DOCSLIB.ORG

STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC SECURITY for CHILDREN LIVING in LGBT FAMILIES January 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC SECURITY for CHILDREN LIVING in LGBT FAMILIES January 2012 STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR CHILDREN LIVING IN LGBT FAMILIES January 2012 Authors In Partnership With A Companion Report to “All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families.” Both reports are co-authored by the Movement Advancement Project, the Family Equality Council, and the Center for American Progress. This report was authored by: This report was developed in partnership with: 2 Movement Advancement Project National Association of Social Workers The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an independent National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the largest think tank that provides rigorous research, insight and membership organization of professional social workers in analysis that help speed equality for LGBT people. MAP works the world, with 145,000 members. NASW works to enhance collaboratively with LGBT organizations, advocates and the professional growth and development of its members, to funders, providing information, analysis and resources that create and maintain professional standards, and to advance help coordinate and strengthen their efforts for maximum sound social policies. The primary mission of the social work impact. MAP also conducts policy research to inform the profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the public and policymakers about the legal and policy needs of basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to LGBT people and their families. For more information, visit the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, www.lgbtmap.org. oppressed, and living in poverty. For more information, visit www.socialworkers.org. Family Equality Council Family Equality Council works to ensure equality for LGBT families by building community, changing public opinion, Acknowledgments advocating for sound policy and advancing social justice for all families. Family Equality Council provides support and MAP thanks the following funders, without whom this resources to LGBT-headed families, and leverages the power report would not have been possible. of families by sharing their stories and driving change in communities and states across the nation. Family Equality • Arcus Foundation Council educates members of government, schools, faith- • David Bohnett Foundation based communities, healthcare institutions and other social • David Dechman systems about how they can promote family equality. Family • David Geffen Foundation Equality Council also partners with other LGBT and broader social justice organizations to provide the greatest positive • Gill Foundation impact and to maximize resources. For more information, visit • Jim Hormel www.familyequality.org. • Johnson Family Foundation • Amy Mandel and Katina Rodis Center for American Progress • Weston Milliken The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a think tank • Kevin J. Mossier Foundation dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas • The Palette Fund and action. CAP combines bold policy ideas with a modern • Mona Pittenger communications platform to help shape the national debate. CAP is designed to provide long-term leadership and support • Two Sisters and a Wife Foundation to the progressive movement. CAP’s policy experts cover a • H. van Ameringen Foundation wide range of issue areas, and often work across disciplines to tackle complex, interrelated issues such as national security, MAP also thanks the many families who shared their energy, and climate change. For more information, visit stories with us. www.americanprogress.org. Note About this Companion Report This report is a companion report to “All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families,” which is available online through www.lgbtmap.org/lgbt-families or through any of the co-author websites. We suggest the following citation for this condensed report: Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and Center for American Progress, “Strengthening Economic Security for Children Living in LGBT Families,” January 2012. This report incorporates information that was current as of December 1, 2011. Contact Information Movement Advancement Project Family Equality Council Center for American Progress 2215 Market Street P.O. Box 206 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor Denver, CO 80205 Boston, MA 02133 Washington, DC 20005 720-274-3263 617-502-8700 202-682-1611 www.lgbtmap.org www.familyequality.org www.americanprogress.org TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1 LGBT Families are Part of the American Fabric ...................................................................................................... 1 Geographically Diverse ..........................................................................................................................................................2 Racially and Ethnically Diverse ...........................................................................................................................................2 Lower Income, Higher Poverty ............................................................................................................................................2 LACK OF LEGAL RECOGNITION FOR LGBT FAMILIES ....................................................................4 The Paths to Parenthood for LGBT Families ........................................................................................................... 4 Foster & Adoptive Families ....................................................................................................................................................4 Blended Families & Stepfamilies .........................................................................................................................................5 Assisted Reproduction & Surrogacy ..................................................................................................................................5 How Lack of Legal Recognition Harms Children .................................................................................................. 6 SOCIAL BURDENS AND ECONOMIC COSTS FOR LGBT FAMILIES .................................................7 LGBT Families and the Price of Protecting Children ............................................................................................ 