World How One Supreme Court Decision Increased Discrimination Against LGBTQ Couples
The Biggest Decision Democrats Face
Will they get rid of the filibuster if it means passing their voting-rights and election-reform agenda?The party’s immediate political fate in the 2022 and 2024 elections is likely to turn mostly on whether Joe Biden can successfully control the coronavirus outbreak—restarting the economy and returning a sense of normalcy to daily life. But the contours of American politics just over that horizon, through 2030 and beyond, will be determined even more by whether Democrats can establish new national standards for the conduct of elections through a revised Voting Rights Act and sweeping legislation known as H.R.
Over the past few years, the Supreme Court has been sketching the outline of a broad compromise on LGBTQ rights. Civil-rights protections will shield people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, religious objectors will have their own set of robust rights. For example, the Court recently clarified that Title IX, the federal antidiscrimination employment law, covers LGBTQ employees. The Court also, in another case, found in favor of a baker who would not provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. This term, the Court is considering granting another religious exemption from civil-rights law, this time for an adoption-licensing agency in Philadelphia that refuses to consider same-sex couples as prospective parents.
The Craft: Legacy & Ma Rainey's Black Bottom up for GLAAD Media Awards' top prize
The Craft: Legacy & Ma Rainey's Black Bottom up for GLAAD Media Awards' top prizeThey'll face off with Happiest Season and The Old Guard to be named Outstanding Film - Wide Release at the awards show.
Is this compromise stable?: Religious objectors, they argue, are a negligible minority in a society growing ever more affirming of LGBTQ equality. Exempting them, the thinking goes, will not expand discrimination against same-sex couples. But critics worry that the Court’s religious exemptions normalize discrimination and thereby encourage it.
The trouble is that all of this is conjecture. There have been almost no data to clarify whether religious exemptions really do increase discrimination. Particularly missing are data on the effects of religious exemptions granted in Supreme Court decisions.
Married At First Sight 2021labelled 'the most disastrous season yet'
Married At First Sight 2021 has already been plunged into controversy, three weeks ahead of it's hotly-anticipated season premiere. While this year's cast has been described by Nine bosses as the 'most genuine yet', a New Idea report claims that barely any of the couples are still together thanks to COVID-19 travel restrictions. 'Some have not seen each other in months because they're interstate and it's being hard to justify it all, especially when most have returned to their day jobs and old social circles,' an insider claimed.
In a forthcoming, I set out to fill that hole. I looked at this question through Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case involving a devout baker who declined to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In , the Court handed down a 7–2 decision favoring the baker. This was a narrow ruling that did not settle the big constitutional questions at hand. Yet it received extensive media coverage, and conservative groups hailed Masterpiece as that confirmed the rights of people of faith to pursue their beliefs whether at home .
In May 2018, anticipating that the Court would rule in favor of the baker, I began a field experiment that measured the willingness of wedding vendors to provide services to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The wedding vendors in the study—1,155 photographers, bakers, and florists—were sampled in areas of the United States that differ in their approach to religion-equality conflicts. (Across the nation, some states or cities prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, whereas others do not, and some states facilitate religious exemptions via Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, while others do not.) I then sent vendors queries purporting to be from potential clients, such that each vendor received queries from both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, first in the run-up to the Court’s decision and then in the two weeks following Masterpiece. (In total, I contacted each vendor four times. Twice before—once as a same-sex couple, once as an opposite-sex couple—and twice after, with the same breakdown.) I measured whether vendors’ willingness to do business with the couples changed after the decision was rendered. To attempt to isolate the causal effect of Masterpiece from other events that could have influenced the vendors, all communications were conducted in this short time span.
Two major Supreme Court immigration cases just went up in smoke
Elections have consequences.
