The Wage Gap and LGBT Women

Today is Equal Pay Day, which reflects the approximate number of extra days the typical woman must work to in 2018 to make what the typical man made in 2017 alone. Based on data from the Census Bureau, in 2018 a woman earns $0.80 for every $1.00 earned by a man.

Despite significant progress made over the past 50 years, women’s economic security is still extremely vulnerable. For example, when the wage gap is combined with attempts by the Trump Administration to create a right to refuse vital health care, or efforts in states to thwart paid family leave, women are at even greater risk of economic insecurity.

But that’s not the whole story.

We also know this disparity is worse for women of color and LGBT women.

For LGBT women, discrimination and stigma because of their sexual orientation and gender identity mean that they and their families are especially vulnerable to economic insecurity. Read more in MAP’s groundbreaking report, Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for LGBT Women in America, released in 2015.

Addressing the ways in which all women are forced to pay an unfair price requires that LGBT women, women of color, parents, and all women, be treated equally.

INFOGRAPHICS: Religious Refusals in Health Care

Across the country, there is a growing effort to create religious exemptions in many areas of life. Religious exemptions are carve outs to existing laws and policies that aim to allow people, organizations, or businesses to be exempt from a law if they claim that the law violates their religious or moral beliefs. In the context of healthcare, these exemptions result in doctors medical providers refusing to provide medical care. These “religious refusals” can even allow hospital administrators to keep a doctor from providing the best care to their patients because the hospital objects to providing that care, even if the doctor doesn’t.

For example, some exemptions mean women could be denied birth control or other health care coverage because of their employer’s religious beliefs, and LGBT people can be denied basic services because of a doctor’s disapproval of who they are or the care they need. Allowing healthcare providers to ignore standard medical best practices and instead put their personal beliefs before patient health has the potential to gravely harm millions of people and their families’ health. Patients’ health and wellbeing should always come first.

These graphics show the impact and implications of religious refusals. Learn more in MAP’s latest report: Religious Refusals in Health Care: A Prescription for Disaster.

NEW REPORT: A Prescription for Disaster

MAP is sounding the alarm. Did you know there is a coordinated and widespread push to pass a variety of religious exemptions laws that would give medical professionals a license to discriminate against their patients? The Trump Administration, in particular, has made a dramatic effort to insert religious refusals into peoples’ health care. Earlier this year, the Administration’s announced a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Department of Health and Human Services, and 

proposed rules that seek to radically expand the ability of health care providers and institutions to deny patients care based on religious or moral beliefs. And tomorrow, March 27, the comment period this dangerous new proposed rule closes. Click here to share your story with the Trump Administration and let them know that personal beliefs should never override patient care.

These religious refusal laws are undermining the very foundation of our medical system, which should be to put patients first and to do no harm.

To bring attention to the coordinated strategy to insert religious refusals into the health care of millions of people, the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) and the National Center for Transgender Equality released a new report, Religious Refusals in Health Care: A Prescription for Disaster. This new report examines the impact of religious refusals on people’s health and wellbeing, and showcases the broad and dangerous implications of these refusals on LGBT people, women, people of color, low-income people, religious minorities, and more.

What can happen when health providers are able to refuse treatment and choose which patients they wish to serve?

  • Creating a health care system when patients’ health comes second to health care providers’ personal beliefs.
  • Restricting access to a wide range of reproductive health care, including emergency care.
  • Allowing healthcare providers to limit information shared with patients
  • Refusing health care for patients because of who they are, including women, transgender people, LGBT people, and children of LGBT parents.
  • Permitting refusals of care for sexual health, including sexually-transmitted infection and HIV-related health care.

Click here to learn more about how religious refusals are comprising patient health: Religious Refusals in Health Care: A Prescription for Disaster

Open to All Week: Recap

Last week, the Open to All coalition and MAP launched the inaugural Open to All Week to raise awareness about the importance of nondiscrimination protections and why if businesses are open to the public, they should be open to all. Two important United States Supreme Court cases are shaping this conversation: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises.

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Piggie Park case, which involved a small barbeque chain still open today, that wanted the right to refuse service to African American customers. The owner, a segregationist, claimed that the Civil Rights Act violated his religious freedom.

The Court disagreed in a landmark decision issued on March 18, 1968.

So, what does the Piggie Park case have to do with Open to All and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?

