There are still 29 states where a person can be fired for being gay, but Illinois is not one of them. Nevertheless, it seems that Exxon Mobil attempted to discriminate against a prospective employee in that state merely because the individual identified as gay, instead proactively pursuing a less qualified straight candidate for the same position. This was no mere circumstance, but an intentional experiment run by the organization Freedom to Work, which is now suing Exxon Mobil for violating the Illinois Human Rights Act.

According to the complaint, Freedom to Work began its testing after Exxon Mobil refused to adopt a nondiscrimination policy that included protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Despite the unfair treatment, a spokesman for the oil giant, Charles Engelmann, doubled down on the claim that the company doesn’t discriminate:

ENGELMANN: Exxon Mobil’s global policies and processes prohibit all forms of discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in any company workplace, anywhere in the world. In fact, our policies go well beyond the law and prohibit any form of discrimination.

Exxon Mobil’s actions tell a different story. It has the distinction of being the first company to ever earn a negative score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. Not only do none of its policies protect LGBT employees, but the company also engages in activities that undermine LGBT equality. It claims to have a “Corporate Citizenship Report” with a “zero-tolerance” policy for anti-LGBT discrimination, but that document does not have the same legal force as an actual Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) statement. Mobil had such a statement, but when the two companies merged in 1999, Exxon stripped it away. When shareholders attempted to introduce an LGBT-inclusive EEO statement last year, Exxon Mobil actually tried to block it from coming up for a vote. Though they were unsuccessful at blocking the vote, it was overwhelmingly defeated by 80 percent of shareholders.

If Exxon Mobil believes that its “zero-tolerance” policy truly protects its LGBT employees, this lawsuit might just be the perfect test to find out.

Missouri Rep. Sue Allen (R)

The Missouri legislature has allowed an anti-bullying bill (HB 134) to die, and its Republican sponsor is blaming her gay colleagues for killing it. For all of the effective anti-bullying measures Rep. Sue Allen’s bill included, it specifically banned the creation of enumerated lists of identities to protect, such as sexual orientation and gender identity. Enumerating protections has helped guarantee that anti-LGBT bullying does not go unreported, but according to Allen, they’re too “partisan”:

I typically try to keep partisanship out of my message, but this is an issue for the Democrats who wish for certain students (GLBT –gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender) to be “enumerated” within school policies. [...]

What “they” don’t seem to understand is that any stronger policies help ALL students, even those they would have categorized.

So….it seems some people care more about arguing points to make some students more protected when what they’ve really done is to NO better protect ANY student.

The “they” Allen refers to are openly gay lawmakers Sen. Jolie Justus (D) and Rep. Mike Colona (D), who Allen encourages her supporters to contact and blame for the bill’s failure.

Allen clearly does not understand the purpose and function of enumerating groups, calling it “discriminatory” to specify some groups for students and not others. Speaking with the Riverfront Times, she added, “Why are we always segregating?” Of course, enumerating groups does nothing of the sort; instead, it ensures that groups known to be targeted for bullying are specifically listed so that such harassment can be more easily identified. No student is excluded from a bullying policy because they don’t belong to one of the enumerated groups; instead, the groups serve to raise awareness about forms of bullying that are already problematic.

It would also be different if Allen’s bill simply did not address enumerate groups, but it specifically bans them. The only purpose for such a limitation is to ensure protections for the LGBT community are never extended. This is particularly problematic given the incredibly high rates of anti-LGBT bullying that take place in Missouri. According to GLSEN’s 2011 National School Climate Survey, 94 percent of Missouri students regularly hear homophobic language like “fag” and “dyke” at school, and 83 percent of LGBT students have experience harassment or assault for their sexual orientation. These are rates far higher than national averages.

With a bullying epidemic like that, Allen should better appreciate that enumerating protections to groups like LGBT students would actually better protect all students. Instead, she’s encouraging people to bully her gay colleagues for wanting to fix her problematic bill.

