit reminiscent of a train conductor during Paris Fashion Week or dressed to the nines in a stunning gown for a red carpet event, each look is completely and utterly Janelle Monáe.

4. Freddie Mercury

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Mark Mawson/Shutterstock.

As the lead singer of the band Queen, Freddie Mercury was always going to stand out—and that’s with his voice alone. In addition, though, the singer chose to don some incredibly wild ensembles which pushed fashion forward into a new age. The 1970s and ’80s were prime years for rock, and the stage allowed Freddie Mercury to wear some of the most memorable looks in music (and fashion) history.

5. Laverne Cox

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Rob Latour/Shutterstock.

Laverne Cox is elegance personified. Every single one of her red carpet ensembles looks so effortlessly beautiful that it’s not hard not to be inspired by the actress’ sense of style. Cox also often uses her fashion to make a political statement—like she did at the 2019 Emmys. In the case of Laverne Cox, activism and fashion are a match made in heaven.

6. RuPaul Charles

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP/Shutterstock.

We all know RuPaul Charles for his incredible drag looks, but the host and performer always comes to slay no matter the event. Even when not in drag, RuPaul takes the fashion world seriously and blesses us with colorful suits and incredibly fun looks. Plus, who can forget the fact that his glasses are always on-point? We certainly can’t.

7. David Bowie

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Ilpo Musto/Shutterstock.

Another rock god who defied gendered fashion norms was—of course!!—David Bowie. While the singer had several different styles during his active years, one of the most famous was his Ziggy Stardust persona. With wild jumpsuits and colorful on-stage outfits, bright hair and a lightning bolt on his face, it’s hard to deny the impact Bowie had on the ’70s and ’80s fashion scene.

8. Kristen Stewart

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons | Kristen Stewart

Swan Gallet/WWD/REX/Shutterstock.

Kristen Stewart’s style evolution is truly one for the ages. The transition from Bella in the Twilight series to Sabina Wilson in Charlie’s Angels was definitely a big one in terms of fictional characters—but Stewart has had a similar transition in her fashion choices. In the past few years, the actress has come into her own and developed a truly unique—and hot!!—sense of style. From her iconic Fashion Week looks to her impeccable street style, Kristen Stewart is undeniably a queer fashion legend.

9. Tan France

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP/Shutterstock.

As the resident style expert on Netflix’s Queer Eye, Tan France is obviously a fashion icon. Not only has he reminded the world the wonders of a French tuck (!!), but France also has a wonderful sense of style himself. The reality host can go from cool and casual looks to stunning formal looks with ease, and both suit him incredibly well. Watch out, world. Tan France might just be running the fashion game some day.

10. Indya Moore

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Stewart Cook/FX/Picturegroup/Shutterstock.

After showing up to myriad red carpet events looking *chef’s kiss,* and even posing for Louis Vuitton’s Pre-Fall 2019 lookbook, there was no escaping the fact that Indya Moore has a place in the fashion world. Their style is ever-changing—from suits with no shirt underneath to gorgeous gowns that serve as optical illusions. If you know what’s good for you, you’ll keep an eye on one Indya Moore.

11. Hayley Kiyoko

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Xavier Collin/Picturegroup/Shutterstock.

Hayley Kiyoko is basically the Justin Bieber of lesbians. There’s no denying the fact that she has incredible vocals, stage presence and a fuck boy attitude that translates perfectly into being a pop star. Plus, the singer has developed her own incredible sense of style that brings bits of masculinity, femininity, color and bold patterns together effortlessly.

12. Marlene Dietrich

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Paramount/Kobal/Shutterstock

Marlene Dietrich, who started her acting career in 1919, was one of Hollywood’s first queer fashion icons. She was an expert on fashion—She loved Dior!—and broke some major barriers with her androgynous film roles. Dietrich herself would often don menswear along with her other luxe fashion looks, and almost always wore a hat, no matter the ensemble. Although, according to an interview with The Observer in 1960, Dietrich said if it were up to her, she’d wear men’s jeans all the time. Iconic.

13. Jonathan Van Ness

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons | Jonathan Van Ness

Shutterstock.

The combination of Jonathan Van Ness’ long, flowing locks and incredible sense of style is what makes him a stand-out fashion favorite. The Queer Eye star consistently breaks through gender norms with his ensembles and steps out in some truly gorgeous looks. Whether it’s a mini dress and heels or a stunning suit, Jonathan Van Ness can do it all.

14. Amandla Stenberg

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

David Fisher/Shutterstock.

They’ve been in the public eye since starring as Rue in The Hunger Games, and since then, they’ve blessed us with some stunning ensembles. Amandla Stenberg has truly come into their own in the last few years, and we love to see it. Whether it’s wearing corset overalls on the red carpet (Yeah, they did that) or slaying denim-on-denim looks, Stenberg is certainly a queer fashion icon on the rise.

