LGBTQ+ rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court ‘creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism’, AOC says

      by

      The conservative supreme court is “creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism”, the Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Sunday, raising again the unlikely scenario of impeaching justices for recent actions.Her comments came just days after the nation’s highest court released a batch of incendiary and far-reaching rulings striking down affirmative action in colleges, LBGTQ+ rights and Joe Biden’s student loan relief program.“These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court,” she told CNN’s State of the Union.“In fact, we have members of the court themselves, with justice Elena Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a legislature right now.“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on, the danger of this court and the abuse of power.”Referring to ethics scandals that have involved two of the conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Ocasio-Cortez repeated previous calls for Congress to look at removing them, a proposal that would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House.Senate Democrats and independents who caucus with them, meanwhile, hold only a slim majority.Alito is accused of not disclosing gifts from a rightwing billionaire who lobbied for the court to end Biden’s loan relief program. Thomas is also alleged to have taken undeclared gifts, among other alleged transgressions, prompting an ethics watchdog last month to urge him to resign.“We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines, where we see members of the supreme court potentially breaking the law,” she said.“There also must be impeachment on the table. We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power in the supreme court [that] has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy.“And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.”Ocasio-Cortez also called on Biden to expand the court to 13 justices, something the president has said he is unwilling to attempt.Her comments reflect a wave of Democratic outrage at the decisions, which came after Donald Trump’s appointments of justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett gave conservatives a 6-3 majority on the supreme court.Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow progressive Ayanna Pressley, Democratic congresswoman for Massachusetts, was equally scathing on MSNBC’s Katie Phang show, calling the conservative majority “far-right extremists”.“They continue to overturn the will of the majority of the people and to make history for all the wrong reasons, legislating from the bench and being political from the bench,” she said.The panel’s most controversial ruling last year, written by Alito, reversed its 1973 decision on Roe v Wade and ended almost half a century of federal abortion protections in the US.As Biden put it after an address at the White House on Friday: “This is not a normal court.”A poll released Sunday by ABC’s This Week showed that 52% of Americans believed that justices ruled “mainly on the basis of their partisan political view rather than on the basis of the law”, a significant rise from January 2022 when only 38% felt that way.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe poll, however, did show that a majority, 52%, approved of the decision ending affirmative action in colleges.Condemning the ruling that allowed a Colorado website designer to refuse business from a same-sex couple, transport secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is openly gay, noted the court addressed a situation “that may have never happened in the first place”.“We’re seeing more of these cases, of these circumstances that are designed to get people spun up and [are] designed to chip away at rights,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.“You look at the supreme court taking away a woman’s right to choose, Friday’s decision diminishing … same sex couples’ [quality of life], you look at a number of the decisions, they pose the question, ‘Did we just live to see the high-water mark of freedoms and rights in this country before they were gradually taken away?’“Because up until now, not uniformly, but overall, each generation was able to say they enjoyed greater inclusion, greater equality, and more rights and freedoms than the generation before.”In other interviews on Sunday, two prominent Republican presidential candidates said they supported the supreme court’s recent rulings, with one, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy.“For decades the Democratic party cheered a supreme court that went outside the constitution and made extra-constitutional decisions, in my opinion, because the decisions went in a philosophical direction that they liked,” Christie said on State of the Union.“Now, when the court makes decisions they don’t like, all of a sudden the court is ‘not normal’. This is a results-oriented type of judgment. Instead, what they should look at, is the way they analyze the law.”Former vice-president Mike Pence, speaking on CBS, praised the website ruling. He said: “I’m a Bible believing Christian, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and I believe every American is entitled to live, to work, to worship, according to the dictates of their conscience.“The supreme court drew a clear line and said yes to religious liberty.” More

