National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 39 of 59 - GLAD Law
跳過標題到內容
GLAD Logo 跳過主導航到內容

富爾頓訴費城市

更新: 2021年6月17日,最高法院對天主教社會服務機構(CSS)發布了一項範圍狹窄且具有限制性的裁決,該裁決側重於具體的合約措辭。該裁決保留了更廣泛的原則,即政府可以要求承包商(包括宗教機構)在提供納稅人資助的社會服務時遵守反歧視法,包括保護同性已婚伴侶的法律。法院裁定費城與CSS簽訂的合約不可執行,但法院這樣做的原因是,該合約允許根據具體情況酌情豁免,但不會考慮CSS的訴求。該案源於天主教社會服務機構的一項主張,即其在根據與費城市政府簽訂的合約提供寄養安置服務時,應該被允許拒絕與同性伴侶合作。 閱讀 GLAD 的完整聲明.

觀看虛擬簡報,了解該裁決對 LGBTQ 群體的意義.


2018年,費城暫停了與天主教社會服務機構(「CSS」)簽訂的提供寄養安置服務的合同,原因是該機構拒絕與已婚同性伴侶和未婚伴侶合作,違反了費城的反歧視條例。 CSS起訴了費城,聲稱市政府的行為侵犯了其宗教自由權等。法院正在尋求禁令。* 起訴市府後,CSS在聯邦初審法院敗訴,隨後上訴失敗。該案於2020年11月4日在最高法院審理(音訊可在此處取得).

富爾頓 該案將成為一項具有里程碑意義的案件,其焦點在於,透過地方政府合約獲得納稅人資金的宗教社會福利組織是否能夠免受政府反歧視法的約束。 富爾頓 這可能意味著幾乎任何宗教實體,甚至是宣揚其宗教信仰的私人公司,都有權拒絕為任何人提供服務或合作,僅僅因為他們的身份。

許多人依賴像CSS這樣的政府資助機構來滿足基本需求——食物、住房、醫療保健等等。此案可能為逆轉我們社區中最弱勢群體賴以平等獲得商品和服務的保護措施奠定基礎。它也可能要求各級政府為歧視性群體提供資金。 因此,GLAD 與其他 27 個全國性、地區性和州級 LGBTQ 倡導組織一起, 提交了一份法庭之友陳述 2020 年 8 月 20 日,為支持費城市政府的立場, 敦促美國最高法院 不要對反歧視法案引入廣泛的豁免,因為這將破壞憲法規定的平等保護保障,並在地方、州和聯邦立法中引入危險且不可行的方案。

按此處查看 GLAD 簡介 或者 點擊此處閱讀全部文件富爾頓訴費城市.

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=161#!trpen#影片#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

NCLR and GLAD, the LGBT Legal Organizations Leading the Fight to Stop the Trump-Pence Trans Military Ban, Joint Statement on 7 Years Since the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

WASHINGTON, DC—Today marks seven years since the U.S. Department of Defense ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—the military policy that prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers from open service. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, the attorneys who filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s transgender military ban and the first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while the case is heard in court, issued the following joint statement:

“Seven years ago, our country discarded a baseless and discriminatory policy that forced dedicated and courageous servicemembers into the shadows.

“But under President Trump, we see history repeating itself. The same stigma and false stereotypes used to justify Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are being reprised by the Trump-Pence administration in an attempt to force out 9,000 trained, qualified transgender troops, who are serving honorably at home and overseas.

“To date, every court to hear a case challenging the ban has recognized that these arguments ring hollow and that any servicemember who can meet the standards should be permitted to serve. But the Trump-Pence administration continues to try to push the ban forward.

“Just as we stood with our community during Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, we will continue to stand with transgender servicemembers now until Trump’s unconstitutional, discriminatory transgender military ban is relegated to the dustbin of history.”

