# data[].attributes.headline
President Obama and Ellen talk about Road to Equality !

# data[].attributes.subject
President Obama and Ellen talk about Road to Equality !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Obama and Ellen Discuss the Road to Equality

# data[].attributes.headline
President Obama Speaks on the Supreme Court's Ruling  in Favor of Gay Marriage 

# data[].attributes.subject
President Obama Speaks on the Supreme Court's Ruling  in Favor of Gay Marriage 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The President Speaks on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Marriage Equality

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal Court Rules in Favor of LGBT Protection for Workers

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal Court Rules in Favor of LGBT Protection for Workers

# data[].attributes.body
A federal judge has ruled that "laws banning sex discrimination also protect against discrimination for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled on Friday that existing civil rights laws banning sex discrimination also protect against discrimination for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

The ruling is a victory for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which brought the case against Scott Medical Health Center. The agency has been fighting for the past several years to expand LGBT workers' protections under federal law.

The EEOC decided in 2015 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT people. It earlier had decided that the law protects transgender people from discrimination as well.

In March, the agency brought its first two cases advancing the sexual orientation-coverage theory in federal court - one of which was the Scott Medical case.

The company had asked US District Court Judge Cathy Bissoon to dismiss the case, in part, because sexual orientation discrimination, the company argued, isn't barred by the sex discrimination prohibition.

Bissoon disagreed, writing, "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."

Explaining further, she cited to an earlier US Supreme Court case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which held that sex stereotyping is a type of banned sex discrimination under Title VII.

"Forcing an employee to fit into a gendered expectation - whether that expectation involves physical traits, clothing, mannerisms or sexual attraction - constitutes sex stereotyping and, under Price Waterhouse, violates Title VII," she wrote.

The ruling allows the EEOC to proceed in its case against the company.

While Bissoon is not the first judge to reach the conclusion she did on Friday, the decision is significant for a few reasons. The opinion itself - as direct and forceful as it is - is important, because it can be cited to in lawyers' briefs and in other judges' decisions. More importantly, however, is the fact that it comes in a case brought by the EEOC itself - the agency in the federal government responsible for interpreting Title VII.

Finally, it is notable that the ruling comes a few weeks before the full federal appeals court in Chicago is due to reconsider a decision of a three-judge panel from the court rejecting the argument that sexual orientation claims are currently covered under Title VII. The three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that only the US Supreme Court or a change in law could provide those legal protections. The full court - with the urging of the EEOC and others - agreed to reconsider that decision, which it will do on Nov. 30.

Chris Geidner is a Supreme Court correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC.

Contact Chris Geidner at chris.geidner@buzzfeed.com.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Court Backs Protections For Gay Worker Under Existing Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled on Friday that existing civil rights laws banning sex discrimination also protect against discrimination for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. The ruling is a victory for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which brought the case against Scott Medical Health Center.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Reviews Case of Florist Refusing to Serve a Gay Couple

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Reviews Case of Florist Refusing to Serve a Gay Couple

# data[].attributes.body
Just this month, the Supreme Court heard a case involving a florist who refused to serve a gay couple due to her religious beliefs. However, a ruling won't be executed for a few months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The state Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in the closely watched case of a gay couple who sued a Richland florist for refusing to provide flowers for their wedding.

Share story

Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed were shocked and hurt when their longtime florist refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

The couple, with the help of attorneys, sued Richland florist Barronelle Stutzman under Washington's anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws.

On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers, in a special session at Bellevue College.

The high-profile case highlights the clash between cherished constitutional principles - the right to be treated equally under the law and the free exercise of religion and speech.

Attorneys for Stutzman argued Tuesday that a floral arrangement is a form of speech deserving of protection and that government cannot compel Stutzman to create an arrangement for a gay couple against her religious beliefs.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson urged the court to uphold state anti-discrimination laws and not to create an exception for religious beliefs. He noted that many people once held strong religious beliefs against interracial marriage, but the courts ultimately struck down those laws as discriminatory.

Several hundred people lined up outside a Bellevue College theater before the doors opened to hear the arguments. Many, from local churches, Christian businesses, organizations and Christian schools, held signs with a photo of Stutzman and the words "Freedom to Create."

Inside the theater, many spectators held white tissue paper flowers to show their support of the Richland florist.

Kathy Echelbarger, of Edmonds, said she believed the case was about freedom of religion. "The government shouldn't be telling her who she should or shouldn't be doing business with," she said.

Some members of Bellevue College's LGBTQ community also attended to show support for the gay couple.

"We've worked so hard for our gains. This is trying to push back years and years of progress. It's disheartening," said Isaac Hopps, a leader of the campus LGBTQ organization.

Stutzman, who took over management of her mother's flower shop in 1982, had provided floral arrangements for Ingersoll and Freed for almost a decade when Ingersoll told her the two were planning a wedding with 100 guests at a local venue. Stutzman refused to provide the flowers, but suggested several other florists in the area who would help them.

A Benton County Superior Court judge in February ruled that Stutzman's religious beliefs did not allow her to discriminate against the couple and that she must provide flowers for same-sex weddings, or stop doing weddings at all.

