National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 39 of 59 - GLAD Law
跳过标题到内容
GLAD Logo 跳过主导航到内容

富尔顿诉费城市

更新: On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a narrow and limiting ruling for Catholic Social Services that focuses on specific contractual language. The ruling leaves intact the broader principle that governments can require contractors, including religious agencies, to comply with nondiscrimination laws – including those that protect same-sex married couples – when providing taxpayer-funded social services. While the Court found Philadelphia’s contract with CSS to be unenforceable, it did so because the contract allowed individual discretionary exemptions on a case-by-base basis but would not consider CSS’s claim. The case stemmed from a claim by Catholic Social Services that it should have been allowed to decline to work with same-sex couples when providing foster care placement services under contract with the City of Philadelphia. 阅读 GLAD 的完整声明.

Watch the virtual briefing about what the ruling means for the LGBTQ community.


In 2018, the City of Philadelphia suspended a contract with Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) to provide foster care placement services because the agency refused to work with married same-sex couples and unmarried couples, violating Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination ordinance. CSS sued the city, claiming, among other things, that the City’s actions violated its rights of free exercise of religion. Seeking an injunction* against the City, CSS lost in the federal trial court and then again on appeal. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 4, 2020 (audio available here).

富尔顿 is poised to be a landmark case on the question of whether religiously-based social welfare organizations that receive taxpayer dollars through local government contracts can be exempt from the government’s nondiscrimination laws. There is a possibility that a decision in 富尔顿 could come to mean that nearly any religious entity, or even a private company asserting its religious beliefs, would have permission to refuse to serve or work with anyone simply because of who they are.

So many people rely on government-funded entities like CSS to fulfill essential needs — for food, housing, health care, and more. This case could lay the foundation for the reversal of protections on which the most vulnerable in our community rely to ensure equal access to goods and services. It could also require the government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. That’s why GLAD, joined by 27 other national, regional, and state LGBTQ advocacy organizations, 提交了一份法庭之友陈述 on August 20, 2020 in support of the City of Philadelphia’s position, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to introduce a broad exemption to nondiscrimination laws that would undermine Constitutional equal protection guarantees and introduce a dangerous and unworkable scheme into local, state, and federal lawmaking.

View GLAD’s brief here 或者 click here to read all of the filings富尔顿诉费城市.

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=155#!trpen#视频#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

领导阻止特朗普和彭斯跨性别军人禁令斗争的 LGBT 法律组织 NCLR 和 GLAD 在“不问,不说”政策结束 7 周年之际发表联合声明

华盛顿特区—今天是美国国防部结束“不问,不说”军事政策七周年——该政策禁止同性恋、双性恋军人公开服役。 国家女同性恋权利中心 (NCLR) 法律总监 Shannon Minter GLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 (GLAD) 跨性别者权利项目主任 Jennifer Levi是第一起旨在阻止特朗普跨性别者参军禁令的诉讼的律师,也是第一起在案件审理期间获得全国范围初步禁令以暂停该禁令的律师,他们发表了以下联合声明:

“七年前,我们国家放弃了毫无根据的歧视性政策,该政策迫使忠诚勇敢的军人退居幕后。

但在特朗普总统的领导下,我们看到历史重演。特朗普-彭斯政府正在重演那些用来为“不问,不说”政策辩护的污名和错误刻板印象,试图驱逐9000名训练有素、合格的跨性别军人,他们目前在国内外光荣服役。

迄今为止,所有审理挑战禁令案件的法庭都承认这些论点毫无根据,任何符合标准的军人都应获准服役。但特朗普-彭斯政府仍在试图推进这项禁令。

“就像我们在‘不问,不说’运动期间与我们的社区站在一起一样,我们将继续与跨性别军人站在一起,直到特朗普违宪、歧视性的跨性别军人禁令被扔进历史的垃圾箱。”

###

通过战略诉讼、公共政策倡导和教育, GLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 致力于在新英格兰和全国范围内创建一个没有基于性别认同和表达、艾滋病毒状况和性取向的歧视的公正社会。 www.GLAD.org

