Author: Raghav Ranawat
January 9, 2025
Imagine you live in a small town in America with a population of fewer than 5,000. You are in the "closet" because homosexuality is frowned upon, and you may be put in conversion therapy if your parents find out. You try to earn money to escape this town's homophobia by working in a business, but they can fire you solely because of your queer identity, with little recourse.
Why? Because federal protections of queer rights may not be applicable in your state or town. While the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies more broadly to government actions and provides a constitutional foundation for equal treatment, it does not directly enforce standards in private employment. Protections in employment are largely dependent on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which safeguards against discrimination in the workplace. This statute is often seen as a blueprint for fair treatment in employment, designed to ensure that LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer +) individuals are not judged or dismissed based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII mandates that employers in companies with 15 or more employees must not discriminate; however, it is limited in that its requirement does not extend to small businesses. Congress, in its pursuit of "equal protection"[1] for queer people in the workplace with the application of Title VII,[2] a federal act,[3] overlooked the fact that approximately 75%[4] of the U.S. lives in small towns. Approximately 7.3%[5] of the U.S. population is queer, and the majority of that, about 5.5% or 19.25 million, reside in such towns. If they risk losing their jobs, they may be less likely to fund their migrations to bigger, less discriminatory cities, where they can live freely.
There was, and is, discrimination in our society. In addition, the lack of legal recourse has a tangible and intangible impact on the current situation of queer people, especially queer youth. In particular, there is a lack of protection for them within a small business context. Firstly, during the passing of Title VII, there was no specific social or political discussion regarding gay people. In the 1970s, civil rights and social justice movements were focused on other marginalized groups, such as women and people of color. Secondly, amidst the increasing polarization within the U.S., queer individuals often encounter heightened scrutiny, as evidenced by the plethora of state and a few federal laws specifically targeting them. Such targeting highlights a notable disparity in legal protections and societal attitudes, which extends to the challenges faced by queer individuals within employment settings, particularly— small businesses.
It will be worthwhile to explore the current state of LGBTQ+ rights through a historical lens, tracing the evolution of laws and the narratives that will shape them, particularly focusing on legislative debates. How have landmark cases built the framework for the current legal landscape? Why will LGBTQ+ individuals remain vulnerable to unequal protection under Title VII despite the promise of equality? How will misunderstandings of the queer community over decades influence the application of Title VII, contextualized within the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, particularly from Lawrence v. Texas (2003)[6] to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)?[7] How may this impact LGBTQ+ people? And what are the possible solutions for addressing this legal loophole to prevent the future victimization of queer youth?
Background
Over the years, there has been a concerning increase in negative sentiments towards queer individuals, coupled with a loss of momentum in support for queer equality.[8] This trend is evident from the surge in anti-LGBTQ+ cases being introduced into the court system.[9] In addition, a lack of credible data on the number of LGBTQ+ adults working in small businesses makes it challenging to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the narrow protections provided by Title VII. Therefore, analysis of this issue holds significant importance for the queer population in the U.S.
Readers note: Cases discussed henceforth are all before Title VII was passed in 1964:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), One, Incorporated v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958).
Issue: The Lack of Protection for the Queer People Based on Article VII
That small businesses, due to their size, are not obligated by Title VII to adhere to standards of equality and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation perpetuates the status quo. The implication is profound for the well-being and rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
Homophobia in America can be traced back to the time of the Biblical colonial conquests of the Indigenous people.[11] The first U.S. federal ruling that addressed homosexuality was One, Incorporated. v. Olesen (1958),[12] whose primary ruling was "speech [sic] in favor of homosexuals is not inherently obscene", viewed from the lens of the First Amendment. While the holding was seemingly in favor of homosexuals publishing on homosexuality, the Court emphasized that ideas with "even the slightest redeeming social importance," including controversial ideas, were protected.[13] Essentially, homosexuality was implied to be a controversial idea in the 1950's.
Fast forward to 2023. In the latest case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, after Title VII (2023), the Court held that "the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs for same-sex marriages, speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."[14] From One, Incorporated. v. Olesen (1958) to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), the perception of queer rights is undergoing a troubling shift. The observational methods used to track trends in queer rights,[15] combined with current data on societal support, clearly reveal a significant regression in attitudes toward queer rights and existence.