###

透過策略性訴訟、公共政策倡議和教育, GLBTQ 法律倡議者與捍衛者 致力於在新英格蘭和全國範圍內創建一個沒有基於性別認同和表達、愛滋病毒狀況和性取向的歧視的公正社會。 www.GLAD.org

全國女同性戀權利中心 是一個全國性的法律組織,致力於透過訴訟、公共政策倡議和公共教育來促進女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀和跨性別群體的人權和公民權利。 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.

 

部落格

四十年前,在一個炎熱、動盪不安的夏天, 迪斯可的高度 繼橙汁女王之後 安妮塔·布萊恩特的 一場全國性的反同性戀運動,同性戀者反歧視聯盟(GLAD)就此誕生。年輕的波士頓律師約翰沃德提交了一份章程,成立了一個新的法律組織,名為「同性戀倡導與捍衛者」。

1978 年,沃德知道,對一個組織來說,擁有這樣的話是革命性的 名字裡有“同性戀”更不用說倡導LGBTQ合法權利了。但革命是出於必要。那一刻的必要性是 波士頓警方的誘捕行動 該組織針對數百名男同性戀者,並公開他們的性取向。他們需要法律辯護和代理,而約翰挺身而出。

這場必要的革命為我們過去四十年來共同的成就奠定了基礎。

過去40年來,GLAD以多種方式改變了LGBTQ族群的權利格局,難以一一概括。以下列舉一些:

  • 贏得羅德島高中生的權利 1980 年帶男友參加舞會 這是我們第一次在聯邦地區法院取得勝利,由 GLAD 創始人約翰沃德 (John Ward) 辯護。
  • 確保反歧視 保護愛滋病毒感染者 這是我們 20 年前在最高法院取得的第一次勝利,由 GLAD 律師 Ben Klein 辯護。
  • 三年前,我們在最高法院第二次獲勝,在 GLAD 律師 Mary Bonauto 的辯護下,在新英格蘭所有六個州,進而在全國範圍內贏得了婚姻平等。
  • GLAD 律師 Jennifer Levi 為跨性別者權益辯護,取得了史無前例的勝利,其中包括州最高法院首次裁定確認跨性別學生使用合適衛生間的權利。 (GLAD 在該案中代理的那位年輕女孩, 妮可梅恩斯 (Nicole Maines) 即將成為電視上第一位變性超級英雄。
  • 保護家庭,包括未結婚或收養的 LGBTQ 非親生父母,透過由 GLAD 律師 Polly Crozier 領導的法庭和立法勝利。
  • 獲勝 庇護 感謝 GLAD 律師 Allison Wright 的代理,為因參與 LGBTQ 活動而生命受到威脅的烏幹達同性戀男子 John Wambere 伸張正義。

這些案件深刻地改變了人們的生活,拓寬了公眾對LGBTQ群體和HIV感染者身分和未來發展方向的認知。其中一些案件如今在全國各地的法學院教授,並在州和聯邦的判決中被引用。

我們有很多值得驕傲的地方。但我們的共同努力還遠遠未完成。如果說我們需要另一場革命,那就是現在。

我們正面臨嚴重的攻擊.

  • 今年,我們看到全國各州立法機構提出了 150 多項反 LGBTQ 法案。
  • 我們目睹了反對派第一次(但絕不是最後一次)試圖以「宗教自由」為幌子將歧視寫入憲法。
  • 我們正在進行 即將失去關鍵的第五票 在美國最高法院,威脅到我們過去 20 年在 LGBTQ 權利方面取得的每一項法律成果。

我們過去也曾面臨攻擊和挑戰。正如我們過去40年的勝利所表明的那樣,我們知道如何戰鬥,知道如何堅持,也知道如何取勝。

GLAD 很榮幸能代表我們的原告 Nicolas Talbott。加入空軍是尼克多年來的夢想。去年夏天,川普總統在推特上發布了禁止跨性別軍人參軍的禁令,尼克感覺自己的整個未來都被剝奪了:“這基本上粉碎了我所有的計劃。”