7 Legal Fees Put Protection Out of Reach ...........................................................................................................................8 Extra Tax Burdens ......................................................................................................................................................................9 Options for Welcoming Schools are Limited ..................................................................................................................9 Health Insurance – Buy Privately or Do Without ...........................................................................................................10 How Social and Economic Burdens Harm Children ............................................................................................. 11 NOWHERE TO TURN FOR STRUGGLING LGBT FAMILIES ...............................................................11 Broken Lifelines When an LGBT Parent Becomes Disabled or Dies ................................................................ 12 Children Barred from Receiving Social Security Survivors and Disability Insurance Benefits .....................12 Children Not Entitled to Inheritance and Other Property .........................................................................................13 Surviving Family Members Cannot Sue for Wrongful Death ....................................................................................13 The Frayed Safety Net for Needy LGBT Families ................................................................................................... 14 Programs Fall Short of Providing Economic Security for Children ..........................................................................14 How Means-Tested Safety Net Programs Treat LGBT Families Differently ............................................................16 Eligibility Is Uncertain for Most LGBT Families ...............................................................................................................18 Once Enrolled, LGBT Families Still Face Undue Unique Challenges .......................................................................20 LGBT Families May Qualify But Not Apply .......................................................................................................................22 How Lack of Access to Governmental Protections Harms Children ............................................................... 23 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................23 All Children Matter: Bridging Policy and Practice ................................................................................................ 24 Broad Federal & State Policy Recommendations to Support LGBT Families .......................................................24 Policy Recommendations for Government Lifeline and Safety Net Programs for LGBT Families ................25 Recommendations for Community-Based Organizations, Advocates and Funders ........................................26 END NOTES AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................................28
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gay Rights Through the Looking Glass: Politics, Morality, and the Trial of Colorado's Amendment 2
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1994 Gay Rights Through the Looking Glass: Politics, Morality, and the Trial of Colorado's Amendment 2 Suzanne B. Goldberg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Suzanne B. Goldberg, Gay Rights Through the Looking Glass: Politics, Morality, and the Trial of Colorado's Amendment 2, 21 FORDHAM URB. L. J. 1057 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/970 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GAY RIGHTS THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: POLITICS, MORALITY AND THE TRIAL OF COLORADO'S AMENDMENT 2 Suzanne B. Goldberg* Courts have long struggled to resolve the question of how far a community may go in exercising its power to treat minority mem- bers differently. Popular prejudice, "community morality" and in- vidious stereotypes repeatedly have had their day in court as judges work to reconcile equal protection and privacy rights with their own attitudes about the place of people of color, women and gay people in society.1 In the early 1990s, the tension between the American ideal of equality and the reality of human diversity starkly emerged. A national wave of citizen-sponsored initiatives seeking to amend state constitutions and local charters to prohibit governments from protecting lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens from discrimination spread across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Equal Rights for Lgbt Employees: Legal and Managerial Implications for Employers
    Ohio Northern University Law Review Volume 43 Issue 1 Article 5 2019 TOWARD EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES: LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS Michael T. Zugelder Old Dominion University Strome College of Business Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/onu_law_review Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Zugelder, Michael T. (2019) "TOWARD EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES: LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS," Ohio Northern University Law Review: Vol. 43 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/onu_law_review/vol43/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ONU Journals and Publications at DigitalCommons@ONU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ohio Northern University Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@ONU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Zugelder: TOWARD EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES: LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPL Toward Equal Rights for LGBT Employees: Legal and Managerial Implications for Employers MICHAEL T. ZUGELDER* American lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workers have made great strides toward equal employment rights, and the trend toward equal rights is clear. Still, 52% of LGBT workers can be denied employment or fired simply for being LGBT. This state of the law makes the U.S. lag behind many of its major trading partners, who have already established equal employment in their national laws. While there are a number of routes U.S. law may soon take to end LGBT employment discrimination, private firms, especially those with international operations, will need to determine the best course to take.