全国女同性恋权利中心 是一个全国性的法律组织,致力于通过诉讼、公共政策倡导和公共教育来促进女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和变性人群体的人权和公民权利。 www.NCLRights.org

GLAD Calls for Investigation of Sexual Assault Allegation and Halt to Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote

Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Executive Director Janson Wu:

Allegations of sexual assault are serious and must be treated as such. Christine Blasey Ford has taken considerable risk by coming forward publicly. These assertions regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh must be thoroughly and conscientiously investigated before any further action is taken regarding his potential appointment to a lifetime term on our nation’s highest court.

We call on the leaders and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to take their duty seriously. The Committee cannot go forward with any vote until there is a full, transparent process to ensure these recently disclosed allegations receive the respectful and sober attention they warrant.

 

博客

Forty years ago, during a different hot, tumultuous summer, at the height of disco and in the wake of orange juice queen 安妮塔·布莱恩特的 national anti-gay crusade, GLAD was born. Young Boston lawyer John Ward submitted articles of incorporation for a new legal organization that would be known as “Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.”

In 1978, Ward knew that it was revolutionary for an organization to have the words 名字里有“同性恋”, much less advocate for LGBTQ legal rights. But revolutions are born out of necessity. The necessity of that moment was 波士顿警方的诱捕行动 该组织针对数百名男同性恋者,并公开他们的性取向。他们需要法律辩护和代理,而约翰挺身而出。

That necessary revolution laid the foundation for what we have so far accomplished together in the past four decades.

Over the last 40 years, GLAD has changed the landscape of LGBTQ rights in more ways than can be summarized. But here are a few:

  • Winning the right of a Rhode Island high school senior to bring his boyfriend to the prom in 1980 in our first federal district court victory, argued by GLAD founder John Ward.
  • Securing anti-discrimination protections for people living with HIV in our first Supreme Court victory 20 years ago, argued by GLAD attorney Ben Klein.
  • Winning marriage equality in all six New England states, and then for the entire nation, in our second Supreme Court victory 3 years ago, argued by GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto.
  • Securing first-of-its-kind victories on transgender rights, including the first state supreme court decision to affirm the right of transgender students to use the appropriate restroom, argued by GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi. (And the young girl GLAD represented in that case, Nicole Maines, is now set to be TVs first transgender superhero).
  • Protecting families, including LGBTQ non-birth parents who have not married or adopted, through court and legislative victories, led by GLAD attorney Polly Crozier.
  • Winning asylum for John Wambere, a Ugandan gay man whose life was in danger due to his LGBTQ activism, thanks to representation by GLAD attorney Allison Wright.

These cases profoundly changed people’s lives, expanded the public picture of who LGBTQ people and people living with HIV are and can be. Some are now taught in law schools all over the country as well as cited in state and federal decisions.

We have a lot to be proud of. But our work together is nowhere near done. If there were ever a time when we needed another revolution, it is now.

We are facing profound attacks.

  • This year, we have seen more than 150 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures across the country.
  • We witnessed the first, but not the last attempt by our opposition to write discrimination into our constitution under the guise of “religious freedom.”
  • And we are on the verge of losing a critical fifth vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, threatening every legal gain we have made on LGBTQ rights over the last 20 years.

We have faced attacks and challenges before. And as our past 40 years of victories show, we know how to fight, we know how to persist, and we know how to win.

One fighter GLAD is proud to represent is our plaintiff Nicolas Talbott. Enlisting in the Air Force had been Nic’s dream for years. When President Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service members last summer, Nic felt like his entire future had been ripped away: “It essentially shattered every plan that I had.”

But instead of falling into despair and apathy, Nic chose to fight. He says, “I finally have been presented the opportunity to stand up and let my voice be heard and fight for my rights.” And thanks to Nic and his co-plaintiffs in GLAD’s two cases, as of this past January, transgender people have the chance to openly enlist for the first time in our country’s history.

What we know that gives us hope is this: we the majority. The majority of Americans are fair, compassionate, and believe in equality and basic human decency.

