Michigan's Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (USA) @SchuetteOnDuty

In May 2018, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (“Commission”) voted to expand its interpretation of the term “sex” in the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The Commission announced it would begin accepting complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Michigan Legislature recently asked Attorney General Bill Schuette to clarify whether the Commission has the authority to interpret the ELCRA to prohibit such discrimination.
On July 20, 2018, Schuette issued a formal opinion in which he concludes the Commission’s interpretation of the ELCRA is invalid because it conflicts with the plain language of the statute. “ELCRA’s text prohibits discrimination based on sex but does not cover distinctions based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” See Opinion No. 7305.
Schuette bases his opinion on the fact that the term “sex” refers to “the biological differences between males and females, not . . . the concepts of sexual orientation or gender identity.” He cites several cases showing that “courts consistently understood, from the 1970s to the 2000s, that there is a difference between classifying someone based on sex and classifying based on sexual orientation.” He acknowledges that although recent federal decisions, see Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College and Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act have held that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, “these newer federal decisions interpreting Title VII do not follow Michigan’s principles of statutory interpretation.” Further, “Michigan courts interpreting ELCRA have not expanded the meaning of “sex” in the way that a few federal courts interpreting Title VII have.” He also cites the Supreme Court’s holding in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, in which the Court concluded that sex stereotyping was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII, but notes “the Michigan cases that have cited Price Waterhouse have not extended ELCRA to require treating discrimination based sexual orientation or gender identity as discrimination based on sex.  As a result, Michigan law on the meaning of discrimination based on sex has not evolved in the way that federal law may be evolving.”
Finally, “[t]he Legislature may, if it chooses, add the new categories of sexual orientation and gender identity to the statute.  But . . . legislation addressing this precise issue has been introduced every year for the past 15 years, and each year the Legislature has declined the invitation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to protected categories under ELCRA.”
“[I]t is my opinion that the Michigan Civil Rights Commission’s Interpretative Statement 2018-1, which concludes that the term “sex” as used in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation and gender identity, is invalid because it conflicts with the original intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Act, and as interpreted by Michigan’s courts.”
Bill Schuette is running for Governor in the 2018 election.
Schuette: Michigan law doesn’t protect LGBTQ people from discrimination — Detroit Free Press 

Modern Witches Confluence (USA)

On July 18, 2018, Casey Zabala wrote to Max Dashu, an accomplished scholar who documents women’s herstory worldwide, to inform her that she was no longer invited to present at the upcoming Modern Witches Confluence in San Francisco as the result of “serious push-back” from people asserting via Facebook comments that they feel “excluded by [Max’s] presence” at the event. Zabala claims “I am going to have to remove you from our workshop line-up” as though there is no other option.
This is yet another troubling example of trans activists pushing for the exclusion of women from events they were invited to because those trans activists decided they couldn’t handle being around women who don’t share their opinions. The thing is, no one was forcing anyone to go hear Max Dashu speak. Attendees could go to the event and just, not go to her talk if they don’t want to listen to her speak.
That Zabala and the other organizers of this event decided the appropriate thing to do was to exclude Max Dashu from speaking at the event entirely instead of inviting attendees who don’t wish to hear her speak to simply not go to her talk, is garbage. You should be ashamed of your actions.
Screen Shot 2018-07-20 at 1.26.00 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-07-20 at 1.33.39 PM.png

Kevi Smith-Joyner (USA) @GLSENMaryland @kevismith7 ‏

Kevi Smith-Joyner is the GLSEN Maryland Education & Youth Programs Associate “dedicated to created a safer and inclusive Baltimore” who showed up at this train wreck of a Facebook post to ask for money in exchange for the privilege of being berated over having opinions and expressing them on a public Facebook post: Continue reading “Kevi Smith-Joyner (USA) @GLSENMaryland @kevismith7 ‏”

Rich Allison (USA)