The impact of Piggie Park has reverberated for decades as a critical part of the foundation of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and the principle that businesses that are open to the public should be open to everyone on the same terms.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission involves a Colorado bakery that discriminated against a gay couple in violation of Colorado law, and is claiming it should be exempt from the state’s law due to the religious beliefs of its owner.

A win for the bakery would set us back decades and transport our country back to a time when businesses could say “we don’t serve your kind here,” and would give businesses a legal, constitutionally protected license to discriminate against LGBT people, people of color, minority faiths, people with disabilities, and women. The Open to All coalition was formed in December 2017 to build support for nondiscrimination laws and focus attention on the far-reaching, dangerous risks of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

That’s why Open to All Week is so critical, to remind people that the Supreme Court has heard these arguments before. And just as they did 50 years ago, the Court must reject discrimination.

To amplify this message, we released a number of resources for Open to all Week, including two new ads “Open to All” and “Will We Go Back?“, opinion pieces, a policy brief, and new shareables on social media.

We’re heartened by the efforts of advocates, allies, and even celebrities during Open to All week. Because of the collective outreach of the nearly 150 organizations involved in Open to All, our message reached millions of people on social media.

Check out some of the great #OpentoAll posts from major influencers and celebrities:

Today, as the nation awaits a decision in Masterpiece, Piggie Park’s legacy must be honored. Here’s how you can get involved:

  • WATCH the ads and share them on social media. Visit www.opentoall.com/sharefor all the shareable Open to All resources.
  • READ about the parallels between the cases and why Masterpiece has the potential to alter our nation’s civil rights laws in “50 Years Ago vs. Today: Piggie Park & The High Stakes of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case”
  • VOICE your support for Open to All Week over social media throughout the week with the hashtag #OpentoAllWeek. And follow Open to All on Twitter and Facebook for new content throughout the week.
  • SIGN UP for breaking news, ways to take action in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, and to add your support for the Open to All Coalition.
  • SIGN the ACLU’s People’s Petition and tell the Supreme Court to reject discrimination.

 

NEW AD: 50 Years Later: Will We Go Back?

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its fastest rulings ever in a landmark case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises. Piggie Park, a small barbeque chain which is still open today, wanted the right to refuse service to African American customers. The owner, a segregationist, claimed that the Civil Rights Act violated his religious freedom.

The Supreme Court delivered a resounding rebuke of the barbecue chain on March 18, 1968, definitively ruling that the restaurant could no longer discriminate.

Sound familiar? That’s because it is.

Now, fifty years later, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a Colorado bakery that discriminated against a gay couple in violation of Colorado law is claiming it should be exempt from the state’s nondiscrimination law due to the religious beliefs of its owner.

To mark the fifty-year anniversary of the Piggie Park decision, the Open to All campaign, MAP, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights released a new ad, “Will We Go Back?,” that looks at how a current case before the Supreme Court threatens this historic ruling. The ad was released as part of Open to All Week, March 12-18, commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark decision. Learn more about the Piggie Park case and how creating a constitutional license to discriminate in Masterpiece could undermine that historic ruling against discrimination.

Read the story in the Huffington Post “Supreme Court’s Cake Case Could Set America Back 50 Years, Activists Warn

A win for the bakery in Masterpiece threatens the historic legacy of the Piggie Park decision, and could take us back to a shameful era in our nation’s history, an era where businesses could claim a right to discriminate as they see fit—not just for LGBT people, but for people of color, minority faiths, people with disabilities, and women.

Businesses and their owners have a right to their religious beliefs—but that freedom shouldn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.

Take Action:

  • WATCH “Will We Go Back?” and share on social media. Visit www.opentoall.com/sharefor all the shareable Open to All resources.
  • READ about the parallels between the cases and why Masterpiece has the potential to alter our nation’s civil rights laws in “50 Years Ago vs. Today: Piggie Park & The High Stakes of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case”
  • VOICE your support for Open to All Week over social media throughout the week with the hashtag #OpentoAllWeek. And follow Open to All on Twitter and Facebook for new content throughout the week.
  • SIGN UP for breaking news, ways to take action in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, and to add your support for the Open to All Coalition.
  • SIGN the ACLU’s People’s Petition and tell the Supreme Court to reject discrimination.
  • DONATE and support more ads like “Will We Go Back?”

NEW AD: “Open to All”

March 12-18 is Open to All Week, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the landmark decision in the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises. Piggie Park, a small barbeque chain which is still open today, wanted the right to refuse service to African American customers. The owner, a segregationist, claimed that the Civil Rights Act violated his religious freedom. The Supreme Court disagreed.