Discrimination in employment, housing, and services limits opportunities and increases the risk of homelessness, particularly impacting queer youth. Already, 28% of the queer youth are homeless[10] and more exposed to risks, such as drug abuse, rape, and abduction, due to pervasive homophobia. Maintaining this status quo further marginalizes the queer youth by stripping away employment opportunities, a crucial deterrent against homelessness.
When small businesses are not required to adhere to equality and non-discrimination standards, queer individuals become more vulnerable, experiencing exclusion, isolation, and economic hardship. Moreover, neglecting non-discrimination standards perpetuates systemic inequality, reinforcing existing disparities and sending a harmful message that certain groups deserve less fair treatment.
The main issue remains: How can we protect those who are marginalized and at the greatest risk of victimization due to the current interpretation of Title VII? Congress needs to pass a new interpretation of Title VII. Alternatively, a new case needs to be brought to the Supreme Court to declare the current act discriminatory based on the metrics that define a small business.
Congressional Debates and Arguments for Small Business Exclusion - Title VII
Now that a case that talks about discrimination based on sexual orientation has been prefaced, it is the right time for us to delve into the arguments made in the congressional debates regarding why excluding protections afforded by Title VII was justified. Once the paper covers those arguments, we will highlight some other laws which added to the issue of othering queer people and why there needs to be strict reform.
There is a glaring gap in today's protection for employees when we look through history to map important laws in holdings (rulings), dicta (observations), and dissent. But before we delve into a historical analysis of Supreme Court cases involving the queer community, it is important to address a relevant question: Why should other cases related to homophobia—hatred for homosexuals and queerphobia—be considered when discussing the employment and protections afforded to people?
Inherently discriminatory perceptions influence societal attitudes and perspectives, and a good way to start the discussion is to look at the congressional debates.
Argument 1: Right of Personal Relationships. Supporters of the small firm exemption argue that it is essential to safeguard personal relationships from government intervention. During the debates for Title VII, Senator Humphreys contended that relationships within small businesses, including those between employers and employees, mirrored partnerships or other intimate associations and should, therefore, be exempt from discrimination regulations.[16] One counterargument is that the value placed on personal relationships within small firms is understandable; however, granting them immunity from discrimination laws raises several ethical and practical concerns.
Workplace equality: Allowing discrimination in small businesses undermines the principle of equality in employment opportunities. It perpetuates biases and prejudices, hindering efforts to foster a fair and inclusive work environment.[17]
Legal and ethical ramifications: Discrimination, regardless of the business's size, is ethically unacceptable and illegal. Providing exemptions based on firm size implies that certain forms of discrimination are acceptable, contradicting fundamental principles of equality and human rights.
Societal impact: Discriminatory practices within small businesses can have broader societal repercussions, particularly in areas where these businesses dominate the labor market, perpetuating social disparities and restricting opportunities for marginalized groups.
Role of tort law: While some argue that extreme discrimination cases can be addressed through tort law, relying solely on this legal avenue is inadequate. Preventing discrimination necessitates proactive measures and consistent legal frameworks applicable to all businesses.
While personal connections in small businesses are significant, it is vital to maintain equality and non-discrimination across all workplaces, regardless of their size. A few landmark cases set an example for the argument on personal relationships and the possibility of discrimination.[18]
Argument 2) Racial and ethnic self-help: discrimination by minority-owned small firms. "Immigrant communities' argument for racial or ethnic self-help is strongly supported by the experiences of some, where small businesses have not only generated job opportunities but also uplifted the local economy. The success of immigrants in certain cases may involve a degree of intentional discrimination. While such practices could be considered discriminatory based on national origin or race under the law, the small firm exemption shields these family-owned businesses from the obligation of non-discrimination. As these businesses grow and prosper, they may eventually transition to being classified as 'covered' employers."[19]
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) considered whether heterosexual individuals might also employ a similar strategy of hiring "their people ".[20] However, while acknowledging the successes of self-help initiatives for marginalized communities, justifying intentional discrimination against queer individuals in small firms is neither ethically or morally defensible, as equality has been enshrined in the constitution.