15. Ezra Miller

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Steve Cho/Penta Press/Shutterstock.

Although Ezra Miller has always clearly had an eye for fashion, he’s truly blossomed in the past few years. After showing up to the 2019 Met Gala in a trippy—but oh-so-cool—look and going wild with pattern mixing at an Urban Decay event, Miller has shown he’s playing by no one’s rules.

16. Lena Waithe

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP/Shutterstock.

While Lena Waithe has always shown up to events wearing the sleekest suits known to man, she was put on the fashion radar with her unforgettable rainbow cape at the 2018 Met Gala. Since then, all eyes have (rightfully) been on her—and she does not disappoint. Waithe is constantly finding new ways to make suiting unique, and we’re happy to be along for the ride.

17. Elton John

STYLECASTER | Gay Fashion Icons

Bobby Bank/photolink.net/Shutterstock.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a queer fashion icons round-up without Sir Elton John. Since making his debut in the 1960s, the singer has had a career filled with incredible ensembles—whether on stage or off. From colorful suits to outlandish costumes, Elton John is one of the most legendary fashion icons of all time. High-key, we’re just trying to get our sunglasses collections to up to par with his. We’ll see how it goes.

StyleCaster Banner Newsletter

Civil rights law protects LGBT workers from job discrimination, Supreme Court ruled Monday – NOLA.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”

The outcome is expected to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most states don’t protect them from workplace discrimination. An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people live in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school.

But Monday’s decision is not likely to be the court’s last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted.

Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes’ participation in school sporting events, and courts also are dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that the justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said.

“But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today,” he wrote.

The cases were the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh.

Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Kavanaugh generally is regarded as more conservative.

The Trump administration had changed course from the Obama administration, which supported LGBT workers in their discrimination claims under Title VII.

During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people. The law prohibits discrimination because of sex, but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.

Twice daily we’ll send you the day’s biggest headlines. Sign up today.

In recent years, some lower courts have held that discrimination against LGBT people is a subset of sex discrimination, and thus prohibited by the federal law.

Efforts by Congress to change the law have so far failed.

The Supreme Court cases involved two gay men and a transgender woman who sued for employment discrimination after they lost their jobs.

The federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a gay skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 that it was abandoning its earlier holding that Title VII didn’t cover sexual orientation because “legal doctrine evolves.” The court held that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

That ruling was a victory for the relatives of Donald Zarda, who was fired in 2010 from a skydiving job in Central Islip, New York, that required him to strap himself tightly to clients so they could jump in tandem from an airplane. He tried to put a woman with whom he was jumping at ease by explaining that he was gay. The school fired Zarda after the woman’s boyfriend called to complain.

Zarda died in a wingsuit accident in Switzerland in 2014.

In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Gerald Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bostock’s claim in a three-page opinion that noted the court was bound by a 1979 decision that held “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

Aimee Stephens lost her job as a funeral director in the Detroit area after she revealed to her boss that she had struggled with gender most of her life and had, at long last, “decided to become the person that my mind already is.”

Stephens told funeral home owner Thomas Rost that following a vacation, she would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress that Rost required for women who worked at his three funeral homes. Rost fired Stephens.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the firing constituted sex discrimination under federal law.

Stephens died last month.

Purchases made via links on our site may earn us an affiliate commission

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees – NPR

Transgender activist Aimee Stephens sits outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 8 as the court holds oral arguments in cases dealing with workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Transgender activist Aimee Stephens sits outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 8 as the court holds oral arguments in cases dealing with workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Updated at 5:52 p.m.

In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices.

“Today,” Gorsuch said, “we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear.” He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.

The decision is a huge victory for the LGBTQ community and a major loss for the Trump administration, which had sided with employers in three cases before the court.

Two involved employees who sued after contending they had been fired because they were gay. One of them, Gerald Bostock, won awards for his work as a child welfare coordinator for Clayton County, Ga, but said he was fired after he joined a gay recreational softball league. As he told NPR in October, “Within months, I was fired for being gay. I lost my livelihood. I lost my medical insurance, and I was recovering from prostate cancer at the time. It was devastating.” The second case involved Donald Zarda, a now-deceased skydiving instructor who was gay.

The third case was brought by Aimee Stephens, who had worked for six years as a male funeral director in Livonia, Mich., but was fired two weeks after she told her boss that she was transgender and would be coming to work as a woman. She died earlier this year, but her case lived on.

Gorsuch couched his opinion in terms of the text of the 1964 statute and its ban on discrimination because of sex.

“It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating … based on sex,” the justice wrote. He gave the example of two employees attracted to men — one male, the other female. “If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact that he is attracted to men,” but not the woman who is attracted to men, that is clearly a firing based on sex, he said.