Stutzman and her attorneys argue that the court's ruling is unlawful government coercion and that the creative expression of floral arrangement deserves the same protection as free speech.

"The government is coming in and telling me what to say, what to create, what to believe. That's not America to me," Stutzman said in a phone interview in advance of the court hearing.

During Tuesday's hearing, several justices expressed skepticism for that argument, asking why it wouldn't also extend to bartenders, stationery providers or landscape artists who also bring creativity to their work.

"So anyone worried about their expression may deny services to a customer?" asked Justice Steven Gonzales.

The case has attracted more than a dozen friend-of-court briefs on behalf of the gay couple, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and a group of Washington businesses that include Amazon, Microsoft and the Metropolitan Seattle Chamber of Commerce.

The case also marked the first time Ferguson, the attorney general, argued before the state's high court. Ferguson brought a suit against Arlene's Flowers under the state's Consumer Protection Act after Stutzman refused his letter directing her to comply with Washington law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ferguson agreed that the case raises unprecedented issues, but not the same issues that alarm the florist and her attorneys.

He told the justices that no court in the country has ever held that a religious objection allows a business owner to violate anti-discrimination law.

"Ms. Stutzman is free to believe what she wishes," he said, but because she runs a public business, he said, she is required under the law to serve everyone equally.

Amicus briefs were also filed on behalf of Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers, including one from African-American and Hispanic churches and their pastors who argue that the government should not penalize people for the long-held belief that marriage is a union between a husband and wife.

Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that same-sex marriage is legal, the brief argues that "its ruling in no way requires private citizens to facilitate such marriages against their conscience ... Mrs. Stutzman seeks the freedom to act on her reasonable, conscientious belief about marriage - while leaving same-sex couples free to do the same."

Stutzman's attorneys say they are also challenging the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which, on behalf of Ingersoll and Freed, is seeking attorney fees from both Arlene's Flowers and from Stutzman personally as the owner of the business.

The trial court imposed a fine of $1,000 and legal fees of just $1. But one of the florist's attorneys, Kerri Kupec, said attorney fees could now climb into "seven figures."

"By suing Barronelle in her personal capacity, the government is threatening her home, her life savings, her retirement, because she doesn't agree with its ideology. That's pretty alarming," Kupec said.

ACLU's Washington legal director, Emily Chiang, said bringing a discrimination case can be expensive. State law allows the prevailing party to recover attorney costs. "Otherwise, victims of discrimination would have to pay twice: once when they were discriminated against, and a second time when they seek to vindicate their rights in court," Chiang said.

The court is not expected to rule for several months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Supreme Court hears case of florist who refused gay couple

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The state Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in the closely watched case of a gay couple who sued a Richland florist for refusing to provide flowers for their wedding. Share story Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed were shocked and hurt when their longtime florist refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.body
Last october , a transgender women was found dead inside a motel room in Olongapo city because a man feared that he would be raped after discovering that she was transgender. Learn more in the link below .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-philippines_us_5614f92fe4b021e856d2d870

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the second part of a 10-part series on LGBT rights in Southeast Asia, which uncovers the challenges facing the LGBT community in the region and highlights the courageous work of activists there.

Last October, a transgender woman named Jennifer Laude was found dead inside a motel room in Olongapo City, Philippines. Motel staff found her naked body on the floor of the bathroom, her head leaning on the rim of the toilet bowl.

U.S. Marine Joseph Scott Pemberton admitted in August to strangling the woman. The 19-year-old said in court that he was "repulsed" and " feared he would be raped " after discovering that Laude was transgender. That fear, he said, prompted him to "subdue" her in self-defense.

He later allegedly told a fellow Marine: "I think I killed a he/she."

LGBT activist Corky Hope Maranan told the Associated Press last year that the case was one of the worst hate crimes she has seen."This is just so abominable," she said.

Just a few weeks after Laude's death, Mary Jo Añonuevo, a 55-year-old transgender woman, was found dead in a bar she owned in Lucena City, Philippines.

Añonuevo had been stabbed 33 times.

The Philippines has one of worst records of violence against the trans community. The murders of 29 transgender people have been documented in the Philippines since 2008, according to the TvT project, which monitors and analyzes cases of transphobia worldwide. This is the highest number in the Southeast Asian region, and the second highest in Asia -- though activists say that many murders of trans people go unreported in the country, so the number is likely much higher.

The trans community is not the only LGBT group that has experienced violence in the Philippines. There were at least "28 LGBT-related killings" in the country in the first half of 2011 alone, according to a 2014 UNDP/USAID report. These troubling statistics offer a glimpse into the marginalization and abuse that the LGBT community faces in the predominantly-Catholic archipelago.

On the surface, the Philippines may appear to be one of the more "liberal" ASEAN countries when it comes to the LGBT community.

Homosexuality is not criminalized, and a handful of anti-discrimination ordinances (both those specifically protecting LGBT persons and more broadly-worded decrees) have been passed in some cities, including Quezon City, Cebu City and Davao City, in recent years. In another win, in 2009 the Philippines lifted a ban that had prevented openly gay and bisexual men and women from serving in the military.