So, as Congress debated whether to exclude small businesses from abiding by Title VII, there was not any foresight as to how it would affect people in the status quo or have effects in decades to come.
Genesis: The federal under the protection of queer people, a chronological analysis
When the British colonized America, they superimposed their religion (which they also forcefully proselytized the indigenous population) to justify imperialism.[21] This imposition included dogma from the Bible, the primary scripture for Christian imperialists, which implicitly condemned homosexuality.[22]
After the British departed, these religious doctrines and ethical standards still significantly influenced people's sense of morality. Since the U.S. transitioned to representative democracy, individuals have elected representatives to legislate laws reflecting their ethical and moral attitudes. Consequently, under the influence of this religious ideology, representatives passed laws to criminalize sodomy, a practice condemned by the Bible, further marginalizing the queer community.
Readers note: Cases discussed henceforth are all after Title VII was passed:
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Romer v. Evans (1996), Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998), 30 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023).
Religion has played a pivotal role in shaping societal morals, influencing the formulation of laws, and justifying the shaping of the laws based on these morals. The next significant case after One, Incorporated I (1958), which also used the religious context in deciding societal morals, was Bowers v. Hardwick.[23] Chief Justice Burger concurred, "Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards" [24] and "to [sic] hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching." [25] The primary holding of the case was that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a state from criminalizing private sexual conduct involving same-sex couples." [26] This case clearly illustrates how the religion of the masses shaped U.S. laws, and justices explicitly used religion to justify the law.
After Bowers, there was a significant backlash toward the holding of the Court, especially because it set forth a precedent that Judeo-Christian morals designate immorality and that the state has an explicit right to regulate sexual intercourse between consenting adults. People protested, demanding that the law be changed and sparking a movement for equal rights. Legal efforts persisted, leading to the eventual overturning of Georgia's sodomy law in 1998 by the state supreme court.
This development paved the way for further action and conversation about equal protection and equal rights, leading to Romer v. Evans (1996).[27] In this case, the controversy centered around the targeting of homosexual people in Colorado under the Second Amendment, preventing them from seeking any judicial, legislative, or executive action to protect them from discrimination. While the primary holding was that "under [sic] the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state cannot amend its constitution to deny homosexuals the same basic legal protections that heterosexuals receive," the bench notably split 6-3. Also, in the 200-plus years of independence, this was the first time that the Supreme Court declared that discrimination based on sexual orientation violated constitutionally protected rights.[28]
In the dissent, Justice Scalia cited the previously mentioned Bowers in justifying his dissent and said that the court "contradicts [sic] a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago" and highlighted the need for the law to "be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions." Chief Justice Request and Justice Thomas joined the dissent, calling to give the power back to the state and thereby to the majority that wanted to impose its moral yardsticks on a "secular" society.
The chronology of these two cases sheds light on the significant influence of religious morals in shaping laws related to equal protection. Bowers v. Hardwick exemplifies how Judeo-Christian values were used to justify criminalizing private sexual conduct between same-sex couples in violation of the equal protection promised under the 14th Amendment. In Romer v. Evans, the focus shifted to preventing discrimination against homosexual individuals. However, the dissent in Romer, particularly those from Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Thomas, reflected a pushback against federal intervention in state matters and an insistence on resolving such issues through democratic processes. This dissent underscores the ongoing tension between religious and moral standards and the principles of equal protection and rights for marginalized communities within a democratic framework.
What follows Romer was Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.,[29] which revolved around Joseph Oncale, who experienced same-sex sexual harassment from male colleagues while employed on an oil rig. Oncale pursued legal action against his employer, Sundowner Offshore Services, contending that the harassment violated the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The pivotal inquiry focused on whether Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination encompassed instances of same-sex harassment in the workplace. In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court determined that same-sex sexual harassment qualifies as actionable conduct under Title VII. This decision marked an expansion of legal protections to encompass male victims of harassment, effectively rejecting any categorical prohibition on such claims. Moreover, the Court emphasized in its holding that "sex [sic] discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII." So, the scope of Title VII pertains to addressing discriminatory practices instead of just offensive behaviors, thereby ensuring equal protection for all employees irrespective of their gender identity or orientation. This holding was seen as a good law in the context of queer rights, given the fact that only a few years back, Bowers emphasized the importance of Abrahamic morals in shaping contemporary American society.