Those who believe that we should all be celebrated for who we are and who we love – we are the majority. Those who understand that immigrants have always made America great – we are the majority. Those who know that our nation’s strength is rooted in our diversity, not division and exclusion – we are the majority.

But even though we are the majority, we can only win if we unite together toward a common cause.

We have grown beyond our wildest dreams, from the handful of passionate and determined activists who started a revolution 40 years ago when they founded GLAD. Our job today is to continue their work, and never, never stop fighting for a future that realizes our Constitution’s promise of equality, and justice, for all.

Judge Rejects Trump’s Attempts to Quash Trans Military Ban Lawsuit and to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies Trump administration motions to dismiss Doe v. Trump, and to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing the ban from going into effect

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. District Court 法官科琳·科拉尔-科特利今天驳回了 特朗普政府驳回 NCLR 和 GLAD 案件的动议 多伊诉特朗普案, the first lawsuit filed challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban and the first to secure a preliminary injunction stopping the ban from going into effect while the case is heard by the court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied the Trump administration’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which would have jeopardized the careers of nearly all of the thousands of currently serving transgender troops and allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing the ban. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has not yet ruled on plantiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which would resolve the case by issuing a final judgment declaring that the ban is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. In Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order, she emphasized the importance of transgender military service with regard to military readiness, “It should not be forgotten that the United States military remains engaged in numerous armed conflicts throughout the world, and service members are still being injured and killed in those conflicts. The public interest and equities lie with allowing young men and women who are qualified and willing to serve our Nation to do so.” Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s also affirmed the transgender community’s capability to serve, noting, “the Mattis Implementation Plan still accomplishes an extremely broad prohibition on military service by transgender individuals that appears to be divorced from any transgender individual’s actual ability to serve. In the absence of the challenged policy, transgender individuals are subject to all of the same standards and requirements for accession and retention as any other service member. The Mattis Implementation Plan establishes a special additional exclusionary rule that precludes individuals who would otherwise satisfy the demanding standards applicable to all service members simply because they have certain traits that are associated with being transgender.” “The Trump administration’s arguments to dismiss our lawsuit and move forward with the trans military ban are full of sweeping generalizations and false stereotypes about transgender people. It’s clear Judge Kollar-Kotelly isn’t buying it—and neither should anyone else,” said Jennifer Levi,GLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 (GLAD) 跨性别权利项目主任. “Anyone who meets the standards should be able to serve. There is no reason to subject transgender people to unconstitutional and discriminatory treatment, unlike the way the military treats any other group.” “No other military policy excludes a class of persons from serving because of who they are rather than whether they can do the job,” said 香农·明特, 全国女同性恋权利中心(NCLR)法律总监. “Today’s ruling strongly rejects the Trump administration’s attempt to evade the injunction and move forward with their destructive plan to exclude qualified transgender individuals from military service. By the military’s own count, thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our 多伊 plaintiffs has served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq. This ban is not only unconstitutional, it takes aim at dedicated servicemembers and erodes military readiness. We will keep fighting for those who fight for our country.” 背景 2016年6月30日:美国国防部经过近两年的审查,认定没有正当理由仅仅因为跨性别者是合格人员而将其排除在军队服役之外,因此通过了允许跨性别者参军的政策。 2017年7月26日:特朗普总统在推特上表示“美国政府不会接受或允许跨性别者在美国军队中担任任何职务。” 2017年8月9日: NCLR 和 GLAD 提交 多伊诉特朗普案这是第一起为阻止该禁令而提起的诉讼,质疑其合宪性,并请求法院在案件审理期间发布全国性的初步禁令,以阻止禁令生效。 2017年8月25日:特朗普总统发布备忘录,命令国防部长詹姆斯·马蒂斯在 2018 年 2 月 21 日之前提交“实施禁令的计划”。马蒂斯部长于 2018 年 2 月 22 日将此计划(“马蒂斯计划”和小组报告)提交给特朗普总统。 2017年10月30日:美国哥伦比亚特区地方法院裁定 多伊诉特朗普案 原告已经证明了他们的诉求成功的可能性,即特朗普总统的禁令违反了平等保护,如果没有初步禁令来阻止禁令,原告将受到无法弥补的损害,并且公共利益和困难平衡有利于授予禁令救济并在法院审理案件期间暂时停止禁令。 2018年3月23日:特朗普总统接受“马蒂斯计划”,并发布备忘录,“撤销”其8月25日的备忘录。 2018年4月20日:被告提出动议,要求解除美国哥伦比亚特区地方法院于 10 月 30 日颁布的全国性初步禁令,禁止跨性别者参军;提出动议,要求驳回原告的第二份修正申诉;并提出简易判决动议。 2018年5月11日: Plaintiffs file their cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as motions in opposition to Defendant’s motions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban since filing 多伊诉特朗普案,这是针对该禁令提起的四起案件中的第一起,于 2017 年 8 月 9 日. 欲了解更多信息,请访问 NCLR 和 GLAD 的网站 https://notransmilitaryban.org/. ### 通过战略诉讼、公共政策倡导和教育, GLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 致力于在新英格兰和全国范围内创建一个没有基于性别认同和表达、艾滋病毒状况和性取向的歧视的公正社会。 www.GLAD.org 全国女同性恋权利中心 是一个全国性的法律组织,致力于通过诉讼、公共政策倡导和公共教育来促进女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和变性人群体的人权和公民权利。 www.NCLRights.org