    • 263 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court has dismantled our rights but we still believe in them. Now we must fight | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      The first thing to remember about the damage done by the US supreme court this June and the June before is that each majority decision overturns a right that we had won. We had won a measure of student debt relief thanks to the heroic efforts of debt activists since 2011. We had won reproductive rights protection 50 years ago with Roe v Wade, and we won wetlands protection with the Clean Water Act around the same time. We had implemented affirmative action, AKA a redress of centuries of institutionalized inequality, step by step, in many ways over the past 60-plus years. We had won rights for same-sex couples and queer people in a series of laws and decisions.What this means is that the right wing of the US supreme court is part of a gang of reactionaries engaging in backlash. It also means we can win these things back. It will not be easy, but difficult is not impossible. This does not mean that the decisions are not devastating, and that we should not feel the pain. The old saying “don’t mourn, organize” has always worked better for me as “mourn, but also organize”. Defeat is no reason to stop. Neither is victory a reason to stop when victory is partial or needs to be defended. You can celebrate victories, mourn defeats and keep going.Each of those victories was hard-won, often by people who began when the rights and protections they sought seemed inconceivable, then unlikely, then remote, and so goes the road of profound change almost every time. To win environmental protections, the public had to be awakened to the interconnectedness, the vulnerability and the value of a healthy natural world and our inseparability from it. To win marriage equality for same-sex couples and equal protection for queer people involved changing beliefs, which was achieved not just by campaigns but by countless LGBTQ+ people courageously making themselves visible and audible in their communities.To recognize the power of this change requires a historical memory. A memory of rivers catching fire and toxic products being dumped freely in the 1960s. Of laws and guidelines treating queer people as criminal or mentally ill or both in ways that terrorized them and made them largely invisible to the public eye. Of women dying of or damaged by illegal abortions or leading the bleak lives to which unwanted pregnancies consigned them. Of the way the Ivy League universities in particular were virtually all white and all male into the 1970s. Of how inequality was so normalized that first people had to see and believe that women and Bipoc people should have equal rights and access to and a role in the places of power that decide the fate of each of us, the nation and the world. All that changed – not enough, of course, but a lot.Memory is a superpower, because memory of how these situations changed is a memory of our victories and our power. Each of these victories happened both through the specifics of campaigns to change legislation but also through changing the public imagination. The supreme court can dismantle the legislation but they cannot touch the beliefs and values. We still believe in these rights. We still recognize the harm and the destruction they were meant to prevent. If you didn’t believe that equal access and rights were wrong yesterday or last year, you don’t have to believe it now. Not just because those rights were denied by six justices, at least four of whom are so utterly corrupt in how they got their seats or what they’ve done while seated that they should be forced to resign.Last year’s attack on reproductive rights has produced its own backlash, with many states working to protect those rights, many elections seemingly pivoting on voter outrage about the Republican party’s brutality toward and hatred of women, and Republicans scurrying away from their own achievement and its hideous impacts. If the Republican party deserves admiration for anything, it’s for their long view, understanding of strategy and tenacity.The building up of an illicit rightwing supreme court took many years, and took fundamentalist Christians holding their noses to vote for Donald Trump because they understood that meant getting the justices to overturn Roe v Wade. It meant building power from the ground up to take state legislatures to gerrymander electoral maps and sticking vicious clowns like Jim Jordan into bizarrely tailored districts. It meant chipping away at voting rights, achieved in part by the supreme court’s attack on the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and its 2010 Citizens United decision that let a filthy tsunami of corporate dark money into electoral politics, thereby overturning two of its own earlier decisions.While each of the issues under attack need their own campaigns, voting rights and free and fair elections are crucial to all of them. Don’t forget that the only reason we have such a conservative government, including the supreme court, is voter suppression. If we truly had equal access to the ballot, American voters would choose more progressive candidates and pass more progressive legislation. That’s why what the public wants, believes and values so often differs from what the politicians chosen by dark money and voter suppression give us.One of the striking features of recent years is the baldfaced Republican effort to prevent Black people in particular, but also young, poor and other non-white demographics from voting. Baldfaced because it acknowledges that they are unpopular and that they’ve given up the goal of being in power because they represent the majority. As they become more marginalized through their own extreme and unpopular views, they have to use more extreme means – now including trying to steal and overturn elections – to hold onto power.This is as true of climate action as anything else: a new Yale 360 poll shows that “57% of registered voters support a US president declaring global warming a national emergency if Congress does not take further action” and “74% support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.” The problem isn’t the people. It’s the power, and history shows us that when we come together with ferocious commitment to a shared goal we can be more powerful than institutions and governments. The right would like us to feel defeated and powerless. We can feel devastated and still feel powerful or find our power. This is not a time to quit. It’s a time to fight.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. Her most recent books are Recollections of My Nonexistence and Orwell’s Roses More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris: supreme court rulings portend ‘attack’ on ‘hard-fought freedoms’