The Gorsuch opinion drew two dissents, one from the court’s other Trump appointee, Brett Kavanaugh, so that Trump’s two appointee were in a verbal version of what Yale Law Professor William Eskridge called “trench warfare.”

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote the lead dissent. It accused the majority of sailing under a “textualist flag,” essentially pretending to remain true to the words of the statute but instead updating it “to better reflect the current values of society.”

John Bursch, who represented the funeral home in the transgender firing case, agreed. “They followed the culture, not the law,” he said.

Gorsuch acknowledged that Congress in 1964 likely did not have the LGBTQ community in mind when it banned discrimination based on sex. But he said the words of the statute are clear. And he pointed to several major court rulings since the law’s passage have read it expansively — for instance, to bar discrimination against women because they have children and to ban sexual harassment against both women and men.

As Gorsuch said of Title VII, “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

At the end of his 33-page opinion, however, Gorsuch invoked several potential caveats.

He noted, for instance, that some employers might have valid religious objections to hiring gay or trans workers. But he added that worries about how the 1964 civil rights law “will intersect with religious liberty are nothing new,” pointing to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a “super statute” that may offer a potential lifeline to employers who object, on religious grounds, to hiring gay and trans individuals.

That said, Monday’s ruling was remarkable in many respects. Nearly half the states have no legal protection for LGBTQ employees. Now, the federal law will protect employees in those states from firing and other adverse employment decisions made on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The decision is a direct rebuke to the Trump administration, which sided with the employers in these cases, and has used its rule-making power to issue new directives that take away previous protections for transgender individuals.

Although LGBTQ advocates acknowledge that there may well be legal bumps ahead, Stanford Law School professor Pam Karlan voiced her optimism that few LGBTQ workers will face discrimination from large employers such as corporations, hospitals and universities.

“We didn’t see really anybody other than the Conference of Catholic Bishops come in and make an argument that there are large numbers of employers who refuse as a blanket matter to hire people who are lesbian, who are gay or bisexual or who are transgender,” said Karlan, who argued one of the Title VII cases before the Supreme Court in October.

Yale’s professor Eskridge agreed. He noted that the liberal Supreme Court of the 1960s, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, interpreted an immigration statute that barred psychopaths from entering the country to apply to homosexuals.

“LGBT people have come a long way in the last generation; the country has come a long way in the last generation; and the Supreme Court has come a long way in the last generation,” said Eskridge, who is the coauthor of a forthcoming book, Marriage Equality: From Outlaws to In-Laws, about the history of same-sex marriage equality in the United States.

Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, added, “One big lesson from this opinion is don’t give up. You have to believe that you can change things.”

Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: “They’ve ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court.” He called the opinion “very powerful.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, praised the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement, saying, “Today, by affirming that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court has confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity.”

The opinion is available here.

Emmett Witkovsky-Eldred contributed to this report.

Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination – KTVI Fox 2 St. Louis

Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination | FOX 2































Supreme Court says gay, transgender workers protected by law – Associated Press

0

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision was a defeat not just for the employers, but also the Trump administration, which argued that the law’s plain wording compelled a ruling for the employers. Gorsuch, a conservative appointee of President Donald Trump, concluded the opposite, and Trump said Monday he accepted the court’s “very powerful decision.”

Gorsuch was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal members. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s other Supreme Court pick, dissented, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”

More Stories:

Kavanaugh wrote in a separate dissent that the court was rewriting the law to include gender identity and sexual orientation, a job that belongs to Congress. Still, Kavanaugh said the decision represents an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”

Trump had a restrained reaction, telling reporters that he’d read the decision and that “some people were surprised.”

He added: “But they’ve ruled and we live with their decision. That’s what it’s all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful. A very powerful decision actually. But they have so ruled.”

The outcome is expected to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most states don’t protect them from workplace discrimination. An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people live in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school.

Gerald Bostock, a gay county government worker from Georgia whose lawsuit was one of three the Supreme Court decided Monday, said no one should should have to be “fearful of losing their job because of who they are, who they love or how they identify. And the justices have now made sure that we won’t have to worry about that.”

John Bursch, who argued the appeal from a Michigan funeral home owner against a fired transgender employee, said, “Americans must be able to rely on what the law says, and it is disappointing that a majority of the justices were unwilling to affirm that commonsense principle. Redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’ will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women’s shelters, and many other contexts.”

But Monday’s decision is not likely to be the court’s last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted.

Rights groups have said they will challenge the administration’s effort to roll back anti-discrimination protections for transgender people in health care. Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes’ participation in school sporting events, and courts also are dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that the justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said.

“But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today,” he wrote.

The cases were the court’s first on LGBT rights since J ustice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Kavanaugh generally is regarded as more conservative.