Rhines v. Young

GLAD joined five other civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Lambda Legal, National Center for LGBTQ Rights, and National LGBT Bar Association, filed an amici brief today urging the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal of Charles Rhines, a gay man on death row in South Dakota.

According to the filing, new evidence “suggests that at least some members of the jury accepted the notion that life in prison without parole would be fun for a gay person – so much so that they felt it was necessary to impose the death penalty instead. In other words, significant evidence suggests that the jury may have sentenced Mr. Rhines to death based not on the facts of his case, but because he is gay.”  阅读更多

民权组织敦促第八巡回上诉法院受理一名可能因同性恋而被判处死刑的男子的上诉

New evidence shows some jurors may have voted for death for Charles Rhines because they believed he would enjoy life in prison with other men

(St. Louis, Missouri) Six civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Lambda Legal,  GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and National LGBT Bar Association, filed an amici brief today urging the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal of Charles Rhines, a gay man on death row in South Dakota. According to the filing, new evidence “suggests that at least some members of the jury accepted the notion that life in prison without parole would be fun for a gay person – so much so that they felt it was necessary to impose the death penalty instead. In other words, significant evidence suggests that the jury may have sentenced Mr. Rhines to death based not on the facts of his case, but because he is gay.” “Mr. Rhines’s case represents one of the most extreme forms anti-LGBT bias can take. Evidence suggests that he has been on death row for the past 25 years because he is a gay man. The constitutional right to a fair trial must include the right to establish whether a verdict or sentence was imposed due to jury bias,” said Lambda Legal Fair Courts Project Attorney Ethan Rice. “Lambda Legal is proud to work with the ACLU, the ACLU of South Dakota, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the National LGBT Bar Association to provide important information to the Eighth Circuit on the history of bias against LGBT people and how that bias impacts LGBT rights in the criminal legal system.” The amicus brief can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/y8eslggc Mr. Rhines’s Application for Certificate of Appealability can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/y778msud and its exhibits at https://tinyurl.com/y8bz8jor. During jury deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge that indicated that Mr. Rhines’s status as a gay man had become a focal point for deliberations. The note asked whether, if sentenced to life without parole, Mr. Rhines would “be allowed to mix with the general inmate population,” be able to “brag about his crime to other inmates, especially new and/or young men,” enjoy “conjugal visits” and asked other questions about Mr. Rhines’s access to other men while in prison. (Application at p. 6.) The new evidence comes in the form of three statements from jurors who served at Mr. Rhines’s capital trial and sentencing. One juror stated that the jury “knew that [Mr. Rhines] was a homosexual and thought that he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” Another juror recalled a juror commenting that “if he’s gay we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life without parole].” A third juror confirmed that “[t]here was lots of discussion of homosexuality. There was a lot of disgust.” (Application at p. 8.) (See also Amici brief at p. 1). The new evidence confirms what the jury’s note strongly indicated at the time of Mr. Rhines’s sentencing: anti-gay bias played a role in some jurors’ decisions to impose the death penalty on Mr. Rhines. The brief of the amici documents America’s long and painful history of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, which persisted at the time of trial and continues in the present day. The amici wrote to the court: “Well into the twentieth century, gay people were ‘prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.’” (Amici Brief at p. 5 quoting 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案) In 2017, in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states must consider evidence that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant in a non-capital case. As Ria Tabacco Mar has previously discussed, “juror deliberations are considered sacrosanct, but last year the Supreme Court carved out an important exception for cases of racial bias in the jury room.” Attorneys for Mr. Rhines argue that since the principles underlying Peña-Rodriguez apply to anti-gay prejudice, the Eighth Circuit should allow Mr. Rhines the opportunity to present evidence that anti-gay bias was a factor in some jurors’ decisions to sentence him to death. The need for review is especially compelling because the anti-gay bias in Mr. Rhines’s case may have made the difference between life and death. Charles Rhines Case Overview Charles Rhines is a gay man on death row in South Dakota. New evidence shows that some of the jurors who sentenced him to death “knew that he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison” and thought that “if he’s gay we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life in prison].” The jury’s anti-gay bias deprived him of his rights to a fair trial and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Before trial, Mr. Rhines’s attorneys asked prospective jurors if they had any anti-gay bias that would prevent them from giving Mr. Rhines a fair trial. The jurors selected to hear his case said they could be fair and free of prejudice. This turned out not to be true. At trial, the jury heard through witnesses presented by the state that Mr. Rhines was gay and had relationships with other men. They were asked to choose between life in prison without parole and the death penalty for a murder committed when an employee surprised Mr. Rhines in the course of a commercial burglary. During their deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating that deliberations had become infected with anti-gay stereotypes and