      by

      The US supreme court rulings which struck down the White House’s student debt relief plan, affirmative action in college admission and a Colorado law that protected LGBTQ+ rights portend “a national movement to attack hard-won and hard-fought freedoms”, Vice-President Kamala Harris has said.In an interview with National Public Radio’s Michel Martin, Harris declared that “this is a serious moment” for people “who believe in the promise of our country [but] understand we have some work yet to do to fully achieve that promise”.“Fundamental issues are at stake,” Harris said, as she called on Americans to vote – including in the 2024 presidential race – for political candidates who would work to shield rights rather than rescind them.Harris’s remarks came after the supreme court’s conservative supermajority on Thursday ended race-conscious admissions at universities across the US, defying decades of legal precedent to the detriment of greater student diversity on the nation’s campuses. The court on Friday also ruled that both a Colorado law which compelled businesses and organizations to treat same-sex couples equally as well as Joe Biden’s landmark student debt forgiveness plan were both unconstitutional.The decision on the Colorado law came on the last day of Pride month, which annually celebrates LGBTQ+ achievements and commemorates the 1969 Stonewall uprising in New York, a key moment in the community’s civil rights movement.That decision and the two others all were handed down a year after the supreme court eliminated the federal abortion rights which had been established by the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling.Harris said she and other members of Joe Biden’s administration have a role in mounting a counteraction to the supreme court rulings, which she characterized as “moments of great consequence and … crises”.In the early stages of his 2024 re-election run, as some Republicans call for national abortion restrictions, the president has pledged to work to enshrine abortion rights, among other reproductive health care protections.Biden also outlined a new student debt relief plan within hours of the supreme court’s striking down his previous one.But Harris told Martin that voters can also help plot the way forward. Besides voting all the way down ballots during local, state and national elections, they can organize against the political forces which planted the seeds for this week’s volley of supreme court rulings, the vice-president said while appearing at the Essence Festival of Culture in New Orleans on Thursday and Friday, according to Nola.com.The supreme court’s shift to the hard right became possible after the Donald Trump presidency succeeded in appointing the ultra-conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.Harris predicted the week’s supreme court decisions would “have generational impact” and described herself “deeply concerned about the implications of this … to the future of our country”, Nola.com added.In her remarks at the Essence Festival, one of the US’s top annual showcases for Black culture, Harris said: “I feel very strongly that the promise of America will only be achieved if we’re willing to fight for it.” More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican executive blogged about ‘conversion therapy’ for extremist group

