# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a gay person, I grew up knowing I was different. Hearing other kids call anyone who deviated from traditional gender expectations a "fag." Getting called a "lesbo" at age 11. I hadn't come out to anyone and didn't even really understand what it meant, but I knew it was an insult.

At an early age, we learn that it's at best different to be LGBT. And many of us are taught that this difference is bad - shameful, deviant, disgusting. We might try to hide it. We might wish it away. We learn that even if our family accepts us, there are some relatives who might not; we get asked to hide who we are so as not to make them uncomfortable.

This teaches shame.

We hear about LGBT people who have been physically attacked or even killed for being who they are.

This teaches fear.

While I know I grew up with privilege, and others have stories far worse than mine, I also believe that countless other LGBT people could tell stories like this - not the same, but all rooted in a legacy that made us feel ashamed of who we are. And yet I, like many of us, also learned pride and hope and found a community that loves me and makes me feel welcome.

Those experiences are part of why I care so much about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. A decision in support of the bakery would open the door to sweeping discrimination. What's at stake isn't just whether we have the freedom to go about our daily lives and purchase the same things that others are able to buy. That's part of it, but it's not the whole picture.

We never leave those initial experiences of shame and discrimination behind completely. Our sexual orientation may or may not be readily visible to others. How we dress or how we act might identify us as gay but it might not, and it won't in all circumstances.

Even with a girlfriend - even holding hands - people don't always see a couple. I have to decide whether to come out or hide again and again - at the doctor's office, at my child's school, when talking about weekend plans with colleagues - because people usually assume heterosexuality. Gay people think about when to hold hands or kiss goodbye in public. Sometimes, it will be a matter of safety. The fact that straight couples don't have to think about these questions is a reminder of difference. And every time I do come out, some part of me still wonders whether, in this moment, I'll find that my community has grown larger or if I'll face rejection - or worse.

The Colorado law that's being challenged by the bakery in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case says that businesses that open their doors to the public can't discriminate based on race, religion, sex, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Laws like Colorado's aim to make sure that when we walk through the doors of a store or hotel, we all have the same freedom to buy a cake, eat a meal, or rent a room. They say to LGBT people, "you matter, and you shouldn't be mistreated because you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender."

This case isn't about the cake. It's about a legacy of discrimination and devaluation and a rejection of our shared humanity.

Through laws like Colorado's, we start to trust those assurances and feel more confident living our lives. But when a business owner says, "No, we won't serve you because you're gay," all that humiliation resurfaces.

That's why it's inappropriate to tell us - as the bakery and the federal government do in this case - to just go to a different bakery. This isn't just about the services. It's about the harm that being turned away causes. It's about how shame and fear prevent us from fully feeling safe and participating in public life. It's about the pain of our children seeing us, and them, rejected, or the pain of our parents watching, unable to protect us. And it doesn't matter if it's just one store. Because once we are refused, every time we approach the door of a store, we wonder how we will be treated and are more likely to hide who we are. That comes at a steep cost.

The bakery is arguing to the Supreme Court justices that the Constitution protects their right to refuse to serve gay people, to tell people like me, like Dave and Charlie, and countless others that they object to our relationships and therefore refuse to serve us. But this case isn't about the cake. It's about a legacy of discrimination and devaluation and a rejection of our shared humanity.

And yet it's also a case about hope, promise, and love. The hope that the court will recognize that all of us are worthy of respect and fair treatment. The promise that LGBT young people won't live in fear and embarrassment as I did. And a mother's unwavering love for her son and his fiancé, showing us why discrimination has no place in our Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Always Been About Discrimination for LGBT People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a gay person, I grew up knowing I was different. Hearing other kids call anyone who deviated from traditional gender expectations a "fag." Getting called a "lesbo" at age 11. I hadn't come out to anyone and didn't even really understand what it meant, but I knew it was an insult.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

The department's move to insert itself into a federal case in New York was an unusual example of top officials in Washington intervening in court in what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues.

"The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination," the Justice Department said in a friend-of-the-court brief, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." "It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII's scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts."

The department filed its brief on Wednesday, the same day President Trump announced on Twitter that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military, raising concerns among civil rights activists that the Trump administration was trying to undermine lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights won under previous administrations.

The filing came in a discrimination case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor. In 2010, Mr. Zarda was fired by his employer, a Long Island company called Altitude Express. Before taking a female client on a tandem dive, Mr. Zarda told the woman he was gay to assuage any awkwardness that might arise from his being tightly strapped to her during the jump. The woman's husband complained to the company, which subsequently fired Mr. Zarda. Mr. Zarda then sued Altitude Express, claiming it had violated Title VII.

Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department has now stepped into the fray. In its brief, the department noted that every Congress since 1974 has declined to add a sexual-orientation provision to Title VII, despite what it called "notable changes in societal and cultural attitudes." The brief also said that the federal government, as the largest employer in the country, had a "substantial and unique interest" in the proper interpretation of Title VII.

In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under Mr. Obama, issued a contrary ruling, deciding on a vote of three Democrats to two Republicans that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was illegal. That ruling, which was reviewed by the Obama administration's Justice Department, did not formally bind the federal courts, although courts often defer to federal agencies when they interpret laws that come under their jurisdiction.

In its brief, the Trump administration's Justice Department said the E.E.O.C., which had also filed court papers supporting Mr. Zarda, was "not speaking for the United States."

In 2014, Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's attorney general, issued a memo stating that in any litigation that came before it, the Justice Department would take the position that the protections afforded by Title VII would be extended to include a person's gender identity, including transgender status. The future of that memo under Mr. Trump remains unclear.

Mr. Holder noted the Trump administration's moves on Twitter on Thursday.

While the Obama administration's legal approach to gay rights evolved over time, it never declared that bans on sex discrimination applied to sexual orientation alone, absent some evidence that the discrimination targeted a person based on gender stereotypes. Rather, it adopted a wait-and-see attitude as the law continued to develop.

Against that backdrop, the Trump Justice Department's decision to file the brief strongly declaring that sex discrimination does not encompass bias based only on sexual orientation was a striking shift in tone.

It was unclear why the Justice Department filed the brief when it did and whether it was a stand-alone effort or part of a larger ideological push.

In 2015, a lower court on Long Island first considered Mr. Zarda's case and ruled against him, deciding, despite the E.E.O.C. ruling, that sexual orientation was not included in the civil rights law's prohibition against discrimination based on "sex." In April, the Second Circuit in New York upheld that court's decision, even though it noted "a longstanding tension in Title VII case law."

Federal appeals courts have issued contradictory rulings on the matter. In 2000, while considering the case of a Long Island postal worker, Dwayne Simonton, who was abused at work for being gay, the Second Circuit ruled that the language of Title VII did not bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ruling also noted that Congress had repeatedly declined to include such a provision in the law.

"There can be no doubt that the conduct allegedly engaged in by Simonton's co-workers is morally reprehensible," the court wrote in 2000. It added, however, that "the law is well-settled in this circuit."

Shortly after the new brief was filed, civil rights activists attacked it. In a statement on Wednesday, Vanita Gupta, who ran the Justice Department's civil rights division under Mr. Obama, said the Trump administration's court filing "contravenes recent court decisions and guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

On Twitter on Wednesday night, Ms. Gupta, who is the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted that only political appointees, not career employees, from her former office at the Justice Department had signed the brief.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the brief a "gratuitous and extraordinary attack on L.G.B.T. people's civil rights." In a statement, James Esseks, the director of the organization's L.G.B.T. and H.I.V. Project, added, "The Sessions-led Justice Department and the Trump administration are actively working to expose people to discrimination."

In his own statement, Devin O'Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, said the brief was "consistent with the Justice Department's longstanding position and the holdings of 10 different courts of appeals." Mr. O'Malley added that the filing "reaffirms the department's fundamental belief that the courts cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided."

Some states like New York have their own laws banning bias in the workplace based on sexual orientation, but several states do not. "Without a federal standard," said Douglas Wigdor, a prominent New York City employment lawyer, "many people could be exposed to discrimination at work just because they're gay."

Mr. Zarda brought claims against his employer under both federal and state law, according to his lawyer, Gregory Antollino. But the state case failed in October 2015 because state law requires a higher burden of proof than federal law to show discrimination, and because by the time it went to trial, Mr. Zarda had died, Mr. Antollino said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologised for historical injustices against the LGBT community.

During the Cold War, hundreds of gay men and women were fired from their government jobs and the military.

The government has earmarked C$100m ($78m, £58m) to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by LGBT victims.

Mr Trudeau has also proposed a bill in parliament that would allow the courts to expunge the records of people criminalised for their sexuality.

"It is with shame and sorrow and deep regret for the things we have done that I stand here today and say: We were wrong. We apologise. I am sorry. We are sorry," he said in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Mr Trudeau's words were greeted by a warm round of applause from all parties.

The prime minister also spoke out about past discrimination against gay marriage and gay works of art, which were often banned as "obscene".

"While we may regard modern Canada as a forward-thinking and progressive nation, we cannot forget our past," he said.

During the Cold War, the Canadian government and military regarded gay employees as more vulnerable to blackmail by Soviet agents. They were interrogated about their sex life and forced to inform on their friends.

Mr Trudeau called it "nothing short of a witch-hunt."