The Trump administration had changed course from the Obama administration, which supported LGBT workers in their discrimination claims under Title VII.

During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people. The law prohibits discrimination because of sex, but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.

Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden, Obama’s vice president, praised the decision on Twitter as “another step in our march toward equality for all. The Supreme Court has confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect.”

In recent years, some lower courts have held that discrimination against LGBT people is a subset of sex discrimination, and thus prohibited by the federal law.

Efforts by Congress to change the law to explicitly bar job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity have so far failed.

The Supreme Court cases involved two gay men and a transgender woman who sued for employment discrimination after they lost their jobs.

Aimee Stephens lost her job as a funeral director in the Detroit area after she revealed to her boss that she had struggled with gender most of her life and had, at long last, “decided to become the person that my mind already is.” Stephens told funeral home owner Thomas Rost that following a vacation, she would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress that Rost required for women who worked at his three funeral homes. Rost fired Stephens.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the firing constituted sex discrimination under federal law.

Stephens died last month. Donna Stephens, her wife of 20 years, said in a statement that she is “grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a gay skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 that it was abandoning its earlier holding that Title VII didn’t cover sexual orientation because “legal doctrine evolves.” The court held that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

That ruling was a victory for the relatives of Donald Zarda, who was fired in 2010 from a skydiving job in Central Islip, New York, that required him to strap himself tightly to clients so they could jump in tandem from an airplane. He tried to put a woman with whom he was jumping at ease by explaining that he was gay. The school fired Zarda after the woman’s boyfriend called to complain.

Zarda died in a wingsuit accident in Switzerland in 2014.

In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bostock’s claim in a three-page opinion that noted the court was bound by a 1979 decision that held “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

___

Associated Press writers Alex Sanz in Atlanta and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

24 Hour Fitness Files For Bankruptcy, Blames Coronavirus Pandemic – CBS San Francisco

SAN RAMON (CBS SF / CNN) — National gym chain 24 Hour Fitness, based in San Ramon, has filed for bankruptcy after the Covid-19 pandemic forced its facilities shut for months.

24 Hour Fitness said Monday in its Chapter 11 filing that it has secured $250 million in funding to help reopen some of its clubs and expects a majority of locations to be open by the end of June. However, it’s emerging as a smaller chain: It permanently closed 100 US locations in 14 states with roughly 300 clubs remaining.

READ MORE: 2 Killed, 23 Hurt When Boat Capsizes Off San Diego Coast

The gym recently announced 10 Bay Area locations would permanently close, including four gyms in San Francisco. Bay Area locations closing include:

Walnut Creek Ygnacio Center
Alamo Express
Berkeley Solano Avenue Fit Lite
North Point (San Francisco)
Alemany Sport (San Francisco)
Noe Valley Fit Lite (San Francisco)
Market Street (San Francisco)
Milpitas Active
Fremont Sport
Capitol & McKee (San Jose)

Meanwhile, other Bay Area locations are expected to reopen over the next few weeks.

READ MORE: Retired Modesto Detective Still Convinced Scott Peterson Killed Pregnant Wife Laci

“If it were not for Covid-19 and its devastating effects, we would not be filing for Chapter 11,” CEO Tony Ueber said in a statement. “We expect to have substantial financing with a path to restructuring our balance sheet and operations to ensure a resilient future.”

He also said the restructuring will result in “reinvestment in our existing clubs, opening new clubs and introducing several new innovative products and services.” 24 Hour Fitness, which began in 1985, is a privately held company.

Middle-tier gym chains are struggling with customers switching to less-expensive fitness facilities, such as Planet Fitness. People are also flocking to boutique studio classes, including OrangeTheory, or in-home alternatives, such as Peloton, which recently reported a surge in members because of the pandemic.

Gold’s Gym, a similar chain to 24 Hour Fitness, filed for bankruptcy in May. The company said the virus affected it “deeply and in many ways,” which included the temporary closures of many of its 700 global gyms. Gold’s permanently closed 30 locations in April and expects to emerge from bankruptcy in August.

MORE NEWS: High Winds Topple Tree In San Francisco; One Person Injured

© Copyright 2020 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten. CNN contributed to this report.

Legal Pride: How lawyers are working to help build the LGBT community and our society – Courier Journal

The LGBT community and our allies celebrate June as PRIDE MONTH. We remember a riot that started at the Stonewall Inn on June 28, 1969, when our community stood up to the New York City Police Department and said we will no longer allow you to arrest us for drinking while queer.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. In 1992, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided that sodomy was no longer a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court caught up with Kentucky in 2003. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage.

If you have ever seen “Queer Eye” you might think that all gay men are obsessed with shopping, decoration, fitness, grooming and throwing parties. If you have ever seen “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” you might think we all strive to wear outrageous wigs and sequined dresses. But I think it is important to show you that we have different identities, a variety of profiles and varied careers. I would look pathetic in a Speedo and I’ve never worn glitter.