    [Show full text]
  • Glenda Russell & Renee Morgan
    OUT OF THE SHADOWS: 1969 A Timeline of Boulder LGBT History Since the Stonewall riots in 1969, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people BOULDER have been advanced in many ways and in places small and large. Much is known about the struggle and advances in LGBT rights that have taken place on national and state stages. Much less is known about the path toward equal rights for LGBT people in Boulder. This is Boulder’s story. COLORADO Compiled by Glenda Russell & Renee Morgan Sponsored by Designed by 1969 NYC Stonewall Riots NATIONAL 1970s 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1974 1970 1978 Referendum: Boulder Gay Liberation Lesbian Caucus and Sexual Orientation Front is formed at CU Boulder Gay Liberation is removed from create stir with Boulder’s Human Gay Blue Jeans Day Rights Ordinance Recall election: Tim Fuller is recalled and Pen Tate barely survives recall effort Same-sex couples are ejected from down- 1976 town bars for dancing Gay and Lesbian together; protests follow class is taught Monthly dances at Jack Kerouac School at CU Hidden Valley Ranch Maven Productions of Disembodied draw hundreds produces its first Poetics is formed at concert, Cris Naropa Institute Williamson at Tulagi’ 1979 After evicting same-sex couples dancing, Isa- dora’s picketed; their sign zapped 1971 Boulder Gay Liberation Front publishes first issue of monthly newsletter, Gayly Planet 1973 Boulder City Council adopts Human Rights Ordinance, including sexual orientation 1975 Boulder County Clerk 1972 Clela Rorex grants Boulder
    [Show full text]
  • Romer V. Evans: a Legal and Political Analysis
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 1 December 1997 Romer v. Evans: A Legal and Political Analysis Caren G. Dubnoff Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Caren G. Dubnoff, Romer v. Evans: A Legal and Political Analysis, 15(2) LAW & INEQ. 275 (1997). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol15/iss2/1 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Romer v. Evans: A Legal and Political Analysis Caren G. Dubnoff* Introduction Despite the Supreme Court's role as final arbiter of the "law of the land," its power to effect social change is limited. For exam- ple, school desegregation, mandated by the Court in 1954, was not actually implemented until years later when Congress and the President finally took action.1 As a result, prayer in public schools, repeatedly deemed illegal by the Court, continues in many parts of the country even today. 2 To some degree, whether the Court's po- * Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, College of the Holy Cross. Ph.D. 1974, Columbia University; A.B. 1964, Bryn Mawr. The author wishes to thank Jill Moeller for her most helpful editorial assistance. 1. Several studies have demonstrated that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), produced little school desegregation by itself. One of the earliest of these was J.W. PELTASON, FIFTY-EIGHT LONELY MEN: SOUTHERN FEDERAL JUDGES AND SCHOOL DESEGREGATION (1961) (demonstrating how district court judges evaded the decision, leaving school segregation largely in place).