Barronelle Stutzman

Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman is facing two lawsuits for refusing to provide the flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington law, but now she has filed a countersuit with support from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom. The suit claims that Stutzman is entitled to religious conscience protections that allow her to ignore nondiscrimination protections, as ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt attempted to explain to WorldNetDaily:

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

ADF reports the Washington State Constitution uniquely protects the rights of conscience and religion, and the countersuit argues that Ferguson is “constitutionally precluded from compelling Stutzman to use her artistic skill to personally craft expressive floral arrangements” for a same-sex ceremony when it violates her religious beliefs and her conscience to do so, “particularly when there are many other florists willing, ready, and able to create floral arrangements” for such ceremonies.

Some lawmakers are trying to pass a law to justify discrimination in this way. When a staffer for one of those representatives was asked what a rural gay couple should do if all the local grocery stores refuse to serve them, he said “gay people can just grow their own food.” The fact that there may be other florists is irrelevant. Before the end of segregation, there may have been other lunch counters willing to serve African Americans, but that doesn’t mean the discrimination by some was not still a problem.

ADF isn’t wrong that the Washington Constitution refers to religious conscience protections, but Schowengerdt didn’t reference the entire provision:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

In other words, the state’s conscience protections are not without limits — they don’t justify violating the law or discriminating against an entire segment of the population. Stutzman’s case has clearly become a cause célèbre for conservatives, but by doubling down on defending her with a countersuit, ADF is making it quite clear that their intentions have little to do with protecting religion and everything to do with justifying anti-gay discrimination. As recent marriage equality votes in state legislatures have demonstrated, ADF’s argument isn’t very convincing.

Texas Rep. Matt Krause (R)

The Texas House has approved a bill that would allow student organizations at any of the state’s public universities to willfully violate nondiscrimination policies and refuse membership to whomever they choose.  According to the amendment from Rep. Matt Krause (R), student organizations deny membership to students according to the following criteria:

(1) who demonstrates opposition to the organization’s stated beliefs and purposes; or

(2) whose membership in the organization: (A) would affect in a significant way the organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints; or (B) is designed for the subversive intent of undermining the organization’s ability to assemble for its stated purposes.

Hypothetically, this language could be used to discriminate against any student. If a student organization doesn’t like an individual for whatever reason, they could simply claim that he or she doesn’t represent the group’s “viewpoints.” This would allow discrimination based on any characteristic, including even race. Krause’s target, though, is clearly the LGBT community; earlier this year he offered a different bill that would have cut funding for any university that doesn’t allow discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Similar legislation passed in Virginia and Tennessee also considered such measures, though none passed.

These measures all stem from religious organizations’ attempts to discriminate against students because they are gay. Krause’s, like the others, specifically references these religious groups as needing special protections for their freedoms of speech and association. Some conservatives even fear — as is evident in Krause’s language — that gay or atheist students, for example, will infiltrate these groups to compromise their missions. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this has ever happened anywhere, nor is it even a realistic possibility.

Student organizations receive funding from student fees, and thus all students who pay fees should have access to them. These clubs have enough independence to elect student leaders that will uphold the organization’s mission without needing to violate nondiscrimination statements. If Krause’s amendment is passed into law, students at universities will pay for services they then do not have access to. Though he claims in its language that it helps “promote diversity of thought and the marketplace of ideas,” it will have the exact opposite effect.

Another bakery in Oregon has refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their commitment ceremony. Erin Hanson and Katie Pugh reached out to Fleur Cakes for a wedding cake for their celebration near Mt. Hood, but owner Pam Regentin made it quite clear she would not serve them because they are a same-sex couple. KATU News reporter Dan Cassuto reached Regentin by phone to confirm she understood she was clearly violating Oregon’s nondiscrimination law:

CASSUTO: Pam, are you aware that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation if you have a business that serves the public.

REGENTIN: I believe that I have the liberty to live by my principles.