Video: Proposed Law On Long Island Would Ban Hate Symbols From Public Buildings (CBS New York)
What were the real-world consequences of Masterpiece? In short, the decision seems to have exposed same-sex couples to heightened risk of discrimination in the organization of their weddings. First, my field experiment revealed that Masterpiece appears to have generally reduced vendors’ willingness to provide wedding services to same-sex couples. Whereas before Masterpiece, same-sex couples had received positive responses from 64 percent of vendors, after Masterpiece only 49 percent of all vendors responded positively. It’s important to note that opposite-sex couples do not receive uniformly positive responses to their queries, because not all vendors provide tip-top service and some may be genuinely busy. But same-sex couples seemed to fare worse after Masterpiece. Focusing on those businesses that prior to the decision were willing to serve same-sex couples, I found that 75.5 percent responded positively to opposite-sex couples after Masterpiece, whereas only 66 percent of these previously gay-friendly businesses responded positively to same-sex couples after the decision. The effect did not grow or shrink with the conservativeness of the county, and it was just as strong in big cities (despite the common belief that discrimination against LGBTQ people doesn’t occur very much in metropolitan areas). An identical effect was found in a “control group” of businesses that were contacted for the first time after Masterpiece. However, the discriminatory effect of the decision was significantly more pronounced in counties with relatively more religious congregations per capita.
30th Republican Woman Could Join House as Judge Rules Claudia Tenney Winner in Disputed Race
If Cynthia Tenney's win is certified by New York election officials, she will become the 30th Republican woman in the House of Representatives.Tenney ran against Democrat Anthony Brindisi in November's election. Tenney's apparent early lead dwindled from approximately 28,000 votes right after the election to roughly 12 votes after absentee votes were counted. After the validity of some ballots was called into question and voting districts were canvassed, New York State Supreme Court Justice Scott DelConte said Friday that all "valid votes" had been tabulated. Despite its name, the New York Supreme Court is not the state's highest court, but a trial court.
The negative Masterpiece effect is likely to add up to a meaningful increase in discrimination experienced by LGBTQ people. Couples of all identities typically contract with about 10 types of vendors in the process of organizing their wedding (e.g., reception venues, wedding planners, bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, bridal/groom salons, jewelers, DJs, and calligraphers). Many inquire with several vendors from each category, often amounting to 15 to 20 encounters. Taking these factors into account, I estimate that about three out of every four wedding-planning LGBTQ couples will experience discrimination they would not otherwise have encountered, had it not been for the Masterpiece decision. Of course, this risk can vary depending on the number of vendors a couple encounters.
These conclusions have several implications for the debate on religious exemptions. First, they discredit the argument that the effect of religious exemptions is negligible and that exemptions will not increase discrimination. Second, the results complicate the conventional portrait of religious objection as fixed and unyielding to change. Instead, the experiment finds that people’s behavior is influenced by signals from the government; if the government creates exemptions, people who had not discriminated before might start doing so.
Justice Kagan Criticizes SCOTUS Decision to Lift California's Indoor Worship Ban Amid Pandemic
Her dissent pointed to numerous concerns in the high court's ruling that allows churches to resume services at limited capacities.The ban was lifted on indoor services for California's Tier 1 counties—those with widespread COVID-19 risks. Despite religious establishments being able to hold worship services during the pandemic, some restrictions are still in place, such as 25 percent capacity limits or bans on singing and chanting.
Third, the finding that exemptions increase discrimination has legal implications. Under the most demanding legal standard, the government must justify laws that substantially burden religion, by showing that the laws are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. If religious exemptions increase discrimination, as I have found, then enforcing antidiscrimination laws without exception may be the best way to promote equality, and perhaps the only way. (I discuss some potential ways forward in– .) Granting exemptions frustrates the government’s goal of ending discrimination. Indeed, Supreme Court justices on the right and on the left have always considered the consequences of exemptions when deciding whether to grant or deny them.
These findings should prompt the Supreme Court to proceed with great care as it sets to deciding the Philadelphia case and any future religion-equality conflicts. Undoubtedly, the Court faces an acute dilemma: Both equality before the law and religious liberty are fundamental constitutional rights, and setting their respective boundaries is no simple task. Yet however the Court decides to resolve the constitutional issues at hand, it must take into account that even a narrow and case-specific decision might have a significant detrimental effect on the broader population that stands to lose from the exemption—and it is the Court’s duty to avoid causing this harm.
Countering ‘love jihad’ by celebrating India’s interfaith couples .
Last week marked the 100th day of a campaign called India Love Project that celebrates interfaith love or marriages.The petitioners said innocent people, mainly Muslims, were being unfairly penalised under the so-called “love jihad” laws, and that at least two other Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-governed states, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, were also planning similar laws.