    [Show full text]
  • Report Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace
    Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-2012 Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The eedN for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits Jennifer C. Pizer Brad Sears Christy Mallory Nan D. Hunter Recommended Citation Jennifer C. Pizer, Brad Sears, Christy Mallory, and Nan D. Hunter, Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The Need for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits, 45 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 715 (2012). Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol45/iss3/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENT AND PERVASIVE WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE: THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AND PROVIDING FOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Jennifer C. Pizer, Brad Sears, Christy Mallory & Nan D. Hunter* Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have experienced a long and pervasive history of employment discrimination. Today, more than eight million people in the American workforce identify as LGBT, but there still is no federal law that explicitly prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination against them. This Article begins by surveying the social science research and other evidence illustrating the nature and scope of the discrimination against LGBT workers and the harmful effects of this discrimination on both employees and employers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 The Legislative Backlash to Advances in Rights for Same-Sex Couples Spring 2005 The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State John G. Culhane Stacey L. Sobel Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John G. Culhane, & Stacey L. Sobel, The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State, 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 443 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol40/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Culhane and Sobel: The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from THE GAY MARRIAGE BACKLASH AND ITS SPILLOVER EFFECTS: LESSONS FROM A (SLIGHTLY) "BLUE STATE" John G. Culhane* and Stacey L. Sobel** I. INTRODUCTION Backlash, indeed! The stories streaming in from across the country can scarcely be believed. In Alabama, a legislator introduced a bill that would have banished any mention of homosexuality from all public libraries-even at the university level.' In Virginia, the legislature's enthusiasm for joining the chorus of states that have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage was eclipsed by a legislator's suggestion that the state's license plates be pressed into service as political slogans, and made to read: "Traditional Marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Claims Under the Fair Housing Act After Bostock V
    Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Claims Under the Fair Housing Act After Bostock v. Clayton County Rigel C. Oliveri* INTRODUCTION On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,1 ruling by a vote of 6–3 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19642 protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination. The majority held that the statute’s prohibition against discrimination in employment “because of . sex” necessarily applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity.3 This decision will undoubtedly have ramifications reaching beyond the employment context because many other federal statutes contain language similar to that in Title VII. In particular, the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA),4 which has identical language prohibiting discrimination in housing “because of . sex,”5 should also now be interpreted to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This is an obvious next step given the similar language, structure, and purpose of both statutes, and the courts’ long-standing tendency to use Title VII cases to guide their interpretation of the FHA. This would also be a welcome development for housing equity, considering the significant discrimination that gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals experience in housing and the dearth of legal protections in place for them. It may be tempting for advocates to simply point to the textual similarity between the statutes and declare the matter resolved. We should go further, however, because it is important to understand how the Isabelle Wade and Paul C. Lyda Professor of Law, University of Missouri.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT Rights and HIV/AIDS
    The Annual Update of the ACLU’s Nationwide Work on LGBT Rights and HIV/AIDS 2 x 2006 ANNUAL UPDATE ANNUAL UPDATE OF THE ACLU’S NATIONWIDE WORK ON LGBT RIGHTS AND HIV/AIDS ACLU Foundation LESBIAN & GAY RIGHTS AND AIDS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2627 [email protected] aclu.org/lgbt aclu.org/hivaids Contents PERSPECTIVES DISCRIMINATION 5 LGBT Rights: A Core ACLU Issue 46 Cruel and Unusual 7 70 / 50 / 20 48 Discrimination Docket 10 Memories of the Beginning of the Project TRANSGENDER 11 The ACLU and the Gay Liberation Movement 57 Fit to Serve 14 Founding Supporters 58 Transgender Docket RELATIONSHIPS HIV/AIDS 16 Portraits of Marriage 62 Get Out of Town 20 Relationships Docket 64 HIV/AIDS Docket PARENTING 66 CONTRIBUTORS 28 Foreword to TOO HIGH A PRICE 76 ABOUT US 30 Parenting Docket 78 COOPERATING ATTORNEYS YOUTH & SCHOOLS 36 The Other O.C. 38 Youth & Schools Docket PERSPECTIVES yIn this 1987 photo, ACLU staff and supporters announce the arrival of the new Lesbian and Gay Rights Project at a public demonstration. LGBT Rights: A Core ACLU Issue By Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director As the essays by Matt Coles, Robert Nakatani, y Anthony D. Romero is the Executive Director of the he fight for LGBT rights is a central ACLU American Civil Liberties Union. concern because the fight for LGBT rights and Nan Hunter that follow show, the ACLU is T is a core civil liberties issue. It’s not about hardly a newcomer to the fight for LGBT rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ------♦