Watch the news segment:

The story parallels a similar instance of discrimination from earlier this year, when Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to provide a same-sex couple a cake because “marriage is a religious institution ordained by God.” The Oregon Labor Bureau is still processing a complaint filed by that couple.

Both these cases highlight how so-called “religious liberty” actually has nothing to do with marriage equality, because same-sex marriages are not even legally recognized in Oregon. The distinction between whether a business will serve a gay customer and whether a business will serve a gay marrying couple is insignificant, because either way, it’s discrimination based on sexual orientation. A Washington florist tried to make this same distinction, and now faces lawsuits from both the customers she refused service to and the state attorney general.

Despite Pennsylvania’s geographic location in the northeast and its general reliability as a blue state in presidential elections, it is a largely conservative state outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Currently, the state offers no protections against discrimination for the LGBT community, including in employment, housing, and public accommodations — let alone any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. A new pair of bills (HB 300 and SB 300) introduced this week with bipartisan support from 100 state lawmakers would ensure that LGBT people have legal recourse if they experience discrimination because of their identities.

Openly gay state Rep. Brian Sims (D) said that he hopes the commonwealth will “finally evolve,” and Rep. Chris Ross (R) added that ending discrimination is not a partisan issue, because “All Pennsylvania citizens deserve to be treated with dignity.” The Republican-controlled General Assembly may stymie the bill’s progress, but a recent Susquehanna Polling survey found that more than 70 percent of Pennsylvanians support the protections, even in the conservative central regions of the state.

Indeed, Pennsylvanians are growing increasingly accepting of LGBT equality, with other recent polls showing 74 percent support civil unions and even a 52 percent majority support marriage equality. Still, as Equality Pennsylvania Executive Director Ted Martin explains, nondiscrimination protections are currently much more essential to the well-being of LGBT people than relationship recognition:

MARTIN: Let’s say Pennsylvania passes marriage equality but not these other protections. On Saturday, I could get hitched. But on Saturday night, I could be denied service at the hotel because there aren’t public accommodations protections. On Tuesday, I could put a picture from the wedding on my desk at work and get fired because there aren’t employment protections. On Wednesday, my landlord could see me helping my husband move in and kick us out of our home because there aren’t housing protections. On Thursday, I’m living in a refrigerator box under a bridge.

At the bill’s introduction, Sims similarly pointed out that these protections are essential just to let people safely come out about their identities:

Reacting to yesterday’s historic passage of marriage equality, Nicole Theis, president of the Delaware Family Policy Council, told the Dover News Journal that the idea of gender is somehow under attack because of the advance of LGBT equality:

Nicole Theis, president of the Delaware Family Policy Council, said changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will have broad, untold consequences for society.

“It won’t stop here. Making marriage genderless changes the way government views parents. You can expect all government’s forms to reflect this. You can also expect further attacks on gender, probably even this session,” she said, alluding to a proposal that has not yet been filed that would extend nondiscrimination laws to cover transgender individuals.

Theis isn’t entirely wrong. Gender is a socially-constructed phenomenon, and thus it is pliable. Given how many consequences it has for society — particularly ongoing inequity for women and oppression of LGBT people — there is considerable impetus to dissect gender so that it can be better understood. Conservatives like Theis argue that gender norms are important and should be maintained — that fathers should be masculine and mothers should be feminine and these gender roles impact their parenting ability. But research on parenting doesn’t bear this out at all; in fact, there is nothing to suggest that the children of same-sex couples have any different understanding of gender than anyone else.

Further, attempting to reinforce gender norms through the law isn’t going to change whether people are transgender. Protecting transgender people from discrimination doesn’t increase how many people are transgender any more than not protecting transgender people will decrease how many people are transgender. The question underlying all LGBT issues is whether everybody should have the same opportunity to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if they are members of sexual or gender minorities. This means expanding how society understands and interacts gender instead of clinging to narrow prescriptions of the past. It’s just unfortunate that Theis sees this progress as an “attack.”