In a 2013 Pew Research Center report about global opinions of the LGBT community, more than 70 percent of Filipinos said homosexuality should be "accepted by society," making the Philippines the most "tolerant" nation surveyed in the Asia-Pacific region after Australia.

However, although "there is high tolerance here, there's not real acceptance," Ging Cristobal, a Manila-based activist with the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, tells The Huffington Post.

Legal recognition and protection of LGBT people at the national level largely remains absent.

The debate on same-sex marriage has also proved controversial, with the Catholic Church and other conservative groups speaking out vehemently against marriage equality -- the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines said in 2011 that the " church won't tolerate same-sex marriage," adding that being LGBT is a "choice."

"Without the right to marry, LGBT Filipinos are treated unequally in a whole host of ways in comparison to heterosexual married couples," according to the UNDP/USAID report. There remain "no clear rights for either spouse in same-sex and transgender-heterosexual partnerships regarding hospital and prison visitations, making medical and burial decisions, transfer of joint properties, custody of children, insurance benefits, and other privileges accorded to married and unmarried opposite-sex couples," the report continued.

In addition, while a single LGBT person is allowed to adopt a child in the Philippines, two LGBT people who identify as a domestic couple cannot.

The report added that despite robust LGBT activism in the country, and a "growing awareness of LGBT Filipinos," many members of the community continue to face discrimination, violence and abuse.

LGBT activists in the Philippines say their number one priority is the enactment of anti-discrimination legislation throughout the country.

The lack of legal protections for LGBT persons "greatly affects our day to day lives," Cristobal says.

"It limits our opportunities for better employment, and access to better education and housing," she says. Access to healthcare is also a concern, as most medical practitioners are ill-equipped and uneducated when it comes to the care and support of LGBT patients. Resources for, and access to HIV testing, and related services, is also limited.

At the time of publication, the case against Jennifer Laude's alleged murderer is ongoing.

LGBT rights activists say they are watching the case closely -- and with growing alarm.

"In the Philippines, Pemberton is absolutely free to deploy the trans panic defense to mitigate the severity of his crime," wrote Slate's Mark Joseph Stern in August. "If he can convince the judge that he grew violent because Laude deceived him, his prison sentence could be reduced by up to 28 years. That would send a clear message to trans victims of violence across the Philippines: You had it coming."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dangers Of Being LGBT In 'Tolerant' Philippines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the second part of a 10-part series on LGBT rights in Southeast Asia, which uncovers the challenges facing the LGBT community in the region and highlights the courageous work of activists there. Last October, a transgender woman named Jennifer Laude was found dead inside a motel room in Olongapo City, Philippines.

# data[].attributes.body
The shooting of the LGBT nightclub "Pulse" was the deadliest mass shooting in US History, killing 49 people. 911 calls from victims inside the nightclub have recently been released, giving us an inside view on what it was like for those inside the club.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"We've been shot with a bunch of people down at the (inaudible). We need you quickly," the caller says just after a gunman has opened fire in the crowded Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

The 911 calls are flooding in, telling similar stories from the scene of the worst mass shooting in US history. In the background the gunfire continues, according to transcripts of more than 30 calls released by police Friday.

There is confusion during these first few minutes after the June 12 massacre by Omar Mateen began. Another caller says he didn't see the gunman; he heard shots and started running.

"We don't know where the f--- to go. We don't know where the shots are coming from. How the f--- are we going to be safe?" he asks.

The man who has been shot three times tells the Orlando Fire Department that he is literally covered by other people who are hiding in a bathroom.

"There's a bunch of bodies on top of me," he says, referring to the people who have climbed into a handicap stall to escape the slaughter.

"Please hurry up," he says.

The 911 operator asks the man his name, and says it's hard to hear.

"I'm (inaudible). They are dying, they are dying, we are dying," the caller says.

"No. No. No. Don't say that, OK? The paramedics are coming," the operator says.

The fire department employee tells the operator she can go take a call, but the operator says someone else grabbed it.

"We're going to come help you, OK?" the fire department representative says.

The caller is one of about 20 people who have piled into one of the nightclub's bathrooms. Several of the 911 calls revealed in the 107 pages of transcripts are from a bathroom.

People cry. They plead for help.

One asks: "I just heard some screaming. Screaming. Are you sure officers are dispatched? Are you sure?"

Several callers say they are with people who have been hit or they have been shot. One has take sanctuary in an upstairs office with six other people. He is shot in the stomach.

The operator tells him to put a shirt on the wound and hold it there. And he shouldn't move until police come get him.

Another person takes the phone from the wounded man. The person gives instructions to someone helping the wounded man.

"Apply more pressure.. Don't let him die this way," the person says.

The names of the callers were redacted, so it is unknown whether they survived the massacre that took 49 lives.

Two of the calls were entirely redacted or mostly blacked out.

Judge orders release of 911 calls

Florida Judge Margaret Schreiber recently ordered more calls to police made that night, including ones from the killer, be released to the public.

