WMC News & Features

Trump’s attacks on LGBTQ rights underscore need for federal law

Wmc Features Protest Trans Military Ban Ted Eytan Cc 011620
Demonstrators protest the trans military ban. (Ted Eytan, lic. CC BY-SA 2.0)

No federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ people at work, in housing, education, credit, or in public places. Without this legislation, LGBTQ people are left to navigate a patchwork of state and local protections. Currently, only 21 states and D.C. have explicit protections for LGBTQ workers, with one more state protecting just LGB workers. The Equality Act, which would offer comprehensive protections for LGBTQ people against discrimination, was passed by the House in May of last year, but the Republican-controlled Senate blocked it from even coming to a vote.

In an effort to enact some protections in a form that could garner support from some conservatives, LGBTQ civil rights advocates worked with moderate Republicans and religious leaders and came up with the Fairness for All Act, which was introduced by Representative Chris Stewart (R-Utah) in December. This bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as expanding protections from sex discrimination — but with a major loophole. It would allow exemptions for churches, religious schools, and religious nonprofit charities that would undermine the rest of the entire legislation, allowing people to “opt out” of treating all fairly as long as they cite their religious beliefs.

The religious exemptions have caused enough concern that some advocacy and civil rights organizations, including the National LGBTQ Task Force, are opposing it. The bill would provide “a federal right to discriminate as long as it's under the guise of religious belief,” said Victoria Kirby Yorke, deputy director of the advocacy and action department at the Task Force. “And there is no standard of proof for this. This really is perverting what religious freedom has meant in this country — it originally was to protect religious minorities, and now it's being used to discriminate against certain groups of people, including religious minorities, single mothers, and LGBTQ people. The coalition behind this bill sought to do the right thing, but by inserting these religious imposition clauses they essentially gut the rights they are trying to legislate.”

“The Fairness for All Act is anything but fair,” said Maggie Garrett, vice president of public policy at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It creates far too many exemptions from protections against discrimination. As a result, LGBTQ people will face discrimination in their daily lives — when going to a local bookstore, when seeking health care, when trying to utilize government services. In some cases, women and people who are the ‘wrong’ faith will also face discrimination. At the same time, the bill would expand existing religious exemptions, undermine state and local civil rights laws, and even roll back existing federal protections.” 

Some advocates point to the inclusion of conservatives and religious leaders in the creation of the bill as a success, even while acknowledging its limits. “While Fairness for All is not a perfect bill, it marks the first time that a significant number of conservative religious organizations have supported federal protections for LGBT people,” said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “That is an important step that lays a foundation for future dialogue and progress. Dismissing this bill wholesale, I think, is shortsighted. We have public opinion on our side, but that is the product of many years of education, outreach, and bridge-building. We need to redouble those efforts and continue to build support across the political spectrum.” 

The lack of federal legislation has been especially dangerous during the presidency of Donald Trump, who, from the beginning, has sought to roll back hard-won LGBTQ civil rights through judicial nominees, alliances with hate groups, and executive actions including a directive to all agencies promoting “religious liberty.” Although Trump unfurled a rainbow flag during his Presidential campaign and initially promised to protect the rights of LGBTQ people in the workplace, his administration’s actions have been in stark contrast; each month seems to bring a new anti-LGBT initiative, from banning transgender people from serving in the military to scaling back protections for LGBT students. Trump even banned rainbow flags at some American embassies this past June. 

“It is notable that even as the Trump administration has taken one action after another to target and roll back legal protections for the LGBT community, it consistently denies that it is doing so — perhaps in recognition that most people in this country support anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people,” said Minter. “It is critical that we continue to build public understanding and support and do all we can to ensure that LGBT equality does not become a partisan issue. There are many Republicans and moderate conservatives who support equality for LGBT people, and we will need their support to enact federal and state protections in the years ahead.” 

Without a federal legislative safeguard, Trump is able to work fast and furiously to push forward discrimination against LGBTQ people and has seized the opportunity of the Republican-controlled Senate to overhaul the court system. Not only are they confirming judges at a much more rapid pace than previous administrations, over one in three of Trump’s circuit court nominees have a demonstrated history of anti-LGBT bias, according to Trump’s Judicial Assault on LGBT Protections, a 2019 report from Lambda Legal. 

Trump’s re-shaped Supreme Court is set to rule this year on three precedent-setting cases that could make the need for comprehensive federal legislation even more urgent. The Trump administration filed amicus briefs in the cases, which involve workers who were fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and looks at the question of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin — protects LGBT workers. The administration is supporting the employers. If the Supreme Court decides that Title VII does not provide protections for LGBT workers, this will “mean that employers in over half of the states could now legally fire someone just for being LGBT” and would also have “the potential to impact LGBT people far beyond the workplace, according to Can LGBT People Be Legally Fired: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Three Cases That Could Take America Backward, a report from Movement Advancement Project. “If the Court strips these protections from LGBT people in the workplace, it sends a message that discrimination against LGBT people is acceptable — and legal — throughout all areas of daily life.”

Trump has stacked his administration with appointees who have ties to extreme right-wing groups who have even more ability to influence national policy without comprehensive anti-LGBT discrimination legislation. The groups include the Alliance Defending Freedom, designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which advocates for re-criminalizing homosexuality and is behind many of the administration’s anti-LGBTQ initiatives. 

“There are right-wing extremist organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council that are leading this anti-LGBT work and working throughout the administration, Congress, and the state legislatures to spread these hateful policies,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “It sends a message that the president is beholden to anti-LGBTQ right-wing extremists. So, yes, Congressional Republicans, extremist state legislators, and the Trump Administration inspire each other, but it is more coordinated by these hate groups than it may seem to the public.”

Many Trump appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services are openly opposed to same-sex marriage and have put forward policies that are anti-LGBTQ. In December, the administration issued a final rule to allow HHS-funded adoption and foster care agencies to deny LGBTQ would-be guardians and families. “Turning away qualified foster families greatly harms the  nearly 443,000 children  in foster care, 20,000 of whom age out of care each year without finding forever families,” said Ian Palmquist, senior director of programs at the Equality Federation. “Over 123,000 children and youth in foster care are waiting to be adopted, and fewer than half of these will find their forever home within a year. Youth in foster care who identify as LGBTQ (over one in five youth in foster care do so), or are of a different faith or have no religious beliefs could also be harmed by not finding accepting, affirming families who will love them for who they are and respect their identities.”

“The Trump administration has been quite aggressive in identifying ways that undermine LGBTQ civil rights,” said Daniel Ramos, executive director of One Colorado, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization. “All of this [says] to the younger generation that they are unfit to serve in the military or they deserve to be bullied. [We] will continue to tell stories about LGBTQ people and their families so that people feel comfortable coming out and talking openly about their lives. After all, it's hard to hate someone that you know.”



More articles by Category: LGBTQIA, Politics
More articles by Tag: Discrimination, Civil rights, Activism and advocacy
SHARE

[SHARE]

Article.DirectLink

Contributor
Categories
Sign up for our Newsletter

Learn more about topics like these by signing up for Women’s Media Center’s newsletter.