Connect with us

News

Federal Lawsuit Seeks License to Discriminate Against LGBT Workers Based on Religion, Anal Sex, Grindr Use

Published

on

June 15 will be the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers. 

As if to mark the occasion, a group of anti-LGBT activists and churches based in Texas asked a federal judge this week to issue a sweeping ruling that could seriously undermine Bostock. 

In its 6-3 decision last June, the high court affirmed that the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling upheld a position that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which administers and enforces civil-rights laws, has taken since 2015. 

The Texas-based group, which includes hate-group leader Steve Hotze (pictured) as well as the U.S. Pastor Council, is seeking exemptions to both Bostock and EEOC policy that would allow employers to discriminate against LGBT workers based on sincerely held religious beliefs, under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and/or the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. 

“The plaintiffs have sincere and deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is limited to a man and a woman, that sex is to be reserved for marriage, and that men and women are to dress and behave in accordance with distinct and God-ordained, biological sexual identity,” the plaintiffs wrote in a brief filed Monday.  “Title VII, as interpreted in Bostock, requires that the plaintiffs operate their businesses contrary to their religious beliefs by denying them the ability to prescribe standards of conduct and deportment for their employees. At the same time, the plaintiffs believe that they are called by God to obey the civil authorities. So they are caught in a bind, and until this Court grants the declaratory relief that the plaintiffs seek, the plaintiffs have no way to avoid violating their religious beliefs.” 

Moreover, the plaintiffs allege, Bostock should not bar employers from enacting policies, for religious or non-religious reasons, that target “practicing homosexual and transgender individuals” based on homosexual or transgender conduct.”

“It is easy to imagine rules that comply with Bostock by applying equally to men and women, yet operate to exclude homosexual or transgender individuals from employment,” the plaintiffs wrote, before proposing the following examples: 

• “No employee, male or female, may enter a gay bar or gay bathhouse.”

• “No employee, male or female, may engage in the sexual practices associated with homosexuality.”

• “No employee, male or female, may engage in ‘deviate sexual intercourse,’ as that term is defined in section 25.02 of the Texas Penal Code.”

• “No employee, male or female, may use Grindr (or other dating apps used primarily by homosexuals).”

• “No employee, male or female, may seek or obtain hormone therapy unless it is prescribed for a medical condition other than gender dysphoria.”

• “No employee, male or female, may undergo surgery to modify their genitals, unless that surgery is needed for a medical condition other than gender dysphoria.” 

Elsewhere in the brief, the plaintiffs argue that Bostock should apply only to gay and transgender workers, and should not prohibit employers from discriminating against people of other sexual orientations, including bisexual folks. 

In addition to summary judgment and a permanent injunction against the EEOC, the plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their lawsuit. And, sadly, they seem likely to prevail — at least at the district court level.

The case is in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas, which is presided over by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who is among the nation’s most notorious right-wing federal judges. O’Connor previously  issued high-profile decisions striking down the Affordable Care Act and gutting Obama-era transgender protections.

Back in February, after O’Connor initially allowed the Bostock religious exemption lawsuit to move forward, LGBTQ advocates slammed the decision. 

Adrian Shanker, executive director of Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center, told the Philadelphia Gay News: “Judge O’Connor’s ruling misrepresents the clarity the Supreme Court provided in Bostock in favor of unnecessary and harmful religious exemptions to basic civil rights protections. Conservatives like to complain about judicial activism. But Judge O’Connor is the poster child for it with his repetitively fringe rulings that only a far-right zealot would find sensible. His ruling is a reminder that it is so critical that Congress passes explicit federal non-discrimination protections this year.”

Justin F. Robinette, a civil-rights attorney, told the newspaper he is expecting “another unfavorable ruling from Judge O’Connor and potential appeals.”

“The underlying lawsuit is part of a worrisome trend of putative Christian groups reframing the enforcement of LGBT-inclusive antibias laws as a form of discrimination against their religion,” Robinette said. “They want to create a right to discriminate that — taken to its extreme — would exempt them from every civil law, including the civil rights laws and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Bostock.”

Attorneys representing the EEOC from the Department of Justice have not yet filed a response to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. You can read the plaintiffs’ brief in support of the motion below.

U.S. Pastor Council v. EEOC by John Wright on Scribd

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘I Have Stopped Nuclear Wars’: Trump Defends Letting US-Russia Arms Treaty Expire

Published

on

President Donald Trump is defending allowing the nation’s last nuclear treaty with Russia to expire by declaring he’s already “stopped” nuclear wars between several countries. Experts and advocates warn that the treaty was the last barrier against a nuclear arms race.

“As of today, for the first time in over half a century, the US and Russia don’t have a legally binding arms control treaty in place anymore,” observed Wall Street Journal national security reporter Robbie Gramer.

“Without the New START treaty,” NBC News reported on Thursday, “which caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550 on each side, there will be no limits on the American and Russian arsenals.”

“Not only are there no discussions between Washington and Moscow on what comes next,” NBC added, “but also officials from both countries are left guessing about the other side’s capabilities and intentions, increasing the possibility of misunderstandings and an unrestricted nuclear arms race not seen since the 1960s, experts and officials warn.”

READ MORE: ‘Good Citizenship’: Indiana GOP Bill Pushes Marriage Before Kids Lessons

Former President Barack Obama warned that allowing the treaty to expire “would pointlessly wipe out decades of diplomacy, and could spark another arms race that makes the world less safe.”