Carla Hale was fired from Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus, Ohio because an anonymous parent complained when she named her same-sex partner in her mother’s obituary. She’s now fighting the Catholic school to get her job of 19 years back, and students are rallying around her — as is Anonymous. The school did not previously comment on the firing, but now Bishop Frederick Campbell is defending the firing because Hale’s “quasi-spousal relationship” — not her sexual orientation — violates the Church’s moral teaching:

In an exclusive interview with The Dispatch, the bishop said diocesan officials “don’t necessarily go looking for things like that,” but Hale’s decision to name her partner in her mother’s obituary made the relationship public and initiated the termination process.

As bishop, he said, he has a “fundamental responsibility” to maintain the Catholic identity of the institutions under his purview.

“We do this in an atmosphere of care, of calm consideration, but yet out of the realization that at particular times we have to make particular decisions,” he said. “And they are difficult sometimes, but they do flow from what we believe, who we are and how we are to live.” [...]

“I have to make certain that what I say is accurate and measured because I don’t want to add to the heat of this,” he said yesterday. “People want bold statements right away, and I have to make sure I understand what the question is, how it can be answered and how to do it in a measured way.”

No “measured” approach or “calm consideration” changes the fact that Hale was fired for being gay. Campbell’s claim that she was fired for her relationship is a distinction without a difference. It may take several months for Community Relations Commission to address her complaint, but Columbus’s nondiscrimination protections do not exempt religious organizations. Campbell has admitted that the school fired Hale for living with a woman, and that is a clear violation of the law.

WISCONSIN — Former GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told a Wisconsin town hall audience on Monday that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, even though he still opposes marriage equality.

Confronted by an audience member about his anti-LGBT voting record — Ryan earned a “zero percent” score on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign — the House Budget Committee chairman admitted that gays and lesbians could provide a loving home to “orphans.” In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:

RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.

Watch it:

Ryan’s opposition to marriage equality actually makes less sense given his support for same-sex adoption. One of the primary arguments against same-sex marriage is the false claim that children are better off with opposite-sex parents. Now it seems he supports allowing same-sex families to raise children, but he still opposes providing those families with the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex parents.

During the town hall, Ryan also highlighted his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure has been introduced in Congress almost every session since 1994, through Ryan initially lobbied to weaken ENDA so it did not include gender identity, and ultimately voted for the weakened version in 2007. Ryan did not say if he would support the more inclusive bill in this Congress.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney argued that adoption “should be assessed on a state-by-state basis.”

The Beekman Boys, winners of The Amazing Race, own and run their own farm in New York.

A bill introduced in Washington state last week would allow people to use their “sincerely held religious beliefs” to justify discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. One activist started calling the bill’s sponsors to find out more about why they supported such a negative bill. His primary question was, “What are rural gays supposed to do if the only gas station or grocery store for miles won’t sell them gas and food?”

A staffer at state Sen. Mike Hewitt’s (R) office had a unique reply:

Well, gay people can just grow their own food.

The staffer refused to identify himself, and when others called Hewitt’s office, no further comment was offered. The staffer later backpedaled a bit, claiming “patience was lost, mistakes were made, and that’s it,” but still had no comment on behalf of Hewitt.

The question is a perfectly valid one. Conservatives often argue that if a florist, photographer, baker, or other business refuses service to a same-sex couples, there are plenty of others champing at the bit to support marriage equality. In urban areas, this may generally be true — but it’s not an argument that justifies discrimination. In rural areas, it may very well not be true. What if there is no local alternative? What if the only alternative is more expensive, of a lesser quality, or further away? The proposed bill doesn’t merely exempt those who provide services that might be related to weddings; it exempts all businesses. So it’s quite possible that a rural grocery store might be Christian-owned and attempt to refuse service to a same-sex family, and were this bill to become law, that would be perfectly legal.

If a lawmaker’s staffer is willing to suggest that the alternative for same-sex families is to be self-sufficient and cut off from society, that should be a clear indication that this bill’s sole intent is animus.