      by

      The executive director of a Republican-linked non-profit wrote blog posts for an extremist organization in which he advocated so-called “conversion therapy”, the supremacy of biblical rules on marriage over “man-made law”, and expressed a general theocratic view that divine law as interpreted by US evangelical Christians trumps secular law.The since-deleted posts by Mark Trammell – now executive director of the self-styled civil rights group Center for American Liberty (CAL) – were written for Liberty Counsel, dubbed an anti-LGBTQ+ extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its work “to ensure that Christians can continue to engage in anti-LGBT discrimination in places of business under the guise of ‘religious liberty’”.The Guardian has previously reported on the financial relationship between CAL and CEO Harmeet Dhillon’s law firm, which a non-profit expert described as “problematic”, and the lack of transparency in the non-profit’s arrangements with a PR firm.But CAL’s extremist links, and other CAL attorneys links to groups like the Proud Boys and the Claremont Institute, raise questions about the organization’s recent pivot to suits that seek to limit transgender rights.Theocratic postsIt was while Trammell was working as director of public policy at another rightwing non-profit, Liberty Counsel Action, that Trammell wrote a number of blogposts for an affiliated organization, Liberty Counsel. Those posts, published in 2013 and 2014, have since disappeared from the organization’s website, but were exposed in a data breach of the organization’s website, and revealed now by the Guardian.In a September 2013 post, Trammell complained about laws passed in California in 2012 and New Jersey in 2013 that were the first in the country to ban so-called “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy”, a scientifically discredited practice whose practitioners falsely claim to be able to change the sexual orientation of same-sex-attracted people.In the post, Trammell wrote: “In both California and New Jersey, by statute, licensed physicians are not permitted to provide reparative therapy to minors, under the age of 18, who struggle with an unwanted same-sex attraction and who desire such reparative therapy.”He continued: “This restriction on therapy is a viewpoint-based content restriction aimed at silencing Christian views on human sexuality.”In other posts, Trammell criticized Republicans for moves that in his view failed to acknowledge the supremacy of biblical over secular law, even if they were ostensibly defending conservative moral positions.In a March 2014 post on efforts by Republicans including Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to limit the power of the federal government to enforce same-sex marriage in states where it did not yet exist, he wrote that the proposed Defense of Marriage Act was “not the answer”.Rather, Trammell wrote, “as a component of the Natural Law, authored by God, the institution of marriage is beyond the ability of mankind to change. Simply put, it is a law given to us by God and since God’s ways are justice and His ways are higher than our ways.”Further on in the post, Trammell continued his advocacy of theocracy, writing: “For one to state that the Tenth Amendment reserves the authority for states to define marriage according to the will of the citizens of that state is to say that the Constitution had authority over the Natural Law. Such a conclusion is contrary to the essence of the Natural Law and is contrary to Scripture.”In a post that May, Trammell criticized the supreme court for its Town of Greece v Galloway decision that month, which upheld the right of the New York town’s board to open its meeting with a prayer, providing it did not exclude representatives of minority faiths from officiating in those prayers.Whereas the court defined the prayers as “ceremonial” and intended to “place town board members in a solemn and deliberative frame of mind”, Trammell wrote that the prayers were to “invoke divine guidance in town affairs”.He further wrote that the court was wrong in “concluding that the purpose of prayer is civic in nature and bifurcated from God”, adding that, “Legislative prayer is not about government; it is about God. Its purpose is not to solemnize the occasion or acknowledge religious leaders; it is to humble ourselves before God, seeking Him and His guidance.”Neither Mark Trammell nor Liberty Counsel responded to emailed requests for comment.Heidi Beirich is co-founder and chief strategy officer at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) and an expert on the North American and European far right.In a telephone conversation, she said that Liberty Counsel was “crudely anti-LGBTQ” and that “everything the organization does is part of a crusade to strip LGBTQ people of their rights”.On Trammell’s blogposts, Beirich said: “He essentially doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state,” and pointed to the view of the UN’s independent expert on gender and sexuality that conversion therapy “may amount to torture”.Lawyer for the Christian rightExcept for brief stints as a congressional intern and a county-level law clerk, Trammell has spent his entire career working for a string of rightwing organizations. They include Young America’s Foundation (YAF), where as assistant general counsel he secured Dhillon’s services in suing UC Berkeley over the university’s cancellation of a speech by the conservative firebrand Ann Coulter in 2017.Much of his early career, however, was spent in the service of organizations that are directly affiliated or historically connected to Liberty University, an institution founded by the rightwing Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell in 1971.Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr, was president of Liberty from the time of his father’s death in 2007 until 2020, when he quit amid media reports of a long-running affair in which his business partner would have sex with his wife, Becki, while Falwell looked on.Despite its former president’s outre personal life, Liberty’s honor code forbids students from “sexual relations outside a biblically ordained marriage, romantic displays of affection with a member of the same sex … and actions confirming denial of biological birth sex”.Liberty Counsel was founded by Matthew Staver in 1989, when he was dean of Liberty University Law School, and it has pursued lawsuits advancing a Christian right agenda under the banner of religious liberty. Its anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and activism is the reason for the SPLC listing.Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)(4) non-profit affiliated with Liberty Counsel, a 501(c)(3). According to US tax law, 501(c)(4) entities can engage in politically partisan activities and campaigning in a way that is prohibited to 501(c)(3) bodies.Other extremist linksOther lawyers associated with CAL have their own history of extremist associations.New Jersey-based Ron Coleman first met Dhillon at the 2019 Trump White House social media summit and joined her law firm in August 2020, according to a YouTube video posted by Dhillon Law.He is currently representing the Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes in a lawsuit against the SPLC over their listing of the all-male street-fighting fraternity as a hate group.Coleman is also acted for extremist-friendly social media site, Gab and its founder Andrew Torba against Google, after the tech giant banned Gab’s app from its Play Store in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.Gab achieved infamy after Robert Bowers announced his murderous attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018. Bowers was convicted on all charges related to that attack last week.The Guardian emailed Coleman’s Dhillon Law address for comment but received no response.On Coleman’s representation of McInnes and Gab, Beirich, the extremism expert, said that pursuing litigation was a “choice to affiliate with someone”, that McInnes is “absolutely a racist extremist” and the group he founded is a “white supremacist group”. She also described Gab as a “cesspool of hate”.CAL board member Lee Cheng has worked on lawsuits against admission policies in San Francisco since the 1980s, first winning a case against affirmative action quotas in the city’s school district in 1994, then winning another case in 1994 after the San Francisco United School District tried to change selective admission policies at Lowell high school to a lottery.He has advocated more broadly against affirmative action in education, including at a panel convened by the far-right Claremont Institute, where he appeared alongside the University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax. UPenn attempted to withdraw Wax’s tenure this year over her long record of racist statements, including claims that “on average, blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites”.The Guardian emailed Cheng to ask about his apparent criticisms of diversity issues, and his speaking engagement alongside Wax.Cheng responded: “I’m not sure why you would conclude that I say that diversity initiatives are bad. I think racial discrimination is bad. I’ve never said diversity per se, defined as diversity of experience and perspectives, are bad.”Cheng added: “Diversity initiatives are good as long as they do not use race determinatively and predominantly to favor or disfavor any race.”Dhillon, meanwhile, has spread baseless conspiracy theories about the attack on Paul Pelosi last October, joined election-denying legal efforts by Donald Trump and Kari Lake, and has been acting for far-right media figure Tucker Carlson since his ouster from Fox News.Beirich described Dhillon’s associations as “palling around with extremists”. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Well-funded Christian group behind US effort to roll back LGBTQ+ rights