Mateen killed 49 people and wounded more than 50 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando. It was the deadliest modern mass shooting in American history. After a standoff of about three hours between police and Mateen, and while people trapped inside the club desperately called and messaged friends and relatives, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and stun grenades and killed Mateen.

The city of Orlando had argued all the 911 calls should be exempt from public open records law.

Real-time sounds of a hostage crisis, plus a chilling record of the killer's voice, were captured in the initial 911 calls made public in October.

In nearly 30 minutes of phone conversations with an Orlando police negotiator, the gunman sounded alternately angry, frazzled, evasive and condescending.

Over time, more calls from the nightclub shooting have been released, with those released Friday among the final ones that will be disclosed publicly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
pulse 911 calls reveal more terror in club's restroom
 pulse 911 calls: 'they are dying

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pulse 911 calls: 'They are dying, we're dying'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"We've been shot with a bunch of people down at the (inaudible). We need you quickly," the caller says just after a gunman has opened fire in the crowded Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The 911 calls are flooding in, telling similar stories from the scene of the worst mass shooting in US history.

# data[].attributes.body
The LGBT community has been fighting for laws for centuries. Learn more about the history of gay rights, including the first gay rights organization in 1924.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is anti-gay discrimination a form of sex discrimination? Walmart Stores, the biggest private employer in the U.S., is the target of a lawsuit that might soon provide an answer to that question?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is anti-gay discrimination a form of sex discrimination? Walmart Stores, the biggest private employer in the U.S., is the target of a lawsuit that might soon provide an answer to that question?

# data[].attributes.body
Walmart didn’t extend spousal health benefits to employees in same-sex marriages until January 2014, even in states where same-sex marriage was legal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is anti-gay discrimination a form of sex discrimination? Walmart Stores, the biggest private employer in the U.S., is the target of a lawsuit that might soon provide an answer to that question.

Walmart didn't extend spousal health benefits to employees in same-sex marriages until January 2014, even in states where same-sex marriage was legal. Before then, when workers such as Jackie Cote applied for coverage for their same-sex spouses, Walmart rejected their requests, as it has maintained it had the right to do. While the Supreme Court last year ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't mention sexual orientation.

The act does provide protection on the basis of sex, and that's a premise of the lawsuit Cote filed last summer on behalf of herself and a class of plaintiffs that lawyers now estimate to be 1,200 current and former Walmart employees. Cote, who has worked at Walmart since 1999, married Diana Smithson in Massachusetts in 2004. In 2012, Smithson, a breast cancer survivor, was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer. Within two years, without Walmart insurance to cover Smithson's treatment, the couple racked up more than $150,000 in medical bills. "I thought that they would really have no choice because I was legally married in the state of Massachusetts," Cote says.

Seeking compensation for the benefits that were denied and out-of-pocket medical expenses, the suit alleges that Walmart's stance was unlawful because it's a form of sex discrimination. "The sex of her spouse is the reason for treating people differently-isn't that discrimination based on sex?" asks attorney Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, one of the advocacy groups representing Cote.

"The sex of her spouse is the reason for treating people differently-isn't that discrimination based on sex?"

The case, among a recent wave of lawsuits over the past several years to grapple with this question, is headed to mediation on Feb. 22; if a settlement isn't reached, it's scheduled for trial in federal court in Massachusetts in November. Legal experts, civil rights advocates specializing in anti-gay and gender-identity bias, and employment lawyers who defend large companies say whatever the outcome, the case against Walmart could help set a precedent by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. That might lead other employers to reconsider the risks of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The argument that sexual-orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination can apply to other types of workplace bias as well, such as employees alleging they were fired or denied promotions for being gay.

"Being gay or lesbian or bisexual inherently violates the gender stereotype that men and women should be attracted to people of the opposite sex," says Equal Employment Opportunity Commission member Chai Feldblum, a former Georgetown law professor. Last year the EEOC concluded that anti-gay discrimination is inherently a form of sex discrimination.

Judges don't have to defer to the EEOC, but they've proved increasingly receptive to gay plaintiffs' sex discrimination arguments, allowing cases to proceed against BNSF Railway, SkyWest Airlines, and Pepperdine University. "We're seeing an evolution in judicial thought and judicial acceptance of this argument," says Steven Suflas, a partner at the law firm Ballard Spahr, who represents management in labor and employment matters. "The chance of prevailing under this sexual stereotype theory, those percentages are increasing."

Walmart denies wrongdoing and opposes class-action certification (the two sides are slated to present briefs on the class question this summer) but hasn't ruled out a resolution. "Before the lawsuit was filed, we attempted to resolve it, and we've said we remain open to further discussions," says Randy Hargrove, Walmart's director of national media relations. He declined to elaborate on the company's legal strategy.

If the company continues defending its old policy, that could carry significant reputational risks. Walmart boasts a 90 percent rating on the Corporate Equality Index compiled by the LGBT nonprofit Human Rights Campaign and last year drew friendly media attention for joining LGBT activists in opposing a religious liberty bill in its home state of Arkansas that would have shielded businesses that discriminated against LGBT customers. Walmart didn't move to dismiss the Cote case after it was filed in July; efforts to settle the dispute through the EEOC before Cote sued were unsuccessful.