prejudices. (Application at p. 6.) The judge did not address these questions and failed to head off the anti-gay bias that the questions revealed. The same day, about eight hours later, the jury voted to sentence Mr. Rhines to death. (Application at pp. 5-6.) New evidence confirms that some of the jurors who voted to impose the death penalty on Mr. Rhines did so because they thought the alternative – a life sentence in a men’s prison – was something he would enjoy as a gay man. Three jurors have made statements indicating that anti-gay prejudices played a significant role in the jury’s decision-making. (Amici brief at p. 1.) As Chief Justice Roberts has explained, the core premise of our criminal justice system is that “[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.” (Buck v. Davis) Bias based on a characteristic that cannot be changed, such as race or sexual orientation, goes against this foundational principle. Allowing bias to play any role in sentencing is especially alarming when the bias may have made the difference between life and death. After a verdict and sentencing, the courts do not usually inquire into jury deliberations. However, in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to this rule and directed states to consider evidence that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or prejudice in convicting a defendant. (Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado) In Peña-Rodriguez, after the jury voted to convict a person in a non-death penalty case, two jurors said that another juror believed that the defendant was guilty of unlawful sexual contact and harassment “because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.” (Amici brief at pp. 2-3.) The Court found that evidence of anti-Mexican bias “cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict” and set the verdict aside. (Amici brief at p. 3, quoting Peña-Rodriguez.) On July 26, 2018, Mr. Rhines filed an Application for Certificate of Appealability with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit asserting that Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado applies to his evidence that at least one juror relied on anti-gay stereotypes and animus to sentence him to death. On August 2, 2018, six civil rights groups with a vital interest in eradicating anti-gay bias from America’s legal system filed an amici brief with the Eighth Circuit urging the court to afford Mr. Rhines the opportunity to establish whether bias based on his sexual orientation was a motivation for some jurors in sentencing him to death. As the amici document explains, the jury’s decision to allow Mr. Rhines to live or die occurred in the context of the history of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States. (Amici brief at pp. 7- 9.) While many of the laws that allowed or required discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were repealed or found unconstitutional after Mr. Rhines’s trial, recent years have seen renewed efforts to ban same-sex couples from adopting children, allow discrimination against them by public and private actors, and otherwise maintain their inferior status under the law. (Amici brief at p. 5.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people continue to experience negative consequences because of their sexual orientation. Despite significant progress, eliminating bias based on sexual orientation on the part of the government and private individuals continues to be difficult. For example, the current Attorney General of the United States has argued that employers should be able to fire lesbian, gay, and bisexual people because of their sexuality under federal law and that businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples. (Amici brief at pp. 11-12.) Today, the federal government and 28 states have no laws that expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, leaving lesbian, gay, and bisexual people at risk for discrimination in jobs, housing, education, credit, healthcare, jury service, retail stores, and other aspects of public life. (Amici brief at p. 12.) In 2017, 46 percent of LGBTQ employees reported remaining closeted at work. (Amici brief at p. 13.) 2016 was the deadliest year on record for hate crimes against this community with more than 1,000 incidents of hate violence reported. (Amici brief at p. 15.) Historic and present-day anti-gay bias infects the justice system, just as it does other aspects of life. In a 2008 study, a majority of police chiefs said they believed that being gay constitutes “moral turpitude” and a “perversion.” This continuing bias helps explain why gay men are still targeted for lewdness offenses and why young lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are more likely to get stopped by police or arrested than their heterosexual peers. (Amici brief at pp. 14-15.) Research shows that discriminatory attitudes against lesbians, gays, and bisexual people negatively affect their experiences in the civil and criminal courts as jurors, litigants, court employees, and other participants. For example, in a 2001 study of the California court system, more than a third of lesbian, gay, and bisexual court users “felt threatened in the court setting because of their sexual orientation.” (Amici brief at p. 17.) (See also Application at p. 12.) Of jurors who participated in mock trials between 2002 and 2008, a jury research firm found that 45 percent believed that being gay “is not an acceptable lifestyle.” (Amici brief at p. 19.) These persistent attitudes open the door to a gay defendant who is convicted of murder to receive the death penalty, instead of a sentence of life without parole, because of his sexual orientation, rather than the nature of the crime. Punishing people based on who they are is fundamentally “inconsistent with our commitment to the equal dignity of all persons.” (Amici brief at p. 4, quoting Peña-Rodriguez.) The court should accept Mr. Rhines’s case to allow him to show whether anti-gay prejudice factored into the jury’s decision to sentence him to death.  ### For more information, or to speak with Mr. Rhines’s attorneys or one of the amici civil rights organizations, please contact Margot Friedman at mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com or 202-332-5550 or 202-330-9295 (c).