My friend, and our ally, Shannon Fauver, knows that lawyers ARE working in the background to help build the LGBT community as well as our entire society. But often what lawyers do is not as visible. If you look at the civil rights movement, you think of Rosa Parks or Dr. King, you don’t think of Fred Gray, Charles Hamilton Houston or Thurgood Marshall fighting in the courtrooms. Approximately 3% of the lawyers in the U.S. identify as LGBT. Our allies most certainly outnumber us.

June 2020 is the fifth anniversary of the LGBT Law Section of the Kentucky Bar Association. While all Kentucky attorneys must belong to the KBA, membership in a section is voluntary. I want to celebrate those five years of growth. I am incredibly proud to be one of the co-founders of this group. I’m a member of two bar associations. I also belong to the National LGBT Bar Association. I wanted to profile a few of my friends.

More:Louisville embraces LGBTQ-owned businesses in passing diversity ordinance, supporters say

Kevin Brown is the interim commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Education. Fayette Circuit Judge Ernesto Scorsone in one of three judges. Ernesto was one of the lawyers who won the Wasson case in 1992; he was the first openly gay member of the Kentucky General Assembly and first openly gay circuit court judge. Ernesto was the first attorney to ask the KBA Board of Governors to create an LGBT Law Section. We have two other judges in the section as well. 

We have members who work for the Federal government, state government and in various county and municipal jobs. We have two law school professors. We have Keith Elson who runs the non-profit Kentucky Youth Law Project. We have two corporate counsel at internationally known companies.

 We have JoAnne Wheeler Bland, the most amazing transgender person I know. We have prominent folks in private practice such as John Selent who recently funded a scholarship at Brandeis School of Law for LGBT students. We have amazing allies like Fauver and Dan Canon who fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for marriage equality. Something they didn’t need! 

Bruce Kleinschmidt is an attorney and advocate for diversity and inclusion.

These folks are not what you’d call rich and famous. But they are ALL committed to making our STATE a better place FOR EVERYONE — not just the LGBT residents. I am proud to celebrate LGBT PRIDE MONTH. I am PROUD to be an openly gay attorney who works with these compassionate people. I certainly never imagined when I graduated from law school in 1978 that I would actually become known as a leader and advocate for the LGBT community. Or that I would regularly speak to the Kentucky Supreme Court or write about it in The Courier Journal.

I never believed I was mentally ill or was worth less because I was gay. But I mentor several fellows who are still told that. I hope that this column is an example of courage and hope to all the LGBT youth, indeed to all the residents of our commonwealth. We can’t just wear our faith, or our professional title, as some sort of mark of approval. It is imperative that our lives challenge everyone to examine the prejudices they hold about our community and to admit they are rubbish.

It’s too easy to hide behind flags and Bibles. The Jesus I worship threw the money changers out of the Temple. He denounced the priest and Levite who ignored the beaten and bloody traveler going to Jericho — let’s make that local, how about instead of being from Samaria, the good guy was from Russell, California or the West End neighborhoods of Louisville? Indeed, Jesus instructed us to go and do likewise — to get blood on our clothes by helping the wounded, and to spend money to pay for rehabilitation? 

Now, more than ever, “United we stand, divided we fall.”

Bruce Kleinschmidt is an attorney and advocate for diversity and inclusion.

Queer As Punk: A Guide To LGBTQIA+ Punk – NPR

Team Dresch’s song “Fagetarian and Dyke” is featured in our playlist of queer punk. Courtesy of Jealous Butcher Records hide caption

toggle caption

Courtesy of Jealous Butcher Records

Team Dresch’s song “Fagetarian and Dyke” is featured in our playlist of queer punk.

Courtesy of Jealous Butcher Records

Punk rock has 101 origin stories, and most of them are true. After all, punk rock springs from a myriad of local scenes, and is as much about the music as it is about the venues where it is performed, the audiences and listeners who participate in its performance, clothes and style, politics and approaches to the world. And punk has always had an affinity with sexual outsiders, from the Sex Pistols dressed in bondage gear from Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren’s infamous King’s Road boutique Sex, to the Buzzcocks’ pansexual anthem “Orgasm Addict.” “Queer punk” might be a redundancy then, if making belligerent, redundant, over-the-top statements at the top of your lungs wasn’t precisely what makes punk “punk” and queer “queer.”

The term “punk,” by the way, has a long queer history predating its use in contemporary music. A “punk” has always meant a person up to something disreputable and socially deviant. In Shakespeare’s English, it meant a female prostitute; later it also connoted young men who sold sex to older men. Punk and queer are a match made in the gutter. Punk rock embraces this abject status. It celebrates it and rejects the society that rejects it. It is all about bad behavior, anarchy, anti-sociality and noise. It is about claiming a freedom from dulling and hypocritical normative pressures. In other words, punk is queer.

