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

GOP Melts Down Over Mamdani’s Heat Wave Advice — Trump’s Energy Dept. Says the Same Thing

Published

on

As temperatures in the Big Apple are set to hit triple digits, Republicans are melting down over New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s request that residents in the five boroughs turn their air conditioners to 78 degrees — advice President Donald Trump’s own Department of Energy offers as well, as do some of their own states.

“New York: it’s hot out there, and the power grid is working overtime to keep us cool,” Mayor Mamdani noted on Wednesday, as a multi-day heat wave pushed temperatures to the mid-90s. Temperatures are expected to hit 100 degrees on Thursday for the first time in over a decade.

“Set your AC to 78 degrees, turn off lights/electronics you’re not using, and unplug what you can,” Mamdani asked. “Our City is doing its part too: maintaining the 78 degrees rule in our buildings, dimming/turning off our lights during peak electricity demand, asking private partners to do the same, and powering down non-essential equipment. A stable grid means the AC stays on, and lives are saved. Let’s ease demand — and get through the heat — together.”

That request did not go over well on the right.

“Welcome to socialism, where the government demands you turn your house into a sauna because they can’t plan for the super unpredictable fact that it tends to get hot in the summer,” retorted U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX).

“This is what socialism looks like, folks,” added Vivek Ramaswamy, the GOP’s nominee for governor of Ohio. “The right answer isn’t restrictions or mandates. It’s drilling, fracking, coal, & nuclear. That’s how we’ll roll in Ohio.”

“In a first-world country, you could turn on the A/C….” wrote U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), only to be met with a community note on the X social media platform, which read: “Ted Cruz’s own state has made the same request on numerous occasions.”

Emmy Award-winning WTTG anchor Jim Lokay also responded to Senator Cruz, writing: “Trump’s own Department of Energy website recommends setting the AC at a range of 75-78 degrees.”

Indeed, on its website, the Department of Energy says: “The Department of Energy (DOE) and ENERGY STAR recommend finding a comfortable indoor temperature during the day and increasing it by 7°F when no one is home. Start with an indoor temperature between 75-78°F during the day.”

Critics slammed some of the Republicans’ responses — especially that of Sen. Cruz.

“You are the absolute LAST person to weigh in, Captain Cancun,” retired intelligence officer Travis Akers wrote.

“Your state’s electrical grid crashes if it gets too hot or cold, so I wouldn’t be throwing stones here,” said Democratic strategist Mike Nellis.

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Nobel Economist Torches the Socialist Panic Republicans Keep Pushing

Published

on

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is dismantling the right’s attack on what some see as an increasing embrace of socialism in America — by defining what actual socialism is, explaining that most Americans support European-style social democracy, and revealing that right-wing radicals’ attack on so-called socialism is really just an effort to dismantle social democracy and democracy.

Actual socialism, Krugman says, is government ownership of the means of production. What some on the right decry as socialism is social democracy, which Krugman explains is “an ideology that is OK with living in a mostly market-driven economic system in which some people make much more money than others, but one that advocates policies to tame markets and inequality with progressive taxation, safety net programs, and regulations.”

Americans overall support social democratic priorities, Krugman finds, citing a YouGov poll. That includes replacing private health insurance with national government insurance, government paying college tuition, and government building public housing.

But social democratic programs, which Krugman calls “as American as sliced bread,” also include programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, a national minimum wage, and progressive taxation.

“There is,” Krugman writes, “a real groundswell of dismay over an economy that increasingly favors a tiny group of billionaires, and a political system that all too often works on these oligarchs’ behalf. When people say that they favor socialism, surely what they are often really saying is that they are angry about the rise of oligarchy. They are not demanding a dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Krugman asks, “Why, then, does it look as if socialism is on the rise?”

“Mainly,” he answers, “because right-wing propagandists continually smear social democratic policies as socialist, trying to make popular, mainstream policy ideas sound extreme. And some Americans who are basically social democrats in effect respond by saying, ‘Well, if that’s socialism, I guess I’m OK with socialism.'”

Krugman concludes that while there are “left-wing radicals in America, they have no realistic prospect of getting their way.”

He says that it’s “important to understand what the current uproar over socialism is really about. For the most part, it’s an attempt to distract from the danger posed by the important radical movement in America — that of right-wing radicals who want to dismantle both social democracy and democracy itself.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Underwater in Six Key States Trump to Blame if Democrats Win Back the Senate: CNN Analyst

Published

on

CNN data analyst Harry Enten says President Donald Trump is dragging down Republican Senate candidates in six battleground states Democrats hope to win to flip the chamber in November — and Trump will bear the blame if Democrats retake the majority. Democrats need to pick up four of the six to help turn the Senate blue.

“Donald John Trump is an anchor dragging down these Republican candidates across the board,” Enten said. “If they lose the Senate, it will be because of Donald Trump becoming so unpopular, especially on the cost of living.”

The issue of affordability will “drag those Republicans down and boost the Democrats to a Senate majority,” he added.

According to polling Enten cited, Trump is underwater in Alaska, Texas, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Maine — and on affordability, he is down by double digits in those six states.

“If Democrats are going to take back control of the United States Senate it will be in large part because of one man and one man alone,” Enten said. “And it is this man right here, Donald John Trump, because he is an anchor, he is an anchor, on Republicans running for the United States Senate.”

Enten compared Trump’s popularity in 2024 to recent polling in those six states. Just two years ago his net approval rating was plus eight points. Now, it is negative 11 points.

“In 2024, on average, he won those states by eight points,” Enten explained. “And most of them he won by double digits. But look where he is now on his net approval rating. Down down, he goes into the Ohio River. Look at this, he’s at minus 11 points. It’s a nearly 20 points switcheroo in the negative direction.”

“So Donald Trump across the board, across the board, in each of the six key Senate states is now underwater in all of them, despite winning in five of six of them.”

“Why have the people in these states so turned against the President of the United States in five of the six of these that he won? It comes down to the cost of living.”

Enten showed that Trump is underwater on affordability — voters’ number one issue — by 22 points in Alaska, 21 points in Texas, 24 points in Iowa, 26 points in Ohio, 29 points in North Carolina, and 36 points in Maine.

If affordability remains an issue in November, “it will drag those Republicans down and boost the Democrats to a Senate majority.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.