    No. 19-123 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- SHARONELL FULTON, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SCHOLARS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF CHILDREN IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- CATHERINE E. SMITH TANYA WASHINGTON HICKS Counsel of Record GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF DENVER COLLEGE OF LAW STURM COLLEGE OF LAW L FONTANA 2255 E. Evans Avenue AUREN UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO Denver, CO 80208 DENVER 303.871.6180 SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS [email protected] JESSICA DIXON WEAVER SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW CARY MARTIN SHELBY WASHINGTON AND LEE SCHOOL OF LAW ANGELA ONWUACHI-WILLIG BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ....................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans
    UNDERSTANDING ISSUES FACING TRANSGENDER AMERICANS National Center for TRANSGENDER EQUALITY Authors Partner This report was authored by: Contact Information 2 Movement Advancement Project Movement Advancement Project (MAP) The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an 2215 Market Street independent think tank that provides rigorous Denver, CO 80205 research, insight and analysis that help speed equality [email protected] for LGBT people. MAP works collaboratively with www.lgbtmap.org LGBT organizations, advocates and funders, providing information, analysis and resources that help coordinate GLAAD and strengthen their efforts for maximum impact. MAP 5455 Wilshire Blvd, #1500 also conducts policy research to inform the public and Los Angeles, CA 90036 policymakers about the legal and policy needs of LGBT 323-933-2240 people and their families. www.glaad.org National Center for Transgender Equality National Center for Transgender Equality The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) is 1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 700 the nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization Washington, DC 20005 winning life saving change for transgender people. 202-903-0112 NCTE was founded in 2003 by transgender activists www.transequality.org who recognized the urgent need for policy change to advance transgender equality. Transgender Law Center: 1629 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 400 Transgender Law Center Oakland, CA 94612 Founded in 2002, Transgender Law Center (TLC) is now 415-865-0176 the largest transgender-led organization in the United www.transgenderlawcenter.org States dedicated to advancing transgender rights. TLC changes law, policy and attitudes so that all people can live safely, authentically, and free from discrimination regardless of their gender identity or expression.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrimination Against LGBT People in Kansas
    Discrimination against LGBT People in Kansas Christy Mallory and Brad Sears January 2019 Executive Summary Over 4% of American adults identify as LGBT. An estimated 72,600 LGBT adults live in Kansas. Kansas does not have a statewide law that expressly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, or other areas. This report summarizes recent evidence of sex discrimination against LGBT people in Kansas, explains the limited current protections from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the state, and considers the administrative impact of adding these characteristics to the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. 72,600 56,000 38% 67% 12% 31 Transgender Number of new Public Population workers complaints if Number of Number of support for protected by reporting LGBT LGBT adults LGBT workers LGBT non- local non- workplace protections are in Kansas in Kansas discrimination discrimination mistreatment added to state protections laws in past year law 1 Key findings of this report include: LGBT People in Kansas Report Experiencing Discrimination and Harassment in Employment, Housing, Public Accommodations, and Other Settings An estimated 72,600 LGBT adults live in Kansas.1 There are approximately 56,000 LGBT workers aged 16 and older in the state.2 Survey data indicate that LGBT people in Kansas experience harassment and discrimination. For example, in response to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 38% of transgender respondents from Kansas reported that they
    [Show full text]
  • The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision and the Clash Between Nondiscrimination and Religious Freedom
    Oklahoma Law Review Volume 71 Number 4 2019 The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision and the Clash Between Nondiscrimination and Religious Freedom Klint W. Alexander, Ph.D, J.D. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Klint W. Alexander, Ph.D, J.D., The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision and the Clash Between Nondiscrimination and Religious Freedom, 71 OKLA. L. REV. 1069 (2019), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol71/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP DECISION AND THE CLASH BETWEEN NONDISCRIMINATION AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM KLINT W. ALEXANDER, PH.D, J.D.* I. Introduction During the past decade, individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) have made significant progress in obtaining legal protections under federal and state law.1 The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to recognize same-sex marriage was a turning point and catalyst for extending civil rights protections to LGBT people.2 Since Obergefell, the general prohibition against “sex” discrimination found in many federal and state statutes addressing employment, education, housing, and public accommodations has been interpreted rather liberally by some courts to include sexual orientation and gender identity, thus emboldening LGBT people to seek legal redress when they are fired, refused promotion, or denied goods and services in the marketplace.
    [Show full text]