In 2014, when a former Saks Fifth Avenue employee filed a lawsuit alleging she was harassed and discriminated against for being transgender, Saks's lawyer asked for the case to be dismissed because "transsexuals are not a protected class" under the Civil Rights Act. That filing, which might have drawn little attention a decade earlier, spurred swift pushback from advocacy groups and harsh media attention. Within three months, Saks settled. The company declined to comment.

"Any large employer, they have to worry about their public image," says Suflas. "Do you want your consumer base to think that you are not a good corporate citizen?"

Last July a group of LGBT and labor groups urged Walmart in an open letter to settle the case rather than argue in court that anti-LGBT bias is legal. Walmart could send a powerful message to employers by settling, says Emily Martin, general counsel of the National Women's Law Center.

"It would be really meaningful if Walmart chose to resolve the case and recognize that under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act], it was bound to provide these benefits," Martin says. "When you have a major corporate player like Walmart either implicitly or explicitly recognizing this is what the law required it to do, other employers take notice."

If Cote's approach is successful, other plaintiffs could be emboldened to come forward and file similar claims-helping advocates further develop the law and more clearly define Title VII's protections.

Some advocates see an upside if Walmart holds out for a trial. "This is a compelling case that could make its way through the federal courts to the Supreme Court and make good law that applies nationwide," says Tico Almeida, founder of the LGBT nonprofit Freedom to Work. Because the facts of the case are relatively clear-cut, Cote's case could offer LGBT advocates a chance to set a precedent on the scope of sex discrimination. "I think the courts have reached the point where they are more and more ready to accept what has always been straightforwardly true," says Cote's attorney, Buseck. "I do think ultimately this is where the Supreme Court will end up."

Cote has promised to keep up the fight. "Unfortunately my wife doesn't have much time left on earth. ... She wants the people that tried to save her life and tried to extend her life to be paid," she says.

With the law unsettled, defense lawyers are urging caution. "If an employer comes to us and asks, 'Is there a risk that I could be sued under the theory that Title VII extends to LGBT individuals?' I think the answer is yes," says Cameron Smith, a labor and employment partner at Seyfarth Shaw. "This is absolutely going to be a hotly litigated issue, and it's going to play up through the courts. And if that means that employers and employees get greater clarity about what the law provides, that to me seems like a welcome development."
The bottom line: A theory that sexual-orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination will be tested in a case against Walmart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Walmart Case That Could Expand Gay Rights at Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is anti-gay discrimination a form of sex discrimination? Walmart Stores, the biggest private employer in the U.S., is the target of a lawsuit that might soon provide an answer to that question. Walmart didn't extend spousal health benefits to employees in same-sex marriages until January 2014, even in states where same-sex marriage was legal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Presidential Election Causes LGBT Discrimination

# data[].attributes.subject
Presidential Election Causes LGBT Discrimination

# data[].attributes.body
The recent election of Donald Trump has had a detrimental effect on the LGBT community. Many of Trump's supporters have taken action in using violence against the LGBT community. Read below for the full story on how Chris Ball was attacked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A gay man has been attacked in the US after supporters of Donald Trump allegedly shouted homophobic slurs at him in a bar.

Chris Ball, a film producer originally from Calgary in Canada, was in a bar in Santa Monica as election results came in on Tuesday night and the atmosphere grew increasingly tense.

"People started launching homophobic slurs at me from afar," he told the Calgary Metro. "I mean, I kind of got into it, but I didn't want to provoke them.
Warning: Graphic image below
"They were saying things like, 'We got a new President you f***ing f****ts."

When Mr Ball later left the bar alone, he said he was ambushed by a group of men in a nearby alley and smashed over the head with a glass bottle.

Photos shared by friends on social media showed his face and T-shirt drenched in blood before he went to hospital for treatment.

A photo posted on his Instagram shows five metal staples holding the wound together, with Mr Ball assuring friends he was "alive and well and still very gay".

He was not able to identify who attacked him and said their motivation may have been more related to homophobia than support for Mr Trump.

One of Mr Ball's friends, KC MacPherson, launched a plea for Americans to "keep the world free of hate" and fight for quality.

"I try hard to understand different points of views, perspectives, and avenues when it comes to politics, but when the realities of the time we live in are so stark it really breaks my heart," he wrote on Facebook.

"This is real, and the mentalities and mindsets behind it are very real as well. This hatred, bigotry, and senseless violence all comes from the same part of America that voted in a demagogue who spits hatred as his rhetoric."

Another friend, Noah Kentis, added: "I hope this is not what our future truly looks like."

Santa Monica Police Department said it had not been contacted by Mr Ball and encouraged him to get in touch.

"We encourage the alleged victim to come forward and work with us if a crime did in fact take place," a statement said.

"A check of local hospitals revealed there was no victim of any such incident admitted or treated as well."

A spokesperson for the department could not immediately be reached for comment.