Two years after Oncale, there was another blow to the rights of sexual minorities in expressing and publicizing their orientation. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000),[30] James Dale, a highly regarded boy scout who achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, faced discrimination when Boy Scouts dismissed him from his role of adult scoutmaster upon learning that he was openly gay. Dale pursued legal action against Boy Scouts, asserting that this action violated New Jersey's public accommodations law. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dale and condemned the Boy Scouts' discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with this decision. The primary holding was that "laws [sic] that prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in public accommodations do not prevent private organizations from expelling members based on a protected status such as sexual orientation",[31] thus creating a path for private organizations to discriminate those whom they may perceive as immoral and justify them kicking out. In the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, "The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."[31] The holding openly allows private entities to discriminate. This case was split 5-4, reversing the holding of the New Jersey Supreme Court and perfectly highlighting how there has been a constant back-and-forth between the courts on matters of homosexuality and discrimination against queer people.
Let us return to the central issue of small businesses' ability to discriminate. Cases, such as Boy Scouts of America, have established a precedent for the endorsement of homophobic values or morals, if deemed appropriate. They create a pathway for overt discrimination to occur. In other words, getting fired from a small private business will be following precedent.
The next significant case that shed light on the lives of queer people in the U.S. was Lawrence v. Texas (2003). This case is particularly intriguing because the statements made by the justices in the case paint a picture of a future America, where there is greater acceptance due to the striking down of sodomy laws as unconstitutional. However, Justice Scalia's dissenting words stand out, as they seem to justify his dissent by emphasizing the importance of consistency in legal decisions rather than manipulation. He states, "I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases, but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine."[33] In the context of queer people in the U.S., despite the declaration of sodomy laws as unconstitutional, Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion reflects a conservative viewpoint that prioritizes legal consistency over progressive change. This dissenting view, although not the majority opinion, has the potential to influence legal and non-legal minds across the country, impacting the ongoing struggle for equality and acceptance of queer individuals. It underscores the ongoing tension between traditional interpretations of the law and evolving societal norms regarding LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms.
Like Justice Scalia's dissent, there have been strong opinions and dissent regarding the inclusion of queer people in American society, made up of common, everyday people. Cases like U.S. v. Windsor,[34] Hollingsworth v. Perry,[35] Obergefell v. Hodges,[36] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,[37] and Bostock v. Clayton County,[38] were all very helpful in advancing queer rights and shaping a less-than-negative perspective of queer people. However, it still begs the question: Why are minorities excluded from Title VII, and how will it impact queer people and their fight patterns for civil rights?
One case highlights the reality still of queer people in the U.S. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) was a landmark case,[39] not only because of its holding but also the concurring opinions that largely overshadowed the dissents.
According to the holding, "the Supreme Court holds that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs for same-sex marriages, speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." This, on the face of it, might seem to be protective of First Amendment rights and championing free speech, but it is nothing more than homophobia in disguise. As stated by Justice Sotomayor in her dissent, "The business argues, and most of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong." This statement should be wholeheartedly supported, especially because of the implications it may have on queer people in the whole of the U.S.
This case should be discussed because it is the latest in the Supreme Court's judgments on hyper-politicized topics- those that extend much beyond their basic nature to political agendas to play with. The implications of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis extend beyond legal technicalities to broader societal impacts on queer people in the U.S.[40] The ruling raises questions about the boundaries between free speech and infringement on others' rights. By allowing businesses to refuse services to LGBTQ+ individuals based on their sexual orientation under the guise of free speech, the decision threatens to erode anti-discrimination protections. This erosion of protections could perpetuate harmful stereotypes, contribute to social exclusion, and hinder progress toward LGBTQ+ equality and inclusion. This case also highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing competing rights and values within a diverse and evolving society.