Punk scenes, at least in their early stages, tended to be heterogeneous places. They were created by the rabble, the hoi polloi. Everybody was welcome. But these scenes struggled with homophobic, sexist and racist elements. There are plenty of examples of straight punks using queer sex as grossout punchlines. Punks have had to confront racism and fascism in the scene. There were serious cases; for example, the scene in 1980s San Francisco, when white supremacist organizations came down from their strongholds in Northern California and started talking to the local skin heads. This was disastrous for the scene, but queer and trans punks refused to concede ground, and so created scenes of their own. DIY publications, like G.B. Jones and Bruce La Bruce’s zine J.D.s out of Toronto, were a critical pre-Internet means of dreaming up queer punk worlds. Queercore and riot grrrl resisted oppressive homonormative tendencies found in mainstream LGBT organizing. “Losers, freaks, and deviants started this movement, not these control freaks,” says Penny Arcade in the 2017 documentary Queercore: How to Punk a Revolution.

Queers and punks don’t want network channel acceptance, corporate sponsorship or police protection. The key principle of punk has always been Do-it-Yourself. Anyone can be a musician or artist. Everything is up for grabs, to be torn apart and redone, preferably with car paint. Venues could be anywhere, from the local club whose owner was amenable to squatted spaces, like storefronts, abandoned factories and beer vats. The Deaf Club, for instance, was a deaf school in San Francisco that let punk bands perform because the noise didn’t bother them. Of course, there are always people aware of its marketability, but punk rock has a strange way of constantly changing, remaining ahead of the market or taking it back from the market and reusing it. And there are bands, including The B-52s out of Athens, Ga., that, although they became popular in the mainstream, still retained their queer edge and listenership.

Queer punk rock is angry, funny, ironic, deadly serious, political and studiously apathetic. But it is always questioning. We had a hard time coming up with an all-inclusive playlist until we realized that no such playlist could or should exist. As two black critics and fans of punk, we also could not go without remarking that we are putting this playlist together at a moment of uprising against white supremacy. Documentaries like the now-classic Afro-Punk delve into the contradictions of being black in a predominantly white scene, and since its release any number of acts — many on this list — have reclaimed the black roots of punk. Legendary LA punk drag icon Vaginal Davis named herself after black Marxist revolutionary Angela Davis. And since this is Pride month, it’s worth reminding ourselves that Stonewall was an anti-police riot, and that black and brown trans women like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson led the charge on the streets. As the world as we know it falls apart, punk rage and energy reminds us that we have always had the ability to wreck civilization and build new worlds.

This list is organized chronologically, as queer punk has a very different timeline than can be captured by the usual pre- and post-punk categorizations. Considering the genealogy of queer punk make us reperiodize punk rock itself.

You can stream this playlist via Spotify or Apple Music.

1970—1980s

The Slits “Typical Girls”

Perhaps the most well-known all-women punk rock band, The Slits formed in 1977, the magic year that the two sevens clashed. Ari Up, Palmolive, Tessa Pollitt and Viv Albertine were consummate performers who sometimes took their actions to the streets, as when they changed their clothes in the doorway of a bank, harassing the titillated and uncomfortable male gawkers. Musically, “Typical Girls” shows the close affinity that formed between Jamaican/English dub music and punk rock.

The Ramones, “53rd and 3rd”

An ode to male hustling in mid-town Manhattan’s Loop from one of the founding bands of punk, “53rd and 3rd” was written by Ramones bassist Dee Dee Ramone, allegedly from life experience “trying to turn a trick” in a notorious cruising area, but being “the one they never pick.”

Jayne County, “Man Enough to Be A Woman”

Jayne County was a Warhol superstar and mainstay of the scene around Max’s Kansas City, the famous 1970s club in downtown Manhattan. Also involved in experimental theater, County was the most visible, and audible, transgender performer in New York punk.

Nervous Gender, “Confession”

LA punk scene legends Nervous Gender are remembered both for the iconic androgyny of guitarist and vocalist Phranc and the profane pyrotechnics on full display in songs like “Confession.”

Castration Squad, “The X-Girlfriend”

With Alice Bag of The Bags on bass and Nervous Gender’s Phranc occasionally sitting in, Castration Squad was the most influential all-female punk band in late 1970s LA to never release a record. Live footage and demos of songs like “The X-Girlfriend” make clear why they would influence riot grrrl and queercore decades later.

The B-52s, “Lava”

The B-52s are perhaps the most well-known of bands across the spectrum, blending mid-century pop, punk rock and camp culture in equal measure. Though “Rock Lobster,” the band’s first single, and “Private Idaho” are its hits from the charts, many of the group’s other songs have an equally long reach through the years. “Lava,” the band’s song of love, spunk and orgasm, is from The B-52s eponymous first album, released in 1979.