There are fears of an increase in attacks against the LGBT community following Mr Trump's victory amid reports of hate crimes against Muslims, black people, Hispanics and other minorities across the US.

"Can't wait until your 'marriage' is overturned by a real president," read a sign left on a car in North Carolina. "Gay families = burn in hell. Trump 2016."

Days before the election, a transgender woman's truck was spray painted with the words "Trump" and set on fire in her driveway as she and her three-year-old son were inside their home in Tennessee.

There is widespread concern that the US could mirror a surge in hate crime following Britain's vote to leave the European Union, with analysts suggesting attackers may feel emboldened by Mr Trump's election following his campaign statements on Muslims, Mexican "rapists and criminals" and promises of mass deportations.

Following a divisive campaign, the President-elect made an uncharacteristic call for unity in his victory speech.

"Now it's time for America to bind the wounds of division...I say it is time for us to come together as one united people," he told supporters.

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gay man attacked after Donald Trump supporters 'hurl homophobic insults'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A gay man has been attacked in the US after supporters of Donald Trump allegedly shouted homophobic slurs at him in a bar. Chris Ball, a film producer originally from Calgary in Canada, was in a bar in Santa Monica as election results came in on Tuesday night and the atmosphere grew increasingly tense.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

# data[].attributes.body
In June of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.

Nearly 46 years to the day after a riot at New York's Stonewall Inn ushered in the modern gay rights movement, the decision could settle one of the major civil rights fights of this era. The language of Kennedy's opinion spoke eloquently of the most fundamental values of family, love and liberty.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were."

'Equal dignity in the eyes of the law'

"Their hope," Kennedy wrote, "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Kennedy has written the opinion in significant gay rights cases and when he uttered the key sentence that same-sex couples should be able to exercise the right to marry in all states, people in the Court's public gallery broke into smiles and some wiped tears from their eyes.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court's "threat to American democracy."

"The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he wrote. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision had "nothing to do with the Constitution."

"If you are among the many Americans-of whatever sexual orientation-who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal," he wrote. "Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

The U.S. is now the 21st country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, including territories. Married same-sex couples will now enjoy the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples nationwide and will be recognized on official documents such as birth and death certificates.

Hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters flooded the plaza and sidewalk in front of the Court to celebrate the ruling, proudly waving rainbow flags and banners with the Human Rights Campaign's equal sign, which have come to represent the gay rights movement. In an emotional moment, the supporters sang the National Anthem, clapping wildly after singing that the U.S. is "the land of the free."

After the ruling, President Barack Obama called Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the case, while he and his supporters celebrated the ruling outside the court.

Obama: 'Congratulations'

"I just wanted to say congratulations," Obama said as CNN broadcast his warm words to Obergefell over speakerphone. He added: "Your leadership on this has changed the country."

Speaking at the White House later in the morning, Obama said "Americans should be very proud," because small acts of courage "slowly made an entire country realize that love is love."

The decision affirmed growing public support in the U.S. for gay marriage, with about two-thirds of Americans now in favor. And it comes as gay rights groups have seen gay marriage bans fall rapidly in recent years, with the number of states allowing gay marriage swelling most recently to 37 -- that is, until this ruling.

There were two questions before the Court, the first asked whether states could ban same sex marriage, the second asked whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

The relevant cases were argued earlier this year. Attorney John Bursch, serving as Michigan's Special Assistant Attorney General, defended four states' bans on gay marriage before the Court, arguing that the case was not about how to define marriage, but rather about who gets to decide the question.

The case came before the Supreme Court after several lower courts overturned state bans on gay marriage. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of the state bans, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals writing a majority opinion in line with the rationale that the issue should be decided through the political process, not the courts.

Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.

Three years after Obama first voiced his support for gay couples' right to marry, his administration supported the same sex couples at the Supreme Court.

"Gay and lesbian people are equal," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at the oral arguments earlier this year. "It is simply untenable -- untenable -- to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.

Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the case, married his spouse John Arthur in 2013 months before Arthur died.

The couple, who lived in Ohio, had to travel to Maryland aboard a medical jet to get married when Arthur became gravely ill. And when Arthur died, Obergefell began to fight to be recognized as Arthur's spouse on his death certificate.

The plaintiffs from Michigan are April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two Detroit-area nurses who are also foster parents. They took to the courts after they took in four special-needs newborns who were either abandoned or surrendered at birth, but could not jointly adopt the children because Michigan's adoption code requires that couples be married to adopt.

Sgt. Ijpe Dekoe and Thomas Kostura became plaintiffs in the gay marriage case after they moved to Tennessee from New York.

The pair had married in New York in 2011, but Dekoe's position in the Army took the couple to Tennessee, which banned gay marriage and refused to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Candidates running closer to the center, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, issued tightly-parsed language urging their colleagues to focus on protecting "religious freedom". And Ohio Gov. John Kasich urged Republicans to respect the ruling and ditch the matter altogether.

"In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate," Bush said in his statement.

But conservative firebrands, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said that conservatives must stand and fight by seeking a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat," Huckabee said in a statement.