Furthermore, the case significantly influences the discourse on social justice discourse. It has sparked discussions about the intersections of free expression, religious beliefs, and civil rights, particularly in the context of LGBTQ+ rights. The tension between protecting individual freedoms and ensuring equal treatment under the law is at the forefront of these debates. Advocates for social justice argue that genuine freedom of expression should not come at the expense of marginalized communities' rights to dignity, fairness, and non-discrimination. Therefore, the implications of 303 Creative for social justice are profound, highlighting the ongoing need for robust legal frameworks that uphold both free speech and equality for all individuals, including those within the LGBTQ+ community.
Future of the civil rights movement for queer people and hopes for Title VII
The absence of safeguards for queer personnel in small businesses is a pressing issue. There is a pressing need to bridge this gap via legislative reform that extends the scope of Title VII to include all businesses, regardless of their size, or to enact new protections specifically for LGBTQ+ individuals in vulnerable work environments. Addressing this shortcoming will affirm the nation's commitment to equality, ensuring that queer individuals, particularly those in small towns, are not left behind. By confronting this blind spot within our current legal framework, we can better uphold the ideals of dignity and equal opportunity for all individuals in the workplace.
A viable strategy is to pursue policy changes that will broaden the protections by Title VII to encompass small businesses. This expansion may require concerted lobbying, community-driven movements, and direct dialogue with legislators to advocate for modifications to the current laws.
An alternative remedy is to enhance the awareness and understanding of LGBTQ+ rights and anti-discrimination measures of the proprietors of small businesses. Supplying educational materials, conducting training sessions, and organizing seminars on inclusive conduct and legal anti-discrimination mandates can enlighten small business owners about their responsibilities and cultivate a more accepting and supportive atmosphere for queer employees. Partnerships with civil rights organizations, charitable entities, and legal authorities are crucial for the success of these educational endeavors. Moreover, promoting the voluntary implementation of anti-discrimination policies and initiatives that celebrate diversity within small businesses can make workplaces fairer and more inclusive. Furthermore, motivating businesses to adopt explicit guidelines that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected traits can deter prejudicial actions and nurture an environment of respect and inclusivity. Inclusivity, however, is not a legal recourse. The one thing that guarantees protection is exactly that, and no degree of kindness or inclusion can take its place.
Glossary
Abrahamic: Relating to the monotheistic religions that trace their origins to the patriarch Abraham—namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Bias: A prejudice or predisposition in favor of or against something, often leading to unfair outcomes.
Categorical Prohibition: An absolute and unconditional ban on a specific action or behavior, without exceptions.
Civil Rights: The rights guaranteed to individuals to ensure equality and freedom from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, or other protected characteristics.
Deterrent: Something designed to discourage or prevent an action, often used in legal or social contexts.
Disparity: A significant difference or inequality, often in terms of resources, opportunities, or treatment.
Dissent: The expression of disagreement or opposition, often against prevailing norms or decisions.
Doctrines: Established beliefs or principles held and promoted by an institution or group.
Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true, often in religious or ideological contexts.
Explicit: Clearly and directly stated, leaving no room for confusion or interpretation.
Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, often forming the basis of political or social policy.
Immigrant: A person who moves to another country for permanent or long-term residence.
Imperialism: A policy or practice of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy, economic control, or military force.
Implicitly: Suggested or understood without being directly stated.
Infringement: A violation or breach of a law, right, or agreement, especially in contexts involving civil liberties or intellectual property.
Irrespective: Without regard to or consideration of something; regardless of.
Judeo-Christian: Relating to the shared religious and cultural heritage of Judaism and Christianity.
Legal Recourse: An action that an individual or a corporation can take to attempt to remedy a legal difficulty.
Manipulation: The act of controlling or influencing someone or something, often deceptively or unfairly.
Marginalized: Groups or individuals excluded or relegated to the edges of society, often lacking access to resources, rights, and opportunities.
Perpetuates: To cause something, typically an undesirable situation, to continue or persist.
Pervasive: Something widespread and deeply embedded, often used to describe systemic issues like discrimination.
Plethora: An excessive or abundant amount of something.
Polarization: The division of society or groups into contrasting extremes, often leading to tension or conflict.
Precedent: A legal decision or practice that serves as a guide or standard.
Prejudice: Preconceived opinions or attitudes, often negative, not based on reason or experience.
Proselytized: Actively advocating for or attempting to convert others to a particular belief or ideology.
Ramifications: Consequences or outcomes, particularly of actions or decisions, often with wide-reaching effects.
Regression: A return to a less advanced or less favorable state, often reversing progress.
Repercussions: Unintended and often negative results of an action or event.
Scrutiny: Close and critical examination, often used in legal or societal contexts to evaluate fairness or legality.
Social Justice: The pursuit of fairness and equality within society, focusing on removing barriers to opportunity and combating discrimination.
Sodomy: Historically, a legal term referring to certain sexual acts, often used in discriminatory contexts against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Status Quo: The existing state of affairs, particularly regarding societal or institutional norms.
Statute: A written law passed by a legislative body.
Systemic Inequality: Disparities and injustices entrenched in societal structures, institutions, and systems.
Tangible: Material impact/physical impact.
Tort Law: A branch of law dealing with civil wrongs and damages, providing remedies for harm caused by others.
Footnotes/Sources
Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)
Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021, October 8). The latest city and town population estimates of the decade show that fourths of the nation's incorporated places have fewer than 5,000 people. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nation-of-small-towns.html
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. (2024, March 20). Adult LGBT population in the United States - Williams Institute. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/adult-lgbt-pop-us/
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. (2023)
PRRI. (2024, January 8). Americans' support for key LGBTQ rights continues to tick upward | PRRI. PRRI | at the Intersection of Religion, Values, and Public Life. https://www.prri.org/research/americans-support-for-key-lgbtq-rights-continues-to-tick-upward/
Mapping attacks on LGBTQ rights in U.S. state legislatures in 2024 | American Civil Liberties Union. (2024, March 15). American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2024
The Trevor Project. (2024, February 15). LGBTQ+ Youth Homelessness & Housing Instability statistics. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/homelessness-and-housing-instability-among-lgbtq-youth-feb-2022/
1"Homophobia." A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford University Press. Negative attitudes towards homosexual people and homosexuality which may be manifested in discrimination, hostile behaviour, or hate crimes.
ONE, INCORPORATED, v. OLESEN, 355 U.S. 371 (1958)
Ibid. 2
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)
Ibid. 2
110 Cong. Record S 6534 (March 30, 1964) (Senator Humphrey).
110 Cong. Record S 13088 (June 9, 1964) (Senator Humphrey).
Legal Precedents for Non-Discrimination Based on Personal Relationships Bradwell v. The State (1872): which emphasizes the importance of avoiding discrimination based on personal relationships or assumptions about an individual's capabilities beyond their professional roles. Buck v Bell (1927): which serves as a reminder to protect individuals from discrimination or interference based on private decisions and relationships, safeguarding their right to autonomy and privacy. NAACP v Alabama (1958): underscores the importance of respecting individuals' choices in their connections with others.
110 Cong. Record S 7074 (April 7, 1964) (Senators Long and Stennis).
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): This case serves as a reminder of the importance of equal treatment under the law, regardless of background or identity, and can be applied to advocate against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment practices.
Fisher, Linford D., 'Natives, Religion, and Race in Colonial America', in Paul Harvey, and Kathryn Gin Lum (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Race in American History, Oxford Handbooks (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 7 Mar. 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190221171.013.25, accessed 28 Mar. 2024.
22 Day, C. M. (2024). Decolonial Homophobia: Is Decolonisation Incompatible with LGBT+ Affirmation in Christian Ethics? Studies in Christian Ethics, 37(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468231215304
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Ibid., Page 478 U. S. 192
Ibid., Page 478 U. S. 197
Ibid., 5
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
Urofsky, Melvin I. "Romer v. Evans". Encyclopedia Britannica, 13 May. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Romer-v-Evans. Accessed 28 March 2024.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Ibid., 9 Page 692.
Ibid., 9 Page 643.
Ibid., 16
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018)
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. (2020)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)
Ibid., 17