但尼克沒有陷入絕望和冷漠,而是選擇了抗爭。他說:「我終於有機會站起來,讓我的聲音被聽到,為我的權利而戰。」感謝尼克和他在同性戀者反歧視聯盟(GLAD)兩起案件中的共同原告,自今年1月起,跨性別者有機會在我國歷史上首次公開參軍。

我們知道,帶給我們希望的是: 我們 大多數。大多數美國人都是公正、富有同情心的,並且相信平等和基本的人性尊嚴。

那些相信我們都應該因我們是誰以及我們所愛的人而受到讚揚的人——我們是大多數。那些理解移民一直以來成就美國偉大的人——我們是大多數。那些深知我們國家的力量根植於多元化而非分裂和排斥的人——我們是大多數。

但即使我們佔多數,我們也只有團結起來,為了一個共同的目標,才能取得勝利。

我們已經超越了最狂野的夢想,從40年前幾位充滿熱情、意志堅定的活動家創立同性戀聯盟(GLAD)開始,掀起了一場革命。今天,我們的任務是繼承他們的事業,永不停止為實現憲法賦予人人平等和正義的承諾而奮鬥。

法官駁回川普撤銷跨性別軍事禁令訴訟和解除初步禁令的請求

地區法官科琳·科拉爾-科特利 (Colleen Kollar-Kotelly) 駁回了川普政府提出的駁回 Doe 訴川普案的動議,並駁回了撤銷阻止禁令生效的初步禁令的動議。

華盛頓特區—美國地方法院 法官科琳·科拉爾-科特利今天駁回了 川普政府駁回 NCLR 和 GLAD 案件的動議 多伊訴川普案這是第一起針對川普-彭斯跨性別軍人禁令提起的訴訟,也是第一起獲得初步禁令的訴訟,該禁令在法院審理此案期間阻止禁令生效。法官科拉-科特利還駁回了川普政府提出的解除初步禁令的動議,該動議將危及目前服役的數千名跨性別軍人中的幾乎所有人的職業生涯,並允許川普政府開始實施禁令。法官科拉-科特利尚未對原告提出的簡易判決動議作出裁決。簡易判決將透過發布最終判決來解決此案,宣布禁令違憲且無法實施。在科拉-科特利法官的命令中,她 強調跨性別者服兵役的重要性 關於軍事準備,「不應忘記,美國軍隊仍在世界各地參與眾多武裝衝突,軍人仍在這些衝突中傷亡。公眾利益和公平在於允許有資格並願意為國效力的年輕男女這樣做。」科拉爾-科特利法官還 肯定了跨性別群體服務的能力並指出,「馬蒂斯實施計劃仍然對跨性別者服兵役進行了極其廣泛的禁令,這似乎與跨性別者實際服役的能力脫節。在沒有受到質疑的政策的情況下,跨性別者在入伍和留任方面應與其他服役人員一樣遵守所有相同的標準和要求。馬蒂斯實施計劃設立了一個特殊的 額外的 排除規則將那些原本符合適用於所有服役人員的嚴格標準的個人排除在外,僅僅因為他們具有與跨性別者相關的某些特徵。 「川普政府駁回我們的訴訟並推進跨性別軍人禁令的論點充滿了對跨性別者的籠統概括和錯誤刻板印象。很明顯,科拉爾-科特利法官不會接受這種說法——其他人也不應該接受,」他說。 Jennifer Levi,GLBTQ 法律倡導者和捍衛者 (GLAD) 跨性別權利計畫主任「任何符合標準的人都應該可以服役。沒有理由對跨性別者進行違憲和歧視性的待遇,這與軍隊對待其他群體的方式不同。」 「沒有任何其他軍事政策會因為某一類人的身份而不是他們是否能勝任工作而將他們排除在服役之外,」他說。 香農·明特, 國家女同性戀權利中心(NCLR)法律總監今天的裁決強烈駁斥了川普政府試圖規避禁令並推進其破壞性計劃的行為,該計劃旨在將符合條件的跨性別者排除在軍隊服役之外。根據軍方統計,目前有數千名跨性別軍人正在服役——這是我們軍隊中 多伊 原告曾多次在國外服役,其中兩次在伊拉克。這項禁令不僅違憲,也針對敬業的軍人,削弱了軍事準備。我們將繼續為那些為國而戰的人們而戰。 背景 2016年6月30日:美國國防部經過近兩年的審查,認定沒有正當理由僅僅因為跨性別者是合格人員而將其排除在軍隊服役之外,因此通過了允許跨性別者參軍的政策。 2017年7月26日:川普總統在推特上表示“美國政府不會接受或允許跨性別者在美國軍隊中擔任任何職位。” 2017年8月9日: NCLR 和 GLAD 提交 多伊訴川普案這是第一起為阻止該禁令而提起的訴訟,質疑其合憲性,並請求法院在案件審理期間發布全國性的初步禁令,以阻止禁令生效。 2017年8月25日:川普總統發布備忘錄,命令國防部長詹姆斯馬蒂斯在 2018 年 2 月 21 日之前提交「實施禁令的計畫」。馬蒂斯部長於 2018 年 2 月 22 日將此計畫(「馬蒂斯計畫」和小組報告)提交給川普總統。 2017年10月30日:美國哥倫比亞特區地方法院裁定 多伊訴川普案 原告已經證明了他們的訴求成功的可能性,即川普總統的禁令違反了平等保護,如果沒有初步禁令來阻止禁令,原告將受到無法彌補的損害,並且公共利益和困難平衡有利於授予禁令救濟並在法院審理案件期間暫時停止禁令。 2018年3月23日:川普總統接受“馬蒂斯計劃”,並發布備忘錄,“撤銷”其8月25日的備忘錄。 2018年4月20日:被告提出動議,要求解除美國哥倫比亞特區地方法院於 10 月 30 日頒布的全國性初步禁令,禁止跨性別者參軍;提出動議,要求駁回原告的第二份修正申訴;並提出簡易判決動議。 2018年5月11日:原告提交了簡易判決的交叉動議,以及反對被告解除禁制令和駁回原告訴狀的動議。自提起訴訟以來,NCLR 和 GLAD 一直處於挑戰川普-彭斯跨性別軍人禁令的法律鬥爭的中心。 多伊訴川普案,這是針對該禁令提起的四起案件中的第一起,於 2017 年 8 月 9 日. 欲了解更多信息,請訪問 NCLR 和 GLAD 的網站 https://notransmilitaryban.org/. ### 透過策略性訴訟、公共政策倡議和教育, GLBTQ 法律倡議者與捍衛者 致力於在新英格蘭和全國範圍內創建一個沒有基於性別認同和表達、愛滋病毒狀況和性取向的歧視的公正社會。 www.GLAD.org 全國女同性戀權利中心 是一個全國性的法律組織,致力於透過訴訟、公共政策倡議和公共教育來促進女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀和跨性別群體的人權和公民權利。 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.”  閱讀更多