Au Pairs “Diet”

The Au Pairs formed in Birmingham, UK in 1978, with the out lesbian lead singer Leslie Wood. Its 1981 album Playing with a Different Sex is classic; Woods’ memorable radical feminist lyrics timeless.

Pansy Division, “Fem in a Black Leather Jacket”

Fun-loving Bay Area gay rock mainstays Pansy Division brought homopunk to the masses when the group toured with Green Day in the 1990s.

Pedro, Muriel, and Esther, “Closet Case”

The LA-cum-Berlin drag legend Vaginal Davis has fronted a series of legendary underground bands since the 1970s, including The Afro Sisters, Cholita! and Black Fag. PME is vintage Davis queercore, and the dissonance of “Closet Case” only intensifies when Davis performs in what José Muñoz called “terrorist drag”: her white power masculine alter ego savagely parodies white supremacy through her statesque black presence.

1990s—2000s

Team Dresch, “Fagetarian and Dyke”

Formed in 1990, queercore band Team Dresch (named for founder Donna Dresch) was famous for its in-his-face sexual f***ery. The band reunited in 2019 for a tour and, responding to popular demand, has reissued its catalogue. Its music is always about disrupting the sedimentation of gender and sexuality; claiming terms like”dyke” meant a political break with moderate and conservative lesbians.

Limp Wrist, “I Love Hardcore Boys / I Love Boys Hardcore”

One minute of thrashing, straight-edge wonder Limp Wrist, a hardcore band fronted by Martin Sorrondeguy, who also sings lead vocals for Los Crudos, and brings both Latinx and queer issues to the hardcore scene.

Skunk Anansie, “Intellectualize My Blackness”

No genre label seems quite big enough to fit the voice of Skin (born Deborah Anne Dyer), lead singer of the UK’s Skunk Anansie. But in attitude and politics, she is all punk. “Weak” remains the best-known song off the group’s debut album, Paranoid and Sunburnt (1995), but this deep cut is revelatory for the focused political rage the openly bisexual Skin brought to the era of Britpop.

Bikini Kill, “Rebel Girl”

An iconic song from the iconic band of the riot grrrl scene, formed in Olympia, Wash. in 1990.

Sleater-Kinney, “I Wanna Be Your Joey Ramone”

Perhaps the most influential band to emerge out of the Olympia, Wash. scene, the duo Corin Tucker and Carrie Brownstein tipped a hat to a punk legend on this 1990s track, off Sleater-Kinney’s critically lauded second album Call the Doctor, in the process redefining what it meant to be “the queen(s) of rock and roll.”

Gossip, “Standing in the Way of Control”

Beth Ditto’s powerhouse vocals, which made the Gossip an instant stand-out in the Olympia, Wash. scene, are on full display in the title track off its third album.

Le Tigre, “Deceptacon”

We may never know who took the bomp from the bompalompalomp, but maybe we never really needed to. Kathleen Hanna’s next band after Bikini Kill, Le Tigre’s sound was an infectious hip check of the mainstream appropriation of girl power, waged on pop’s own terms.

Erase Errata, “Tongue Tied”

One of our younger bands, Erase Errata formed in San Francisco in 1999. “Tongue Tied” in from its first album, released in 2001.

Tamar-kali, “Boot”

Tamar-kali was an unforgettable presence in James Spooner’s 2003 documentary Afro-Punk and her music has gone on to inspire a generation of queer and gender-nonconforming black femmes to find their voice in punk. “Boot” is off her debut EP Geechee Goddess Hardcore Warrior.

2010s-2020

The Soft Pink Truth, “I Owe it to the Girls”

Continuing the thread of punk homage, Matmos’ Drew Daniels here goes solo to cover Florida’s Teddy and the Frat Girls’ “I Owe it to the Girls,” recasting its ominous whispers and screams into glitchy electro-house.

Kalup Linzy, “A******”

Hailing from Stuckey, Fla., video and performance artist Kalup Linzy has an extensive catalog of lo-fi musical releases, often featuring just him and his keyboard, that draw upon the bawdy tradition of R&B rappers and vocalists like Millie Jackson.

Worriers, “Yes All Cops”

Worriers was formed in 2011 in Brooklyn by the artist Lauren Denitzio, and this 2015 track reflects the changing terms of what queerness can mean. With “Yes All Cops” Worriers gives us a song for our apocalyptic times, and tie us to the history of queer and black activism.

Supreme Court Says Federal Anti-Bias Law Protects LGBTQ Workers – SHRM

0

A federal employment law shields workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 15.