GLAD & NCLR Statement on the Transgender Military Ban, a Year After Trump’s Tweets

“One of our plaintiffs, Jane Doe 3, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and said she was having breakfast after completing her morning PT [physical training] when she first saw news coverage of Trump’s tweets. She remembered taking a sip of coffee and wondering if at that exact moment her commander was signing her separation paperwork.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today marks one year since President Trump tweeted that the U.S. Government would not allow transgender individuals “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” Two weeks later, NCLR and GLAD filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s ban and then were first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while it is being heard by the court. To date, four lawsuits have now been filed against Trump’s ban, each respectively securing a preliminary injunction. While this fight continues, there are more than 9,000 currently serving transgender troops and transgender Americans are openly seeking to enlist. 国家女同性恋权利中心 (NCLR) 法律总监 Shannon MinterGLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 (GLAD) 跨性别者权利项目主任 Jennifer Levi, two transgender attorneys at the center of the fight to stop Trump’s ban, issued the following joint statement in response: “One year ago, President Trump launched an attack on his own troops. No other military policy excludes a class of persons from enlisting or serving. The Trump-Pence ban discriminates against people based on who they are—not whether they can do the job. “One of our plaintiffs, Jane Doe 3, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and said she was having breakfast after completing her morning PT [physical training] when she first saw news coverage of Trump’s tweets. She remembered taking a sip of coffee and wondering if at that exact moment her commander was signing her separation paperwork. Her life and career had been turned upside down in an instant. “This reckless, impulsive ban wreaked havoc on the lives and families of the more than 9,000 currently serving trans troops. During the course of litigation, discovery has confirmed that the ban took even the most senior military leaders by surprise. It contradicts military research and experts and undermines our nation’s military readiness. “So far, this ban has failed in court at every level. But the Trump administration continues to dig in its heels, and so this fight must continue on behalf of our brave trans troops and those transgender Americans willing to sacrifice everything to serve.” For more information, go to www.notransmilitaryban.org.