Democrats had no problem reacting, jumping fast on Twitter to express their universal elation.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was "proud" of the ruling and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley tweeted a photo of the family at the center of his state's efforts to legalize gay marriage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
supreme court  rules states must allow same-sex marriage - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage - CNNPolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent. Nearly 46 years to the day after a riot at New York's Stonewall Inn ushered in the modern gay rights movement, the decision could settle one of the major civil rights fights of this era.

# data[].attributes.headline
Marriage refusal bills have often followed Supreme Court rulings

# data[].attributes.subject
Marriage refusal bills have often followed Supreme Court rulings

# data[].attributes.body
The  Supreme Court decided to uphold a lower court decision that overturned prohibitions on same-sex marriage in five states.  The Supreme Court announced it would make a ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that would definitively determine whether same-sex marriage would be allowed nationwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community has become more visible and won more legal protections in recent years, state lawmakers have increased attempts to pass legislation that could restrict civil rights for LGBT people. Since 2013, legislatures have introduced 348 bills, 23 of which became law.

According to data collected by the American Civil Liberties Union and analyzed by The Washington Post, the number of bills introduced has increased steadily each year. In the first half of 2017 alone, at least 70 bills that could limit LGBT rights have been introduced, a steep increase from previous years.

The increase in this type of legislation seems at odds with public opinion, where decades of LGBT advocacy have culminated in significant cultural and legal shifts. In early 2015, President Barack Obama made history when he spoke of "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" people in his State of the Union address. According to a June report from the Pew Research Center, 62 percent of Americans support same-sex marriages, almost a complete reversal from a decade prior. In recent years, transgender people began to see more cultural representation, and "Orange Is the New Black" star Laverne Cox was celebrated on a Time magazine cover as the "transgender tipping point."

Most of the bills are focused on protecting religious freedom

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Northest

South

Midwest

West

In June 2013, the Supreme Court strikes down a critical section of DOMA, allowing legally married same-sex couples to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a critical part of the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing for historic gains in gay rights. In response, many state legislatures introduced what they called religious freedom restoration acts and First Amendment protection bills. Originally backed by the ACLU, these bills are often used to protect businesses and individuals who refuse to serve LGBT people on religious grounds. This type of bill increased by at least 50 percent every year from 2013 to 2015, but decreased by almost a quarter in 2015. Many state houses have since shifted their focus to "bathroom bills."

Recent legislation aims to limit transgender rights

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Northest

South

Midwest

West

President Obama makes history when he acknowledges lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in his 2015 State of the Union address.

Legislation focused on transgender individuals, such as bathroom bills, didn't appear in ACLU's data until 2015, when two bills were introduced by state legislatures in that session. (Two additional bills were introduced in 2015 but were part of the 2016 session.) Since 2016, more than a third of proposed bills that limit LGBT rights were bathroom bills.

Before this increase, the federal government had made strides toward transgender equality. In May 2014, Medicare regulations changed to allow coverage for sex reassignment surgery. A few months later, then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on sex, applies to gender identity as well. However, many of the new bills introduced, such as Minnesota's HF 1183, clarify that health-care providers don't have to provide gender transition care. Others, like Arizona Senate Bill 1191, make it more difficult for people to change their name, or they bar transgender people from changing their sex on their birth certificate.

[ These states are opening the door to bathroom wars]

Now transgender rights have become the focus of the latest struggle between federal and state lawmakers. In March, North Carolina repealed H.B. 2 - a law requiring people to use public restrooms according to the sex on their birth certificate, as well as reversing other LGBT protections - in the face of economic pressures. Yet states like Texas continue to push through bathroom bills and legislation that allows bias in adoptions and foster care. Last year, 11 states sued the Obama administration over transgender civil rights legislation in schools, challenging the scope and interpretation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

Marriage refusal bills have often followed Supreme Court rulings

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Northest

South

Midwest

West

In October 2014, the Supreme Court decides not to review lower court decisions that overturned prohibitions on same-sex marriage, a step toward the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.

A year after the DOMA ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court decided to uphold a lower court decision that overturned prohibitions on same-sex marriage in five states. State legislatures across the country reacted strongly, introducing marriage refusal bills more frequently.

There was a spike again after January 2015, when the Supreme Court announced it would make a ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that would definitively determine whether same-sex marriage would be allowed nationwide. The number of marriage refusal bills introduced rose 200 percent that year, but only three passed.

Same-sex marriage is now legal, but there are still bills being introduced, largely to protect government employees and religious individuals from legal action if they choose not to perform marriages. In 2016, 28 marriage refusal bills were introduced, and one became law. So far this year, 16 marriage refusal bills have been introduced.

Other LGBT legislation includes health services and adoption laws

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Northest

South

Midwest

West

In March 2016, North Carolina passes H.B. 2, which eliminates anti-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals. A year later it was repealed and replaced with H.B. 142. The new bill also does not offer protections for LGBT people.

This category of bills includes legislation relating to college and university groups​, health services​, pre-emptive protections, and adoption and foster care. Since 2013, nine bills have been introduced that would allow health service providers to deny services because of religious beliefs without the threat of disbarment or license withdrawal, or risk of a civil lawsuit.