Rich Allison is a men’s rights activist who has brought at least 13 lawsuits against female-focused businesses, alleging discrimination against men in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act because he’s upset he’s not invited to ladies’ night and doesn’t qualify for privately offered diversity scholarships aimed at getting women involved in industries that are already dominated by men. He was inspired to get involved in the men’s rights movement after he saw a T-Mobile ad he didn’t like featuring Sarah Silverman during the Super Bowl.
In his youth, Mr. Allison attended a boys’ prep school in Connecticut before moving to California. One reasonably wonders whether he’s planning to file suit against his former school next. Further, was the value of being educated in an environment focused on supporting his development as a young man simply lost on him? How sad.
He spends his time filing these lawsuits to deal with his emotions regarding his former military service, and also to remind women that civil rights laws were written to guarantee “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services” for everyone, including men’s rights activists.
A Fight for Men’s Rights, in California Courts — New York Times

Get the L Out at Pride in London Parade (U.K.) @PrideinLondon #GetTheLOut

On July 7, 2018, “a group of lesbian and feminist individuals and organisations, opposing the increasingly anti-lesbian and misogynistic LGBT movement and the erasure of lesbians” called Get the L Out protested and marched in the Pride in London Parade. Continue reading “Get the L Out at Pride in London Parade (U.K.) @PrideinLondon #GetTheLOut”

McAdams v. Marquette University (USA)

John McAdams, a former Marquette University professor who wrote a blog post  criticizing a student instructor he believed shut down debate against gay marriage wrongfully lost his job because of what he published. The 120-page decision concluded that the private Catholic school breached its contract with professor McAdams that guaranteed academic freedom and that he should be immediately reinstated.
We agree, and as a lesbian, I don’t want professors trying to protect gay people from arguments against the gay rights movement. If our movement is sound, it should stand on its own merit.
Wisconsin high court sides with fired conservative professor
Marquette Warrior_ Marquette Philosophy Instructor_ “Gay Rights” Can_t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

Bray v. Starbucks (USA) @starbucks

On December 27, 2017, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed in part a summary-judgment dismissal of a case alleging discrimination on the basis of transgender status, finding a genuine issue of material fact. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings regarding the alleged discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The case was brought by Paul Allen Bray, who identifies as a “transgender/transsexual male,” against Starbucks, alleging that an employee disclosed Bray’s transgender status to another employee, who subsequently “began to treat him differently.”
Court reinstates transgender man’s discrimination suit against Starbucks — Pink News
Bray v. Starbucks — unpublished opinion

Love v. Young (USA) @ACLUFL

Nevaeh Love

Nevaeh Love is a man who identifies as a woman. In September 2017, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on his behalf alleging he had been “ejected from a place of public accommodation because [he] is transgender.” Specifically, Love alleged he was “singled out and asked to move from [his] seat at an adults-only fundraising event.” The event was advertised as open to “ladies only” and featured male exotic dancers who allegedly “expressed objections to performing their show, which involved some degree of disrobing and mingling with the patrons, if a person they considered to be male was in the audience.” Event organizers allegedly asked Love to sit further back in the audience.
The case was presented to Judge Edward P. Nickinson of the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, who apparently distinguished Love’s case from similar cases alleging discrimination in which sexual acts were not a factor. According to Judge Nickinson, “No person should be required to perform body-contact sexual or sexually suggestive acts with another except by consent. The court believes that a judgment in favor of Ms. Love, in this case, would violate that basic premise.”
Further, Judge Nickinson wrote:

“Here, the dancers clearly did not consider Ms. Love to be a ‘woman’ for purposes of their performance, and the court sees no reason why, for that limited purpose, Ms. Love should be able to force those dancers to think otherwise.”

(emphasis added). He also noted that “the Court does not take issue with any of the multitude of cases finding that statutory prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex extend to transgender persons” in concluding that Love should not prevail on the claims alleged in the complaint.
Judge rules against Pensacola woman in transgender discrimination suit — Pensacola News Journal