      by

      With the US besieged by a rightwing culture war campaign that aims to strip away rights from LGBTQ+ people and others, blame tends to be focused on Republican politicians and conservative media figures.But lurking behind efforts to roll back abortion rights, to demonize trans people, and to peel back the protections afforded to gay and queer Americans is a shadowy, well-funded rightwing legal organization, experts say.Since it was formed in 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom has been at the center of a nationwide effort to limit the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people, all in the name of Christianity. The Southern Poverty Law Center has termed it an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” that has extended its tentacles into nearly every area of the culture wars.In the process, it has won the ear of some of the most influential people in the US, and become “a danger to every American who values their freedoms”, according to Glaad, the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization.Through “model legislation” and lawsuits filed across the country, ADF aims to overturn same-sex marriage, enact a total ban on abortion, and strip away the already minimal rights that trans people are afforded in the US.Under the Trump administration, the group found its way into the highest echelons of power, advising Jeff Sessions, the then attorney general, before he announced sweeping guidance to protect “religious liberty” which chipped away at LGBTQ+ protections.The organization counts among its sometime associates Amy Coney Barrett, the supreme court justice who the Washington Post reported spoke five times at an ADF training program established to push a “distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law”.ADF is engaged in “a very strong campaign to put a certain type of religious view at the center of American life”, said Rabia Muqaddam, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights.“[The ADF campaign] extends to abortion, it extends to LGBTQ folks, to immigration, to what kind of religion we think is America, what kind of people we think are American,” Muqaddam said.“It’s as dramatic as that. I think we are in a fight to preserve democracy and preserve America as a place where we do tolerate and encourage and empower everyone.”ADF was founded in 1994 by a group of “leaders in the Christian community”, according to its website. Among those leaders was James Dobson, the founder of the anti-LGBTQ+ Focus on the Family organization who has said the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, was a “judgment” from God because of declining church numbers.Its leaders remain involved in niche interpretations of Christianity. Kristen Waggoner, the ADF chief executive, also serves as legal counsel to Assemblies of God, a church which encourages worshippers to speak in tongues and believes in “divine healing” – the power of prayer – as a medical tool.Over the past two decades, ADF has been a main driver in dozens of pieces of rightwing legislation and lawsuits.The organization is currently behind the lawsuit 303 Creative, Inc v Elenis, which the supreme court is expected to decide this month, and which could chip away at LGBTQ+ rights. It’s a case that is classic ADF – a seemingly manufactured issue which the group has managed to chase all the way through the American legal system.The plaintiff, 303 Creative, is a website design company. 303 Creative has never made wedding websites, but its owner, Lorie Smith, claims her first amendment rights are being impinged because, if she were to start making wedding websites, she would not want to make them for same-sex couples – which would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.Another ADF obsession is abortion. It was involved, Muqaddam said, in crafting a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi – which prompted a legal case that found its way to the supreme court – eventually resulting in Roe v Wade, which guaranteed the right to abortion, being overturned in 2022.“Alliance Defending Freedom has been instrumental in the dismantling of Roe and the ongoing efforts to eliminate abortion nationwide,” Muqaddam said.“They enacted a law that they knew was unconstitutional, they enacted it for the purpose of generating case after case after case to push it out to the supreme court until they found a court that was sympathetic to their argument,” Muqaddam said.She added: “I think that’s exactly what is happening in the LGBTQ context as well. Their goal is to limit individual rights as much as possible.”The ADF website shows the breadth of its involvement in rightwing culture wars. The organization touts its work opposing abortion, on opposing same-sex marriage and opposing trans rights.“We advocate for laws and precedents that promote human flourishing by recognizing the important differences between men and women and honoring God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman,” ADF’s website reads.But Emerson Hodges, a research analyst at the SPLC, said what ADF is really doing is attempting to “undo LGBTQ social and legislative progress”.“They go under the guise of religious liberty, and religious freedom. What that means, though, is this religious liberty to discriminate and the religious freedom to invalidate LGBTQ individuals,” Hodges said.Worryingly, there are signs that ADF, and other groups like it, are growing in influence. As Republican politicians and rightwing media fan the flames of an extremist culture war, NBC reported that donations to ADF, which is a registered non-profit, more than doubled from 2011 to 2021.As it has grown in influence, ADF’s “model legislation” has found its way into state legislatures across the country, as the group attempts to strip away LGBTQ+ rights, and the rights of trans people in particular.“Just about every anti-LGBT legislation that you’ve seen probably in the past decade was probably copied or paraphrased off of a model legislation built by Alliance Defending Freedom,” Hodges said.“They provide legal advocacy support, litigation and policy models for government officials.”An article on ADF’s website states that it is a “biblical truth” that “men and women are physically different”, and the organization has duly worked to prevent trans people taking part in women’s sports.The group sued a school district in Minnesota in 2016, and in 2021 a judge in Connecticut dismissed an ADF lawsuit which sought to prevent transgender athletes competing in high school sports. The same year, ADF backed a lawsuit brought by a teacher in Virginia who had said he would not use a transgender child’s preferred pronouns because that would amount to “sinning against our God”.In April, ADF, which did not respond to a Guardian request for comment, filed in Oregon on behalf of a Christian woman who wanted to foster children, but said she would not agree to “respect, accept, and support … the sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression” of a child placed with her, the Statesman Journal reported.“[ADF’s] obsession with targeting LGBTQ people is unhinged and drastically out of touch with supermajorities of Americans who support LGBTQ people and laws to protect us from discrimination,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and chief executive of Glaad.“Everyone should understand the truth: the ADF is simply an anti-LGBTQ group trying to abuse levers of government to push discrimination and keep their warped sense of control.“They’ve also worked to ban the right to choose, and are in cahoots with other extremist groups to oppress marginalized people. ADF is a danger to every American who values their freedoms – to be ourselves, live freely, and be welcome to contribute and to succeed in every area of society.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks implementation of Indiana ban on treatment for trans minors