法院要求对奥马哈互助保险公司的反 PrEP、反同性恋政策做出不利于其偏见的裁决

Today GLAD filed a 简易判决动议 这是首例针对一名服用 Truvada 药物作为暴露前预防 (PrEP) 来预防艾滋病毒传播的男同性恋者的歧视的案件。

The plaintiff in Doe诉奥马互助保险公司A声称,保险公司拒绝向他出售长期护理保险,是因为它明确排除所有HIV阴性且服用PrEP的人。Doe声称,Mutual的全面排除构成性取向歧视,因为80%的PrEP使用者都是男同性恋。他还以“感知残疾”为由提出歧视索赔。

“There is no legitimate reason for Mutual’s exclusionary rule. It has no business rationale and flies in the face of common sense,” said Bennett Klein, Senior Attorney and Director of GLAD’s AIDS Law Project.

“Mutual would insure the same person 不是 on PrEP — who presents the higher risk of HIV. Mutual’s policy is illogical and contrary to how it treats other medications. The only explanation for the exclusion of people who take a drug associated with gay men is that it is based on aversion to gay male sexuality and nothing else. In our view, it’s pure homophobia.”

In depositions cited by GLAD, Mutual’s own experts and its medical director made multiple admissions, among them:

  • PrEP is “highly effective” against HIV;
  • Mutual’s policy is contrary to its stated underwriting goal of reducing the number of people with HIV among its insureds; and
  • While Mutual excludes applicants who take PrEP as directed and are at low risk for HIV, the company sells insurance to applicants who do not take PrEP and are thus at higher risk for HIV.

Mutual of Omaha has variously claimed that its treatment of people taking Truvada is justified because of concerns about adherence to the treatment and because of the lack of long-term data on the effects of Truvada. But these rationales are contradicted by Mutual’s provision of long-term care insurance to applicants taking drugs for other illnesses.

This case, the first to challenge the anti-gay policy that is widespread in the industry, has brought national prominence to the issue and prompted some state insurance agencies to consider action. In June, the New York Department of Financial Services issued a 指示 将接受 PrEP 治疗的人排除在人寿、残疾和长期护理保险之外是违法歧视。

该动议已提交至美国马萨诸塞州地区法院,同时还驳斥了 Mutual 的管辖权异议。

博客

July 4 has always been one of my favorite holidays.

I’ve always loved fireworks on the Esplanade, grilling in friends’ backyards, and Sousa marches – no surprise after many years of marching band.

But loving “Independence Day” has also meant reconciling two conflicting truths: one, that America was founded on the genocide of a continent’s native people, the enslavement of Africans for use as a labor force, and the subjugation of women; the other, that America’s trajectory toward our ideals of equality and justice led us to elect our first African-American president, despite having Hussein as a middle name.

It is because I have faith in our country to be better, that I do the work that I do.

And yet, these past weeks have shaken me. I have felt anger, and cynicism, and despair.

Two weeks ago, we saw the unfolding of a humanitarian catastrophe with the separation of refugee children – including toddlers and babies – from their parents. The response across the U.S. – horror, outrage, condemnation – was palpable.

It’s hard not to give into despair.

But then I remember: we are the majority in this country.

Those who believe that immigrants have always made America great, are the majority.