The newest category of bills are preemptive bills, which prohibit local governments from passing anti-discrimination bills that exceed protections given by the state. Eighteen such bills have been introduced since 2015. North Carolina passed a bill in March 2016, later repealed, that specified local legislatures must follow statewide policies for single-sex restrooms so as not to disrupt commerce across the state.

A state-by-state look at LGBT legislation

There have been 348 bills introduced across the nation since the ACLU began tracking legislation in 2013. Texas has introduced 36 bills, more than any other state, and only one became law. Virginia has passed the most bills with four pieces of legislation becoming law. Eight states and the District have not introduced any legislation limiting LGBT rights since 2013.
Filter by:
Became law

Introduced

Active
0 1 2 3 4
Choose a state to view more information.

Nationwide

The U.S. has introduced 348 bills since 2013. Of those, 23 have been signed into law. There are 24 active bills as of publication.

has introduced bills since 2013. . .

Religious exemptions

Transgender rights

Marriage refusal

Other

Return to national view
Note: An earlier version of this story reported that only two marriage refusal bills had passed since the Obergefell v. Hodges case in 2015, but it was actually three. North Carolina legislature overturned the governor's veto of S.B. 2 and the bill was enacted.

This story has been updated to include new data as of June 29. Several statistics on the page have changed to reflect data added from the second half of 2016 and the first half of a 2017.

About this story

The Washington Post's analysis of legislation that could restrict rights for the LGBT community came from data provided by the ACLU. Every bill listed was verified independently by The Washington Post using the Open States database.

Bills that did not directly reference the LGBT community or arise from major court cases or events were not counted. Additionally, bills with identical language submitted to a state legislature at the same time were counted as one instance of said bill. Bills are recorded based on the first action on the bill.

Originally published June 10, 2016.

ACLU, Open States API, Washington Post analysis

More stories

Most Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How states have been trying to restrict LGBT rights since 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community has become more visible and won more legal protections in recent years, state lawmakers have increased attempts to pass legislation that could restrict civil rights for LGBT people. Since 2013, legislatures have introduced 348 bills, 23 of which became law.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled against a baker who refused to serve a gay couple, claiming that denying the couple service was discrimination. The baker claims he refused to serve the couple due to his religious beliefs, but Colorado law states that this is illegal. #lovewins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Colorado Court of Appeals decision affirms a commission's earlier decision that Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood and its owner, Jack Phillips, violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when he declined to make a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins' wedding reception in 2012.

Phillips, a Christian, argued that his refusal to make the cake was based on his religious opposition to the act of same-sex marriage -- a position he asserted was constitutionally protected -- not based on an opposition to their sexual orientation.

Colorado law prohibits places of public accommodation from refusing to serve people based on sexual orientation.

Phillips argued that he doesn't refuse to serve homosexuals, and told Craig and Mullins his shop would sell them any bakery product besides a wedding cake. The appeals court rejected Phillips' position.

"We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig's and Mullins' sexual orientation, and therefore, (an initial judge) did not err when he found that Masterpiece's refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was 'because of' their sexual orientation,' " the court ruled.

The appeals court also rejected Phillips' arguments that his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion were being violated.

Thursday's ruling upholds the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's 2014 ruling that Phillips must create cakes for same-sex celebrations, re-train his staff, and file quarterly reports for two years to confirm the bakery wasn't turning away customers because they were gay or lesbian.

Phillips' lawyer Jeremy Tedesco, the senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said Phillips would consider further legal options.

Phillips argued that compelling him to make cakes for same-sex marriages compels him to convey a celebratory message about the ceremony, in conflict with his religious beliefs.

"By selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, Masterpiece does not necessarily lead an observer to conclude that the bakery supports its customer's conduct," the court ruled. "The public has no way of knowing the reasons supporting Masterpiece's decision to serve or decline to serve a same-sex couple."

Ria Tabacco Mar, an ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Colorado case, told CNN last month that equal protection outweighs any free speech claim.

"What's really at issue here is cake shop's conduct of selling certain products to heterosexual customers and then refusing to sell those same products to lesbian and gay customers," she said.

"When a business opens its doors to the public, it can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, on the basis of race. It can't pick and choose its customers based on who they are," ACLU Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein told CNN affiliate KCNC after the court's ruling.

Tedesco, Phillips' attorney, said Thursday that government has a duty to protect people's freedom to follow their beliefs "rather than force them to adopt the government's views."

"Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms," Tedesco said.

His client also spoke to KCNC.

"I think that the ruling is wrong. The Constitution guarantees me the right to practice my faith, my religion anywhere, anytime. There are no restrictions on it. It also gives me the right to free speech anytime, anywhere. I don't surrender those rights when I open my doors," Phillips said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
international relations and national security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
court rules against baker in same-sex marriage case - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court rules against baker in same-sex marriage case - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Colorado Court of Appeals decision affirms a commission's earlier decision that Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood and its owner, Jack Phillips, violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when he declined to make a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins' wedding reception in 2012.