The history behind Canada's "LGBT purge"

Trudeau to march in Gay Pride parade

Canada quietly grants gay Chechens asylum

The Canadian military ended discriminatory policies against gay men and women in 1992 after Michelle Douglas, a former Army officer, sued the government.

Four years later, the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation. Gender identity and gender orientation were added in 2017.

Mr Trudeau also said Canada must do more to end homophobia and discrimination, such as bans on gay men giving blood and the continued criminalisation of people who do not disclose their HIV status.

"We are all worthy of love. Whether you discover who you are at six, 16 or 60, we are all valid," he said.

This is not Mr Trudeau's first state apology as prime minister. On Friday, he apologised to indigenous victims of residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 2016, he apologised for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914, when Canada turned away hundreds of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim passengers trying to emigrate from British-ruled India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trudeau apologises for LGBT discrimination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologised for historical injustices against the LGBT community. During the Cold War, hundreds of gay men and women were fired from their government jobs and the military.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is Sexual Orientation discrimination? We explain its definition, areas covered and what constitutes discrimination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We believe that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of life, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, ability or country of origin. Discrimination must be eliminated in our schools, communities and workplaces. Virginia Organizing leaders speak out against discrimination of all kinds whether it be fighting against housing discrimination in Richmond, fighting for increased accessibility in Fluvanna County or supporting gay rights in Roanoke.

We believe that we should enhance and celebrate diversity in our community and in our state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VIDEO: Virginia Organizing's Roots in Southwest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We believe that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of life, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, ability or country of origin. Discrimination must be eliminated in our schools, communities and workplaces.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This state does not provide any legal protections from discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identification.

However, the Human Rights Campaign states, "The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires grantees and participants of HUD programs to comply with local and state non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity.
HUD also prohibits inquiries regarding the sexual orientation or gender identity of a prospective tenant or applicant for assisted
housing in every state (March 2012)."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBT Rights in Virginia, United States | Equaldex

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This state does not provide any legal protections from discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identification. However, the Human Rights Campaign states, "The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires grantees and participants of HUD programs to comply with local and state non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rep. Scott W. Taylor, a Republican from Virginia Beach, just became the second House Republican - among 238 - to support a federal ban on LGBT discrimination, reflecting a shift in public opinion on the issue in Virginia and the nation.

The Human Rights Campaign announced last week that Taylor was the newest co-sponsor of the Equality Act, which, if passed, would add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing federal civil rights statutes.

The other Republican co-sponsor, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), is not seeking reelection next year.

Among Democrats in Congress, the opposite disparity exists, with almost all members supporting the legislation, except moderates Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.) in the Senate and Marcia L. Fudge (Ohio) and Daniel Lipinski (Ill.) in the House.

David Stacy, a lobbyist for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights, said Taylor, a 37-year-old freshman House member and former Navy SEAL, is a natural fit for the legislation.

View Graphic

"It didn't take a big sales job because he understood right away that this was the right thing to do," Stacy said. "It was broadly supported across the state and in his district."

Taylor, a foreign policy hawk who supports President Trump, represents a district that relies on tourism and has marketed itself as an ideal vacation spot for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

As a delegate in the state General Assembly, Taylor was a primary supporter of a bill introduced by Del. Marcus B. Simon (D-Fairfax), who represents a liberal Northern Virginia district, that would have banned LGBT discrimination in housing.

Once in the U.S. House, Taylor introduced a similar bill, which has 12 co-sponsors - six Republicans and six Democrats.

"I think this is the right thing to do," Taylor said when the bill was introduced this spring. "We haven't polled it, so I have no idea if it's a net negative or a net positive in the district."

His district is also home to many active-duty and retired military personnel, who, polls show, tend to be open-minded on social issues.

For Taylor, supporting LGBT rights is a "political winner," Stacy said.

But the Equality Act is unlikely to go to a floor vote in the GOP-controlled House because Republican leadership would be reluctant to force lawmakers vulnerable to challenges from the right to go on record on an issue that animates social conservatives.

That helps explain why Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who represents a Northern Virginia district that favored Hillary Clinton by 10 points last year, has a "zero" rating from the Human Rights Campaign.

But Mark J. Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, said the mere introduction of LGBT rights bills is indicative of how much social attitudes have changed in the past decade.

When he wrote the 1996 book " Second Coming: The New Christian Right in Virginia Politics," Rozell said, "it wasn't even conceivable that we would have a conversation like this right now."

"It's the older generation holding on more strongly to the traditional social views," he said. "For the younger generation, they don't even understand why this is an issue."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two House Republicans favor a ban on LGBT discrimination. One is from Virginia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rep. Scott W. Taylor, a Republican from Virginia Beach, just became the second House Republican - among 238 - to support a federal ban on LGBT discrimination, reflecting a shift in public opinion on the issue in Virginia and the nation.