Those who understand that the free press protects all of us, are the majority.

Those who understand that our nation’s strength is rooted in our diversity, not division and exclusion – we are the majority.

The majority of Americans are fair, compassionate, and believe in equality.

So then, if we are the majority, how is it that supporters of fairness and democracy have lost power and influence within all three branches of our federal government?

A large part of the explanation is that our opponents have cheated. They have picked their own voters to ensure their reelection, through redistricting and voter disenfranchisement; they have willfully distorted perceptions of reality, appealing to fear rather than truth; they have stolen a Supreme Court seat to solidify their power.

It is infuriating. And while a part of me wants to fight fire with fire, to stoop to their level – we must be better. We must take the higher road.

The way we can win is by being even more disciplined than we already are.

First, we have to be more disciplined in our principles.

We are stronger when we are together, and we can’t afford to leave anyone behind, especially the most vulnerable communities. We are one justice movement. That is how we will fight, and that is how we will win.

Second, we have to be more disciplined in our focus.

Two weeks ago, we saw the unfolding of a humanitarian catastrophe with the separation of refugee children – including toddlers and babies – from their parents. The response across the U.S. – horror, outrage, condemnation – was palpable.

Perhaps for the first time, we saw a real chink in President Trump’s armor of amorality.

Then, in the midst of this moment, the conversation turned to what the First Lady was wearing.

To be clear, no person of any decency would have thought that jacket was acceptable.

But it also shifted the news coverage from the horrific videos of crying children ripped from their parent’s arms, which we know alarmed some soft Trump supporters.

And just as expected – or perhaps intended – soft Trump supporters yet again fell back along tribal lines, the second they felt our attacks against the First Lady as attacks against themselves.

We cannot afford to allow our nation to forget about those children for one second. They deserve that chance.

The marches and rallies that took place across the U.S. on June 30 are part of that sustained focus. And as the advocates who have been fighting unjust immigration practices for years can tell us, we have to keep showing up.

Third, we have to be more disciplined in our tactics. In a word, we have to vote.

We must do everything we can to protect the fundamental right to vote for every one of us. That means working for the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and to remove barriers to registration. It means pushing back against unconstitutional gerrymandering.

We must stay engaged in the electoral process at the local, state and federal level. We must communicate with our representatives. And we must get ourselves and our neighbors to the polls every single election day.

We have to be more disciplined in our tactics. In a word, we have to vote.

Finally, we have to be more disciplined in our social justice habits.

Just like a runner training for a marathon, we must build habits that incorporate social justice into our daily lives.

Join a community of social justice friends, such as IndivisibleMovement for Black Lives. Make friends to go with you to rallies, knock on doors, or attend a fundraiser. Because evidence shows it is easier to form habits when you have a community of accountability and support.

Become a sustaining donor to an organization. Given Justice Kennedy’s impending retirement, I would recommend three organizations at the front lines of that battle –Alliance for Justice, 这 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,以及 American Constitution Society.

We cannot afford to wait until it is too late. Now is the time to fight, with everything we’ve got.

Creating habits also requires rest. Take the sabbath off – whatever that means for you. Spend time with loved ones. Enjoy a favorite hobby. Take a walk.

When I need a break at work, I often take a walk to the Old South Meeting House, where the seeds of the American Revolution were planted. It was a site for protest, dissent, and resistance. At the time, those planting the seeds did not know for sure whether they would prevail. But they knew that authoritarianism was too great an evil to ignore.

Likewise, we must act now, not to forge a new nation, but rather to save one that we have fought so hard to make better. To preserve a union that generations of freedom fighters have given their lives to make fairer and more just. To free a society from the shackles of hatred, resentment, and distrust.

We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Now is the time to fight, with everything we’ve got.

zh_CN简体中文
隐私概述

本网站使用 Cookie,以便我们为您提供最佳的用户体验。Cookie 信息存储在您的浏览器中,并执行诸如在您返回我们的网站时识别您的身份,以及帮助我们的团队了解您认为网站中哪些部分最有趣和最实用等功能。