民權組織敦促第八巡迴上訴法院受理一名可能因同性戀而被判死刑的男子的上訴

新的證據表明,一些陪審員可能投票判處查爾斯·萊因斯死刑,因為他們認為他會和其他人一起在監獄裡度過餘生

(密蘇裡州聖路易斯)六個民權組織,包括美國公民自由聯盟、南達科他州美國公民自由聯盟、Lambda Legal、GLBTQ 法律倡導者和捍衛者、全國女同性戀權利中心和全國 LGBT 律師協會,今天提交了一份法庭之友意見書,敦促第八巡迴上訴法院審理南達科他州死囚查爾斯·萊因斯的上訴。意見書稱,新證據“表明,至少部分陪審團成員認為,對於同性戀者來說,終身監禁且不得假釋也很有趣——以至於他們認為有必要判處死刑。換句話說,大量證據表明,陪審團判處萊因斯先生死刑可能並非基於案件事實,而是因為他是同性戀。” 「萊因斯先生的案件代表了反LGBT偏見最極端的形式之一。證據表明,過去25年來,他一直因為同性戀身份而被判處死刑。憲法賦予的公平審判權必須包含確定判決或量刑是否基於陪審團偏見的權利,」Lambda Legal公平法院計畫律師Ethan Rice表示。 「Lambda Legal很榮幸能與美國公民自由聯盟、南達科他州美國公民自由聯盟、GLBTQ法律倡導與捍衛者組織、全國女同性戀權利中心以及全國LGBT律師協會合作,向第八巡迴上訴法院提供有關LGBT人群偏見歷史及其如何影響刑事司法體系中LGBT 法庭之友意見書可在此處查看:意見書可在此處查看:群體權利的重要信息。 https://tinyurl.com/y8eslggc 萊因斯先生的上訴證明申請可以在以下網址查看: https://tinyurl.com/y778msud 及其展品 https://tinyurl.com/y8bz8jor陪審團審議期間,陪審團向法官發出說明,指出萊因斯先生的同性戀身分已成為審議的焦點。說明詢問,如果被判處終身監禁不得假釋,萊因斯先生是否“被允許與普通囚犯交往”,是否能夠“向其他囚犯,特別是新囚犯和/或年輕男性吹噓他的罪行”,是否享有“夫妻探視權”,並詢問了有關萊因斯先生在獄中與其他男性接觸的其他問題。 (申請書見第 6 頁。)新證據來自三名參加萊因斯先生死刑審判和宣判的陪審員的陳述。其中一名陪審員表示,陪審團“知道 [萊因斯先生] 是同性戀,並認為他不應該在監獄裡與男性共度一生。”另一名陪審員回憶起一位陪審員的評論:“如果他是同性戀,即使我們投票支持[終身監禁,不得假釋],我們也會把他送到他想去的地方。”第三名陪審員證實:「(案例)中有很多關於同性戀的討論,充滿了厭惡情緒。」(申請書,第8頁)(另見第1頁的陪審團之友意見書)。新證據證實了陪審團在萊因斯先生宣判時的記錄中強烈指出的內容:反同性戀偏見在某些陪審員對萊因斯先生判處死刑的決定中發揮了一定作用。陪審團之友意見書記錄了美國長期以來對女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀者長期存在的痛苦歧視歷史,這種歧視在審判時仍然存在,並持續至今。法庭之友寫信給法院:「直到二十世紀,同性戀者仍然『被禁止從事大多數政府工作,被禁止服兵役,被移民法排除在外,成為警方的打擊目標,並被剝奪結社權利。』」(法庭之友簡報第 5 頁引用 奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯案) 2017年, 佩尼亞-羅德里格斯訴科羅拉多州美國最高法院裁定,各州必須考慮陪審員在非死刑案件中依賴種族刻板印像或敵意定罪被告的證據。正如裡亞·塔巴科·馬爾所說 先前討論過「陪審團的審議被視為神聖不可侵犯,但去年最高法院制定了一項 重要例外 陪審團室內種族偏見案件的審理。 」萊因斯先生的律師辯稱,由於 佩尼亞-羅德里格斯 鑑於反同性戀偏見適用,第八巡迴上訴法院應允許萊因斯先生提供證據,證明反同性戀偏見是部分陪審員判處其死刑的因素之一。鑑於萊因斯先生一案中的反同性戀偏見可能決定了其生死,因此復審的必要性尤其迫切。 查爾斯·萊因斯案概述 查爾斯·萊因斯是南達科他州死囚牢房中的同性戀男子。新證據表明,判處他死刑的一些陪審員“知道他是同性戀,認為他不應該在監獄裡與男人共度餘生”,並認為“如果他是同性戀,即使我們投票支持[終身監禁],我們也會把他送到他想去的地方”。