      by

      A US federal judge on Friday issued an order stopping an Indiana ban on puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors from taking effect as scheduled 1 July.Indiana’s American Civil Liberties Union sought the temporary injunction in its legal challenge of the Republican-backed law, which was enacted this spring amid a national push by politically conservative legislatures to curb LGBTQ+ rights.The order from US district court judge James Patrick Hanlon will allow the law’s prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries to take effect. Hanlon’s order also blocks provisions that would prohibit Indiana doctors from communicating with out-of-state doctors about gender-affirming care for their patients younger than 18.The ACLU filed the lawsuit within hours after the Republican governor, Eric Holcomb, signed the bill on 5 April. The challenge, on behalf of four youths undergoing transgender treatments and an Indiana doctor who provides such care, argued the ban would violate the US constitution’s equal protection guarantees and trampled upon the rights of parents to decide medical treatment for their children.Indiana’s Republican-dominated legislature approved the ban after contentious hearings that primarily featured testimony from vocal opponents, with many arguing the gender-affirming care lessened the risk of depression and suicide among transgender youth. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      As the US becomes more divided, companies find they can’t appeal to everyone

      by

      Bud Light, Target – and now Cracker Barrel? “We take no pleasure in reporting that @CrackBarrel has fallen,” the conservative group Texas Family said in a tweet last Thursday, in response to the southern-food restaurant chain marking Pride month on social media. “A once family-friendly establishment has caved to the mob.”The conservative backlash against American brands appears to have reached new heights over the last few weeks as companies show their support for Pride month and other LGBTQ+ issues. It is part of a wider backlash against corporate involvement in social, environmental or political issues that appears to be gathering steam.Corporate celebration of Pride month over recent years has seemed less radical amid growing criticism that parades and other events celebrating LGBTQ+ rights have actually become too corporatized. Critics have also pointed out that those same businesses are more than happy to fund politicians that oppose LGBTQ+ rights when it suits them. But conservatives have put those sponsorships back in the spotlight and are now more emboldened than ever to turn their fury against them.At the political vanguard is Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, the presidential candidate who is in the middle of a legal battle with Disney after the company publicly criticized his “don’t say gay” bill to curb discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.But the attack on “woke” corporations from conservative consumers and the politicians who court their support goes far further than Pride.Multiple Republican states, including Texas, West Virginia and Florida, have divested from investment firm BlackRock for the company’s support of environmental, social and governance portfolios that focus on sustainability and environmental impact.It is a notable change for Republicans, who for decades have been the party of business and fought the idea of government interference. Their hero, Ronald Reagan, once said “man is not free unless government is limited”.But a shift has been happening. Since 2019, the percentage of Republicans who say large corporations have a positive impact has fallen by a quarter, according to a 2021 Pew poll. A Gallup poll showed a similar drop in Republicans who were happy with the “size and influence of major corporations”, dropping from 57% to 31% in a year.Much of this comes from conservative distaste of “woke capitalism”, with companies coming out in support of progressive issues, such as LGBTQ+ rights, racial equity and concern over the environment, over the last decade. The shift has a strong business case. Younger Americans, who are more diverse and also more liberal, have come of age as consumers and companies have been trying to cater to them by promoting issues they care about. That comes with a price.“Millennials and younger generations are pushing this, and they have the idea that companies have a social responsibility beyond their business,” said Amna Kirmani, a professor of marketing at the University of Maryland. “Conservatives think that companies should stay out of sociopolitical issues and instead focus on their business.”In other words, companies can’t appeal to everyone in such a divisive political landscape, as they are quickly finding out. Now that two major corporations have pulled back on marketing efforts that promote LGBTQ+ issues in the face of a rightwing backlash, some experts say conservative resolve against companies promoting the issues has been strengthened.Bud Light had been trying to revive its brand to appeal to younger Americans when it turned to TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender woman, for a sponsored post on social media.“Our number one job at Bud Light is to grow meaning and relevance with new drinkers – that is how we transform and really preserve this brand for the next 40 years,” Alissa Heinerscheid, the company’s vice-president of marketing, told Ad Age in September.The backlash to the brand’s partnership with Mulvaney was intense, eventually leading to sales in Bud Light dropping by at least 23% compared to last year.Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Bud Light, put Heinerscheid and another marketing executive on leave. Brendan Whitworth, chief executive of Anheuser-Busch inBev, said in a statement in April amid the boycott that the brand “never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together.”Just a few weeks later, Target announced it would remove some of its Pride month merchandise from some of its stores after a series of “volatile circumstances” in which a handful of customers confronted workers and damaged displays in stores.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It has really emboldened a lot of conservative activists to keep shouting because in these two cases, there were serious consequences,” Kirmani said. “Boycotts happen all the time, most of them are not successful.”The ire against Bud Light and Target quickly spread to Kohl’s, which received bomb threats for displaying Pride month merchandise, and Chick-fil-A, which had hired an executive to lead diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the company. The attack on Chick-fil-A surprised many given the company’s long history of supporting rightwing causes. Backlashes also pointed to Nike, North Face, the US navy and the LA Dodgers baseball team for social media posts and campaigns that celebrated Pride month.Eric Bloem, vice-president of programs and corporate advocacy at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, said that it stresses to companies that they need to be prepared to defend their values when faced with attacks. Nike and North Face, he pointed out, stood by their decision to work with transgender models (Nike had worked with Mulvaney) after they faced backlash. Meanwhile, Bud Light and Target backed off.“The message that it sends is that it fuels extremist behavior … and that they can make Pride toxic. Once they are able to make Pride toxic for one company, they’re going to move on to the next,” Bloem said.Both Kirmani and Bloem said the conservative backlash against companies comes from a minority of people with extreme views. A survey from the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Glaad showed that 75% of participants said they are comfortable seeing LGBTQ+ people in advertising.“Let’s be clear that this is a coordinated attack against the LGBTQ+ community by a small group of extremists,” Bloem said. “There’s over 525 pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ pieces of legislation that have been pushed at the state level. These pieces of legislation are banning books, access to gender-affirming care for youth, they’re preventing trans youth from participating in sports. All of this is part of the larger context.”The wider context also suggests this fight isn’t going to end soon. The attacks on Target and Bud Light had real impact and DeSantis is not the only 2024 Republican presidential runner taking on “woke” corporations.Outlier candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, a 37-year-old tech entrepreneur, has made his fight against corporate liberalism the centerpiece of his campaign. He is positioning his company, Strive Asset Management, as an alternative to investment firms like BlackRock.Ramaswamy may not be a frontrunner but he is gaining airtime and his message has the support of Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy and others. His views may be out of touch with younger voters, and many other Americans, but it’s one that captures an angry base that has found a cause to fight for. “Courage Is Contagious” is Ramaswamy’s campaign slogan. As corporate America is finding out, it is also going to be contentious. More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Catholic ‘Pride mass’ in Pennsylvania canceled after protests