To help raise awareness of this important anniversary MAP and the Open to All Coalition launched Open to All Week, and released a new ad, “Open to All” featuring Christian small business owners—Howard and Pat—speaking about how nobody should be turned away from a business simply because of who they are.

Now the nation awaits a decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the owner of a bakery is claiming that the state’s nondiscrimination law, which requires him to serve same-sex couples, unconstitutionally violates his religious beliefs.

A win for the bakery in Masterpiece threatens the historic legacy of the Piggie Park decision and could take us back to a shameful era in our nation’s history, an era where businesses could claim a right to discriminate as they see fit.

Piggie Park wasn’t just about barbeque. And Masterpiece isn’t just about cake.

The stakes of the Masterpiece case couldn’t be higher—not just for LGBT people, but for people of color, minority faiths, people with disabilities, and women. Because if a bakery can discriminate against same-sex couples, it won’t stop with bakeries, or with same-sex couples.

This ad was produced by MAP as part of the Open to All coalition, a nationwide public engagement campaign to build understanding and discussion about the importance of our nation’s nondiscrimination laws—and the bedrock principle that when businesses open their doors to the public, they should be Open to All.

To learn more about Open to All week and to view the ad, visit www.Opentoall.com/open-to-all-week

Advocate Opinion: “Tell the Supreme Court That Businesses Must Be ‘Open to All’”

Today, the Advocate published a new opinion piece, “Tell the Supreme Court That Businesses Must Be ‘Open To All,’” marking the start of Open to All Week. In the article, MAP executive director Ineke Mushovic outlined the incredibly high stakes of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and described how the court has heard these arguments before.

March 12—18, Open to All Week, commemorates the 50th anniversary of the landmark case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises. Piggie Park, a small barbeque chain, which is still open today, wanted the right to refuse service to African American customers. The owner, a segregationist, claimed that the Civil Rights Act violated his religious freedom.

The Supreme Court disagreed in a decision issued on March 18, 1968.

Piggie Park wasn’t just about barbeque. And Masterpiece isn’t just about cake.

Now the nation awaits a decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the owner of a bakery is claiming that the state’s nondiscrimination law, which requires him to serve same-sex couples, unconstitutionally violates his religious beliefs.

In the opinion piece, Mushovic warns how a win for the bakery in Masterpiece threatens the historic legacy of the Piggie Park decision and could take us back to a shameful era in our nation’s history, an era where businesses could claim a right to discriminate as they see fit.

Click here to read the opinion piece in the Advocate.

Two New Rulings Affirm LGBT Discrimination is Prohibited Under Federal Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is sex discrimination.

So says two federal courts in the span of one week. On February 28, 2018, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case of Zarda v. Altitude Express. The Court found that Title VII, a federal law, protects people from being discriminated against in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. More specifically, the Court found that employment discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

And then on March 7, 2018, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of a funeral home director who was fired after telling her employer that she was transitioning from male to female. The case, Stephens v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, affirmed previous rulings from the 6th Circuit that discrimination based on gender identity was prohibited discrimination under Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination. The funeral home also claimed that they were exempt from the law because of their religious beliefs, and the Court rejected that claim.

MAP updated its Title VII explainer to reflect these rulings—in which the the 2nd Circuit Court became the second federal court of appeals to make such a ruling in a sexual orientation case.

So, what does Title VII cover, and why is this important to LGBT people? What does sex discrimination have to do with discrimination against LGBT people?

Title VII is a federal civil rights law that protects people from being discriminated against in employment because of their sex, race, religion, and other characteristics. Federal law does not explicitly list “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” as protected categories, but—as shown in our updated infographic—many federal courts and agencies argue that discrimination on the basis of “sex” covers LGBT people anyway. Here’s why.

When someone is discriminated against for being LGBT, that discrimination is a form of sex discrimination because “but for” their sex, they would not face such discrimination. Take the example of a lesbian being fired after being seen holding hands with her wife. If she were a man, she would not be fired. “But for” her being a woman, she would not have experienced that discrimination. The same is true for workers are who are seen as qualified until they begin a gender transition and then are discriminated against for being transgender. “But for” their gender, they would not have faced such discrimination.

Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex is not only about one’s sex, but also about sex stereotypes and whether one adheres to those stereotypes. The Supreme Court has held that illegal discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes and whether a person adheres to those stereotypes. For example, discrimination based on sexual orientation rests on the stereotype that men are or should be attracted only to women, and that women are or should be attracted only to men. Similarly, gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination because it is rooted in views that transgender or gender nonconforming people don’t fit the idea of how a man or woman “should” be. Discriminating against an employee who fails to conform to stereotypes in the workplace, including hair style and style of dress, is discrimination based on sex because the discrimination is rooted in stereotypes about how men and women should appear, act, and dress.

And protections under Title VII are vital for LGBT people because they face frequent discrimination. For example, one-quarter of LGBT people reportedpersonally experienced discrimination at work in the past year alone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 27% of transgender people said they had been fired, not hired, or denied a promotion in the past year.

The positive decision in Mr. Zarda’s case in the 2nd Circuit Court and in Aimee Stephen’s case in the 6th Circuit are extremely important for LGBT people around the country. In many states, as well as under federal law, there are no explicit protections for LGBT people in the workplace.

These decisions strengthen the growing number of judicial decisions recognizing that protections against sex discrimination include protections for LGBT people.

Donate here to support MAP as we continue to track and support ongoing court cases and conduct research to speed equality for LGBT people!

 

Infographics: The Disparities Facing Bisexual People

Because bisexual people are frequently swept into the greater lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community, their specific disparities are all too often made invisible within data about the whole community.

Did you know? More women identify as bisexual than men. Bisexual people comprise more than half of the LGB population, yet they experience violence, poverty, discrimination, and poor physical and mental health outcomes at rates higher than their lesbian and gay peers—all pointing toward an urgent need to provide services and support for this segment of the community.

These graphics illustrate the disparities facing bisexual people.

Read more in MAP’s report Invisible Majority: The Disparities Facing Bisexual People and How to Remedy Them

Click here to download and view all of the graphics via Dropbox.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Title IX Still Protects Transgender Students, Even if DeVos Won’t

Earlier this month, the Trump Administration targeted transgender students again. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that the Department of Education is no longer accepting or investigating complaints from transgender students who are denied access to the bathrooms and facilities that match their gender identity. Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act protects all students from discrimination based on sex, and denying transgender students access to facilities because of their gender identity is discrimination based on sex.

This announcement came almost a year to the day after the Trump Administration’s decision to rescind Obama-era guidance that clarified that Title IX protections include protections for transgender students.

So, what is Title IX and who does it protect, exactly?

As shown in our updated infographic, Title IX is part of the federal Civil Rights Act, and it ensures that students must be afforded the same dignity, protection, and opportunity under the law regardless of their race or ethnicity, national origin, religion, or sex.

More recently, in 2016 under the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice explicitly stated that Title IX protections include protections for transgender students.

Yet, just days after assuming her role as President Trump’s Secretary of Education, Secretary DeVos rescinded that guidance, leaving students vulnerable to discrimination and harassment. This month’s announcement that the Department of Education won’t investigate claims filed by transgender students confirms yet again that President Trump and Secretary DeVos have endorsed the belief that transgender students are less deserving of protection than their peers.

This is particularly disturbing given the extensive bullying, violence, and discrimination faced by transgender students, as shown in MAP’s infographic. According to the 2015 National School Climate Survey, fully 75% of transgender students say they feel unsafe at school because of their gender expression, and 70% say they have avoided using school bathrooms as a result. By refusing to protect transgender students’ rights to use the bathroom – something we all have to do every day – Secretary DeVos and the Trump Administration are perpetuating the bullying, violence, and unsafe environment that ultimately deny transgender students their right to an education.

Despite Secretary DeVos’ announcement, schools around the country continue to have a legal obligation to protect transgender students’ rights, including the right to use bathrooms and facilities that match their gender identity. And the courts agree.

Our infographic shows that both the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have already ruled that Title IX’s protections include transgender students. Thanks to the hard work of our friends at the Transgender Law Center and the courageous efforts of a transgender student named Ash Whitaker, the Seventh Circuit’s unanimously found that transgender students are protected not only by Title IX, but by the U.S. Constitution itself.

More cases are also working their way through courts around the country, similarly defending the rights of transgender students under Title IX and the Constitution.

The Department of Education says its mission is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” Whether or not President Trump or Secretary DeVos choose to uphold this mission, the law still protects transgender students and their rights to equal access and education.

Support the Movement Advancement Project by sharing this content or making a donation!