In the most anticipated employment decision of the year, the high court found that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the court. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

“SHRM applauds the U.S. Supreme Court today for its ruling making clear employment discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal,” said Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP, president and chief executive officer of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). “The ruling provides much-needed clarity and finality on the Court’s interpretation of Title VII’s protections, giving HR professionals clear guidance and a greater opportunity to create a world of work that works for all.”

JoLynn Markison, an attorney with Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, explained that the ruling makes equal treatment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) employees a federal mandate. “Although many states already had laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, now all states must provide equal protection to LGBTQ workers,” she said.

“If your employment policies do not currently provide for nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, you should update them to explicitly list those categories,” Markison added.

Definition of ‘Sex’

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating based on color, national origin, race, religion and sex. In the current cases, the parties disagreed on whether sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under the ban against sex discrimination. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

Two consolidated cases (Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia) addressed workplace protections based on sexual orientation, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC considered employment rights based on gender identity.

For the sake of argument, the Supreme Court said it would assume that when Title VII was enacted “sex” referred only to biological differences between male and female workers. “Still, that’s just a starting point,” Gorsuch wrote for the court. “The question isn’t just what ‘sex’ meant, but what Title VII says about it.”

Employers may not refuse to hire, discharge or otherwise discriminate against “any individual” with respect to his or her pay and terms and conditions of employment based on the individual’s sex, according to the statute.

“Suppose an employer fires a woman for refusing his sexual advances,” the high court said. “It’s no defense for the employer to note that, while he treated that individual woman worse than he would have treated a man, he gives preferential treatment to female employees overall. The employer is liable for treating this woman worse in part because of her sex.”

With regard to gender identity, the court provided the following example:

So an employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. But in both cases the employer fires an individual in part because of sex. Instead of avoiding Title VII exposure, this employer doubles it.

“In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee,” the high court said. “We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion. He said the majority’s decision “arises from humane and generous impulses” but “the authority of [the Supreme Court] is limited to saying what the law is.”

Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissenting opinion. “Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the president in the legislative process, not to this court,” he said. However, he noted, “it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”

What’s Next?

The Supreme Court’s opinion “will have a long-term impact on employers who are subject to Title VII,” according to Elaine Turner, an attorney with Hall Estill in Oklahoma City. Employers that violate Title VII could face costly legal actions, she said.

Employers with less than 15 employees will continue to be governed by applicable state and local anti-discrimination laws. Gig workers who are properly classified as independent contractors, however, generally aren’t covered by anti-discrimination and other laws that protect employees.

“It’s important to understand this decision doesn’t answer every question that may come up,” noted Michael Warren, an attorney with McManis Faulkner in San Jose, Calif.

At the end of the opinion, Gorsuch said some employers may worry that “sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms and dress codes will prove unsustainable” but those issues were not brought before the court in these cases.

Gorsuch noted that some employers fear that complying with Title VII may require them to violate their religious convictions. “We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution,” he said. “But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases, too.”

US Supreme Court Ruling A Victory for LGBT Workers – Human Rights Watch

In a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court today declared that federal law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision is a major victory for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people across the United States.

The court found that discrimination against LGBT people is barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate in employment because of a person’s sex. This provision did not expressly protect LGBT employees, and prior to this decision, LGBT people were subject to a patchwork of legal protections.

Only 22 states and the District of Columbia expressly prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT people under state law. Under federal law, LGBT workers enjoyed piecemeal protection, with some courts finding that federal laws covered discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and others concluding that it did not.

The ruling is likely to send shock waves throughout all of US antidiscrimination law, not just in employment. Courts have often looked to the meaning of “sex” in the context of Title VII to interpret the scope of sex discrimination provisions in education, health care, and other fields.

The Trump administration has rolled back protections for transgender people across these areas by arguing that they are not covered by sex discrimination protections. Today’s ruling significantly undermines that reasoning and makes the use of the word “sex” in these contexts open to far less interpretation.

Instead of waiting for the courts to revisit these regulations, Congress should act to make today’s ruling law. The Equality Act would create uniform protections for LGBT people across a range of federal civil rights laws – not only in employment, but in education, housing, public spaces, credit, federally funded programs, and jury service. It has passed the US House of Representatives, but has not been taken up by the Senate.

These protections enjoy clear public support. An April 2020 poll found that 72 percent of Americans support nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people. Supporters included a majority of Democrats and Republicans and a majority of people in every US state.

The Supreme Court has handed down a far-reaching ruling by a large margin. The Senate should promptly enact express protections throughout federal law and affirm the equality and dignity of LGBT people in the United States.

‘Rather be safe than sorry’: Faces Nightclub owner plans July or August reopening – KTXL FOX 40 Sacramento

‘Rather be safe than sorry’: Faces Nightclub owner plans July or August reopening | FOX40