      by

      A Roman Catholic mass to be held in western Pennsylvania this weekend in solidarity with LGBTQ Catholics has been canceled after flyers for the service switched the designation to a “Pride mass”.The cancellation of Sunday mass at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh came at the request of the diocese after protesting emails and calls, some of them threatening, officials said. While the exact nature of the protest messages is unclear, they come at a time when major brands like Target, Bud Light and Starbucks have faced rightwing backlash for using the Pride labeling.The Pittsburgh mass had been organized by Catholics for Change in Our Church with the help of LGBTQ+ outreach ministries, said group’s president Kevin Hayes, and similar in nature to other outreach efforts toward Black or Hispanic parishioners.Trouble arose after independent sponsors of the event promoted the mass with a flyer “that confused some and enraged others”, according the Bishop David Zubik of the Pittsburgh diocese.“This event was billed as a ‘Pride mass’ organized to coincide with Pride Month, an annual secular observance that supports members of the LGBTQ community on every level, including lifestyle and behavior, which the church cannot endorse,” Zubik said in a letter to priests, deacons and seminarians in the diocese.Zubik added that protesters incorrectly assumed that he had approved the event, and that the critics of the mass had used “condemning and threatening, and some might say hateful, language not in keeping with Christian charity”.Bishop Zubik said he asked that the gathering be canceled “given all that has transpired surrounding this event”.Kevin Hayes, president of Catholics for Change in Our Church, said that group members “are very sad and very frustrated”. He added that the goal had been to “just have LGBTQ Catholics feel welcomed as beloved sons and daughters of a loving God and just be affirmed for who they are within the context of the Eucharist, which we feel is appropriate.” More