陪審團的反同性戀偏見剝奪了他根據第六和第十四修正案獲得公正審判和正當程序的權利。在開庭前,萊因斯先生的律師詢問候選陪審員是否存在任何反同性戀偏見,阻止他們給予萊因斯先生公正審判。被選中審理此案的陪審員表示,他們可以做到公正無偏見。但事實證明並非如此。在審判中,陪審團透過州政府提供的證人得知,萊因斯先生是同性戀,並且與其他男性有關係。他們被要求在終身監禁(不得假釋)和死刑之間做出選擇,因為萊因斯先生在一次商業盜竊過程中被一名員工突襲致死。在審議期間,陪審團向法官發出通知,指出審議受到了反同性戀刻板印象和偏見的影響。 (申請見第 6 頁。)法官沒有回答這些問題,也未能阻止問題所揭露的反同性戀偏見。同一天,大約八小時後,陪審團投票判處萊因斯先生死刑。 (申請見第 5-6 頁。)新證據證實,一些投票判處萊因斯先生死刑的陪審員這樣做是因為他們認為另一種選擇——男子監獄的終身監禁——是萊因斯先生作為一名同性戀者會享受的。三名陪審員發表聲明,表示反同性戀偏見在陪審團的決策中發揮了重要作用。 (Amici 陳述書第 1 頁。)正如首席大法官羅伯茨所解釋的那樣,我們的刑事司法系統的核心前提是「我們的法律懲罰人們的行為,而不是他們的身份。」(巴克訴戴維斯案) 基於種族或性取向等無法改變的特徵而產生的偏見違反了這個基本原則。允許偏見在量刑中發揮作用尤其令人擔憂,因為偏見可能決定了生死。判決和量刑後,法院通常不會調查陪審團的審議情況。然而,2017年,美國最高法院承認了這項規則的例外,並指示各州考慮陪審員在定罪被告時依賴種族刻板印像或偏見的證據。聚乙烯ña-羅德里格斯訴科羅拉多州) 在 佩尼亞-羅德里格斯在一樁非死刑案件中,陪審團投票判定某人有罪後,兩名陪審員表示,另一名陪審員認為被告犯有非法性接觸和性騷擾罪,「因為他是墨西哥人,而墨西哥男人想做什麼就做什麼」。 (Amici 案情摘要,第 2-3 頁)法院認為,反墨西哥偏見的證據“對陪審團審議和最終裁決的公平性和公正性產生了嚴重懷疑”,並撤銷了裁決。 (Amici 案情摘要,第 3 頁,引用 羅德里格斯)2018 年 7 月 26 日,Rhines 先生向美國第八巡迴上訴法院提交了一份上訴證書申請,聲稱 佩尼亞-羅德里格斯訴科羅拉多州 適用於他的證據,即至少有一名陪審員基於反同性戀刻板印象和敵意判處他死刑。 2018年8月2日,六個致力於消除美國司法體系中反同性戀偏見的民權組織向第八巡迴法院提交了一份“法庭之友”意見書,敦促法院給予萊因斯先生機會,以確定基於其性取向的偏見是否是一些陪審員判處他死刑的動機。正如這份「法庭之友」意見書所解釋的那樣,陪審團允許萊因斯先生生死存亡的決定,是在美國歷史上歧視女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀的背景下做出的。 (Amici 辯護狀,第 7-9 頁)雖然在萊因斯先生受審後,許多允許或要求歧視女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀的法律被廢除或被判違憲,但近年來,人們再次努力禁止同性伴侶收養兒童,允許公共和私人行為者歧視他們,並在其他方面維護他們在法律下的低下地位。 (Amici 辯護狀,第 5 頁)女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀者繼續因其性取向而遭受負面影響。儘管取得了重大進展,但消除政府和私人基於性取向的偏見仍然很困難。例如,美國現任司法部長辯稱,雇主應該能夠根據聯邦法律因性取向而解僱女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀者,而面向公眾的企業應該能夠歧視同性伴侶。 (Amici 簡報,第 11-12 頁。)如今,聯邦政府和 28 個州沒有明確禁止基於性取向的歧視的法律,這使得女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀者在工作、住房、教育、信貸、醫療保健、陪審服務、零售店和公共生活的其他方面面臨歧視的風險。 (Amici 簡報,第 12 頁。)2017 年,46% 的 LGBTQ 員工表示在工作中仍隱瞞性取向。 (Amici 簡報,第 13 頁。)2016 年是有記錄以來針對該群體的仇恨犯罪死亡人數最多的一年,報告的仇恨暴力事件超過 1,000 起。 (Amici 簡報,第 15 頁。)歷史和當今的反同性戀偏見感染著司法系統,就像它感染生活的其他方面一樣。在 2008 年的一項研究中,大多數警察局長表示,他們認為同性戀是「道德敗壞」和「變態」。這種持續存在的偏見有助於解釋為何男同性戀者仍是猥褻犯罪的目標,以及為何年輕的女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀者比異性戀同齡人更容易被警察攔下或逮捕。 (Amici 案情摘要,第14-15頁。)研究表明,對女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀者的歧視態度會對他們作為陪審員、訴訟當事人、法院工作人員和其他參與者在民事和刑事法庭上的體驗產生負面影響。例如,2001年對加州法院系統的一項研究表明,超過三分之一的女同性戀、男同性戀和雙性戀法庭使用者「因其性取向而在法庭環境中感到受到威脅」。 (Amici 案情摘要,第17頁。)(另見申請,第12頁。)一家陪審團研究公司發現,在2002年至2008年期間參加模擬審判的陪審員中,45%的人認為同性戀「不是一種可接受的生活方式」。 (Amici 案情摘要,第19頁。)這些根深蒂固的態度,為同性戀被告人被判謀殺罪,可能因其性取向而非犯罪性質而被判處死刑,而非終身監禁,不得假釋。基於身分而懲罰他人,從根本上來說「違背了我們對所有人平等尊嚴的承諾」。 (Amici 案情摘要,第4頁,引用 佩尼亞-羅德里格斯。) 法庭應該受理萊因斯先生的案件,讓他證明反同性戀偏見是否是陪審團判他死刑的決定因素之一。  ### 如需了解更多信息,或與 Rhines 先生的律師或某個民權組織之友交談,請聯繫 Margot Friedman,郵箱:mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com,電話:202-332-5550 或 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. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon MinterGLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director 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.

法院要求對奧馬哈互助保險公司的反 PrEP、反同性戀政策做出不利於其偏見的裁決

Today GLAD filed a 簡易判決動議 這是首例針對一名服用 Truvada 藥物作為暴露前預防 (PrEP) 來預防愛滋病毒傳播的男同性戀者的歧視的案件。

The plaintiff in Doe訴奧馬哈互助保險公司A聲稱,保險公司拒絕向他出售長期照護保險,是因為它明確排除所有HIV陰性且服用PrEP的人。 Doe聲稱,Mutual的全面排除構成性傾向歧視,因為80%的PrEP使用者都是男同性戀。他也以「感知殘疾」為由提出歧視主張。

“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 將接受 PrEP 治療的人排除在人壽、殘疾和長期照護保險之外是違法歧視。

該動議已提交至美國馬薩諸塞州地區法院,同時也駁斥了 Mutual 的管轄權異議。

部落格

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, 這 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_HK香港中文
隱私概述

本網站使用 Cookie,以便我們為您提供最佳的使用者體驗。 Cookie 資訊儲存在您的瀏覽器中,並執行諸如在您返回我們的網站時識別您的身份,以及幫助我們的團隊了解您認為網站中哪些部分最有趣和最實用等功能。