Former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, called it a “tragic day for global security,” and noted that “the world is now a more dangerous place.”

Richard Stengel, a former Under Secretary of State during the Obama administration, warned: “Sure, the START treaty has its flaws, but it’s the last restraint on a new nuclear arms race.”

“Letting it die doesn’t do anyone any good,” he continued. “The US president’s bellicosity and cavalier attitude to nuclear weapons and NATO has caused many new nations to contemplate building their own nuclear arsenal. That’s also bad news. The math is pretty simple: the more weapons, the more danger.”

President Donald Trump, however, appeared unperturbed.

“The United States is the most powerful Country in the World,” he declared. “I completely rebuilt its Military in my First Term, including new and many refurbished nuclear weapons. I also added Space Force and now, continue to rebuild our Military at levels never seen before. We are even adding Battleships, which are 100 times more powerful than the ones that roamed the Seas during World War II.”

READ MORE: Trump Turns National Prayer Breakfast Into Partisan Hit on Democrats of Faith

“I have stopped Nuclear Wars from breaking out across the World between Pakistan and India, Iran and Israel, and Russia and Ukraine,” he claimed.

Trump then appeared to suggest that Russia has been violating the treaty, arguing that therefore it made sense to allow it to expire. And he suggested that a new nuclear treaty should be crafted — although he did not say when.

“Rather than extend ‘NEW START’ (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”

READ MORE: Another Georgia Republican Bails as Mike Johnson’s House Sees Even More Exits

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Bessent Proposes Fix for Low Consumer Confidence: ‘Turn Off MSNBC’

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a unique fix for sharply falling consumer confidence, which is now at the lowest level in twelve years — even worse than during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE), told the Treasury chief, “despite all this progress, we’re seeing consumer confidence is not really rebounding the way that the economy seems to be.”

“In your opinion,” Ricketts then asked Bessent, “what more can we in the Senate be doing with regard to consumer confidence and making, you know, obviously — we had 40-year-high inflation under the Biden administration — but what more can we be doing in the Senate to be able to help out with confidence in consumers?”

Bessent replied immediately.

READ MORE: ‘Good Citizenship’: Indiana GOP Bill Pushes Marriage Before Kids Lessons

“Other than telling consumers to turn off MSNBC,” he said, referring to the rebranded MS NOW.

“A large part of it is a survey problem, where Democrats vote very low, Republicans are more realistic, and then we end up, what we’re seeing,” he added, suggesting that the problem is not the economy — despite what experts see as persistent inflation and a “hiring recession,” but how people who watch or read a single news outlet perceive the economy.

READ MORE: Trump Turns National Prayer Breakfast Into Partisan Hit on Democrats of Faith

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Good Citizenship’: Indiana GOP Bill Pushes Marriage Before Kids Lessons

Published

on

Indiana Republicans are pushing controversial “good citizenship” legislation that would require educators to teach students they should have children only after getting married. Critics warn that bringing these lessons into classrooms could stigmatize students from single-parent or unmarried households.

The legislation, Senate Bill 88, also promotes high school completion, full-time employment, and marriage as parts of being a good citizen, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

The bill’s author, Indiana Republican State Senator Gary Byrne, “described the proposed additions as an expansion of the ‘Success Sequence,’ a three-pronged theory designed to help young adults avoid poverty and enter the middle class.”

“The Success Sequence outlines three simple steps that researchers have consistently shown helps individuals to avoid poverty,” Byrne said.

READ MORE: Trump Turns National Prayer Breakfast Into Partisan Hit on Democrats of Faith

Byrne cited research from the Brookings Institution and from a conservative think tank, the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), which describes such instruction as “a proven formula to help young adults succeed in America.”

“The data is striking,” Byrne said. “More than half the people who complete none of these three steps live in poverty. Among those who complete all three, the numbers dropped to just 3% that would live in poverty.”

NBC News reported that “not everyone shares excitement over the success sequence — which may come across as innocuous advice, but detractors say is built upon dubious data, overlooks racial disparities and shames students who are raised in single-parent households.”

A Brookings Institution paper reported that “While the analysis cannot prove that following these norms causes income to increase, we find that the likelihood of being poor when following all three rules is extremely low.” It also stated that “causation might easily run in the reverse direction.”

Democrats challenged Byrne’s legislation.

READ MORE: Another Georgia Republican Bails as Mike Johnson’s House Sees Even More Exits

Speaking to the proposed in-school instruction, Indiana Democratic Senate Minority Leader Shelli Yoder told the Indiana Capital Chronicle, “Waiting until marriage to begin having children — and there sits children, who knows the makeup of their homes — and I just don’t know how that creates a positive, encouraging or confidence-building environment for students in that classroom.”

“I just don’t think it’s necessary to begin instilling areas of judgment with students who are trying to do their very best in school and going home to their families that they love,” she added.

Leader Yoder told The Indiana Citizen that the legislation “stigmatizes how students view their own identity within their families.”

“She described the language as ‘fraught with shame’ and questioned whether it belongs in civics courses, adding that it sends a ‘complicated message’ about who qualifies as a good citizen.”

“The student sitting there is going, ‘Huh, my parents aren’t good citizens,’” Yoder told NBC News. “Questioning good citizenship because I was a surprise, or my mom got pregnant and had me before getting married or never got married.”

READ MORE: ‘We Don’t Have Much Time’: George Conway Issues Dire Warning About Donald Trump

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.