Loudoun Not to Discriminate Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity | Loudoun Independent

Loudoun Not to Discriminate Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity | Loudoun Independent

Interestingly, the Washington Post article on this new ordinance did not mention gender identity or transgender protections, but reported on the story as if sexual orientation were the only element of the law.

In the linked article, the journalist misstates the meaning of the term gender identity. It sounds as if there hasn't been enough education in Loudoun County on gender identity issues. But progress is a good thing.

Legislature may let SLC's gay-rights measures stand - Salt Lake Tribune

It looks like the Salt Lake City non-discrimination ordinance, historic because of a change in position by the Mormon Church, is going to take effect. It is not likely, however, despite some expectations to the contrary, to be expanded statewide anytime soon.

Legislature may let SLC's gay-rights measures stand - Salt Lake Tribune: "Salt Lake City's landmark protections for gay and transgender residents appear likely to take effect after surviving the last hurdle: the Legislature.

But most legislative leaders say it's doubtful those provisions against discrimination in housing and employment will be expanded statewide during the 2010 session -- despite a historic endorsement from the LDS Church.

'The Legislature is more inclined to give the Salt Lake City ordinance[s] a year,' says Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, 'just to kind of see how [they work] and if we need to work any bugs out before we sponsor anything statewide.'"

Type your summary here

Type rest of the post here

Transgender bias at Thruway -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY

The Albany Times-Union has reported on a recent court case involving discrimination against a transgender woman who was subjected to harassment and fired by the New York State Thruway Authority. She has been awarded more than $55,000 for her ordeal. She is still seeking reinstatement to her job.

A judge with the state Division of Human Rights has issued an order sustaining a complaint by Mackenzie W. Valentine, 29, a former Army dispatcher and military police officer from Cohoes who was diagnosed with gender identity disorder and underwent a court-approved gender change several years ago. The transformation took place around the time that Valentine, who changed her name from "Matthew Valentine," began working for the Thruway Authority in Albany as a $15.30-an-hour dispatcher.

This is particularly interesting because New York State does not have a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, though it has had a law against sexual orientation discrimination since 2002. Governor Patterson only recently announced that gender identity would be included in the state's nondiscrimination policy that affects state workers. It is unclear from this story whether that recent policy is involved in the case, though that would seem unlikely since the events involved in the report appear to have taken place before the policy was put in place. There have been court opinions in New York since the 90s finding that transgender discrimination is illegal under statutes prohibiting sex discrimination and disability discrimination. It would be interesting to find out upon what statutes the plaintiff's attorneys were relying.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=886828#ixzz0cU1fKKqh

Transgender bias at Thruway -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY

Type your summary here

Type rest of the post here

Why the Claim of Religious Discrimination is the Next Big Battle in LGBT Rights

I think this is a very important issue. I am currently researching this issue in preparation for presenting at a symposium at Florida Coastal Law School in March, and writing a law review article this summer. The question in my mind, from a legal point of view, is how to respond to the argument that race and sexual orientation are not equivalent from a legal standpoint. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence does address them differently, though perhaps it shouldn't, but tell that to the Supreme Court. Also, the Court's freedom of expression and association doctrines permitted discrimination against gays in the NYC St. Patrick's Day case and the Boy Scouts case. So how does one argue persuasively that the law cannot permit discrimination against gays, when the Supreme Court has said it does in those two situations. Other than the non-legal argument of "it's not fair?", which would go nowhere in front of the Supremes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost