Hobby lobby and gay rights
Home / gay topics / Hobby lobby and gay rights
“This is a precedent-setting case in Illinois, because the Human Rights Act has never been tested in this way in Illinois, and actually in the country.”
Jim Bennett, director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights, said the decision underscored that trans people in the state “have strong protection from discrimination.”
“Ms. On average, the Green family takes in $5 billion a year just from Hobby Lobby.
It is crucial to be conscious of one’s actions and make sure that they do the most good they can with what they have, rather than spreading hate that will make them money.
“They know and they don’t care.
While many students find this problematic, some students see nothing wrong with Hobby Lobby’s controversial spending. The LGBTQ and reproductive rights movements have a shared legal past and continue to be linked in legal discourse.
This is especially true for reproductive health care and access to reproductive health technologies. Equally concerning, it could result in devastating exceptions to protections for LGBTQ people at the state and local level, jeopardizing literally decades of advocacy and progress.
(Originally printed in the Huffington Post)
Transgender victory over Hobby Lobby could have national impact
An appellate court deciding Hobby Lobby violated Illinois anti-discrimination law by denying a transgender employee access to the women’s restroom could have nationwide implications, experts say.
Meggan Sommerville, a trans woman who has worked at a Hobby Lobby location in Aurora for more than 20 years, has been denied access to the store’s women’s room since transitioning at work in 2010.
This is the public policy of the state of Illinois.
On Friday, the Illinois 2nd District Appellate Court upheld a lower court decision that determined the crafts chain violated the Illinois Human Rights Act both as an employer and as a place of public accommodation.
“Sommerville is female, just like the women who are permitted to use the women’s bathroom,” the three-judge panel said in its decision.
When their donors voiced their disagreement, the statement was swiftly revoked.
Sommerville’s experience of discrimination is certainly not unique, as too many of our transgender friends and neighbors continue to face acts of discrimination and hate,” Bennett said in a statement. As a result, she has had anxiety and recurring nightmares and has been forced to limit her fluid intake, according to filings.
“You can’t argue it’s not sex discrimination to deny someone access to a bathroom or a locker room,” Taylor said.
Not only could the ruling be used by opponents of so-called bathroom bills, she added, it could be relevant to the legal fight against legislation prohibiting transgender girls from playing on female sports teams.
At least nine states have enacted such sports bans, according to the Movement Advancement Project.
“It will have big ramifications in all kinds of aspects of life — in education, in business, in gyms and sports,” Taylor said.
Clayton County, Georgia, determined discrimination based on sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity, it didn’t address access to sex-segregated facilities, services or sports teams. These barriers almost certainly would be exacerbated if employers are able to pick and choose which services are covered based on discriminatory factors.
The Supreme Court’s resolution of the case will directly affect our reproductive rights and other health care needs. Many of the initial LGBTQ legal successes built on the legal successes of the reproductive rights movement. For example, citing religious objections, employers could refuse to cover reproductive health care for transgender individuals or fertility services for same-sex couples.
A negative outcome in the case could also roll back crucial victories for LGBTQ equality at the state and local level.
Fourteen faith leaders, most of whom were backed by Hobby Lobby, decided to send a letter asking for a religious exemption. It made it clear there’s no justification.”
While the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Attorney Whitman Brisky, who represented the company, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.