The Delaware House of Representatives voted 24 to 17 to pass legislation protecting against discrimination on the basis of gender identity on Tuesday. The bill is an amended version of one that was passed by the Senate two weeks ago, meaning the bill now has to be approved by the Senate before heading to Gov. Jack Markell’s (D) desk. If the bill is signed into law, Delaware will become the seventeenth state to legally protect transgender people from discrimination.

The Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Act would make discrimination on the basis of gender identity illegal in employment, housing, public accommodations, public works, contracting, and insurance. It would also make any violence or harassment motivated by gender identity discrimination into a hate crime.

Opponents of the law have attacked the law by calling it the “bathroom bill,” insinuating that transgender people are somehow dangerous, and that this law would allow or encourage anyone to enter any bathroom of their choice for any reason in a predatory manner. The House Amendment to the bill, introduced on Tuesday by Rep. Bryon Short (D), seeks to clarify the definition of gender identity to address such concerns. Whereas the original Senate bill defined gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth,” the amendment would add a clause stating that “Gender identity may be demonstrated by consistent and uniform assertion of the gender identity or any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity; provided, however, that gender identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”

The amendment also includes a clause that would allow sex-segregated public venues like locker rooms to “provide reasonable accommodations” including “a separate or private place” for transgender people. Rep. Short and Equality Delaware President Mark Purpura clarified that no organizations would be required to provide such accommodations, but merely that they may do so if they wish. None of the provisions in the amendment are binding, or change the main purpose of the Senate bill in a significant way.

Currently, sixteen states and the District of Columbia have nondiscrimination laws in the books that include sexual orientation and gender identity amongst protections for ubiquitous categories such as race and religion. Four other states ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but do not include gender identity. At least 143 cities and counties also have nondiscrimination laws or ordinances protecting transgender individuals. Unlike the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act proposed in the US Congress, Delaware’s law introduces protections broadly to areas beyond employment.

The Delaware Senate passed the original version of the law by an 11-7 vote two weeks ago. If the House’s amended version is also approved by the Senate, the bill will head to Gov. Jack Markell, who has said that he will sign the protections into law.

Kumar Ramanathan is an intern at ThinkProgress.

Last week, House Republicans adopted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that expands “conscience protections” for military chaplains and servicemembers. The provision, offered by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) enables anti-gay bullying by tying the hands of commanding officers when harassment is taking place. The White House noted its objection to the amendment in its threat to veto the bill as currently drafted, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is not happy about President Obama’s opposition:

CRUZ: We have reports of servicemen and women being told that, ‘If you share your faith with others, you will face disciplinary action and perhaps court martial.’ The idea that we would say to men and women who are risking their lives … that they have to check their First Amendment rights at the door and give up the right to speak the truth and to speak and defend their faith, it’s wrong and it’s unconstitutional.

Congress is acting right now to make very clear in the law that our service men and women don’t give up their faith when they sign up to defend this country. The Obama administration has explicitly said it opposes such efforts and has threatened to veto.

Cruz was speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, which according to Politico, he arrived an hour late for and proceeded to only speak for seven minutes.

There is a difference between the religious beliefs a person holds and the actions that person takes. Somehow, conservatives have co-opted the idea that “faith” is synonymous with condemning people for being gay or openly discriminating against them. In addition to justifying such oppression, this approach insults the many people of faith who do support LGBT equality — or are LGBT themselves.

Cruz, Fleming, and other proponents of this “license to discriminate” should provide evidence of the supposed disciplinary action they claim is taking place. If it is actually happening — which the evidence suggests it is not — they should have to stand by the specifics of the anti-LGBT harassment they are clearly trying to defend.

At the White House Pride Month Reception Thursday night, President Obama recommitted his support to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and other protections for LGBT people. Still, he continued to encourage activists to continue to push him and others toward complete equality for all people:

OBAMA: And as we saw earlier this year with the gun safety debate, sometimes this stuff takes time, and it’s frustrating. You take two steps forward and sometimes there’s a step back. But I deeply believe in something that Martin Luther King, Jr. said often, and that is that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Eventually, America gets it right.

Now that doesn’t mean we can be patient. We know from our own history that change happens because people push to make it happen. We’ve got to do the hard work of educating others, showing empathy to others, changing hearts and minds. And when we do that, then change occurs. It doesn’t come always as quickly as we like, but progress comes.

Watch his entire address:

Obama noticeably did not mention the executive order that he could sign right now to protect LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination, including many small businesses that would not be covered by ENDA. In fact, the White House has taken to describing such an order as “hypothetical,” despite understandings that it had been drafted and simply delayed well over a year ago. During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to sign this executive order, and aside from championing ENDA — which is unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled House — the White House has offered no explanation for ignoring this simple fix that could protect 16 million people. Democratic National Committee treasurer Andy Tobias has confirmed there continues to be a “process” underway, but has not revealed any of the specifics that explain the delay.

Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger (R)

BOLGER: I want to respect gay individuals. I don’t want to send a message as a society that we are intolerant. I think that we need to respect people who are different from us, whether they’re different because they believe differently, whether they’re different because they have different skin color, or whether they’re different because they’re straight or gay. The other side of that equation is I also want to respect people’s religious beliefs. And that’s where the struggle really comes in. I want to respect gay people, I want to respect people who have deeply held religious beliefs.

And so legally – as a lawmaker now – you go back and you look at Elliott-Larsen, and it gets very difficult to try to balance those two. And that encapsulates the struggle. The struggle is how do we respect individuals on both sides of this question. I want to respect the individual rights of someone who’s gay. And I also, in doing that, don’t want to force somebody to ignore or violate their religious beliefs.

The solution to Bolger’s struggle is relatively simple. Under Elliott-Larson, people are already protected from workplace and housing discrimination based on their religion. Adding sexual orientation to the law does not require removing the religious protections and nobody is suggesting it should. It just means that people wouldn’t be fired, evicted, or refused service simply because they’re gay. If Bolger wants to respect both gay and religious people — not to mention gay religious people — all he has to do is make sure that both are included in the law.

If, on the other hand, he believes that being gay is a valid reason to be denied employment, shelter, or basic access to public services, then he doesn’t really respect gay people at all.

Nicole Maines, right, with her twin brother Jonas and mother Kelly. (Credit: Robert F. Bukaty/ AP)

On Wednesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments about whether or not a transgender student should be able to use the bathroom appropriate to her gender identity. When Nicole Maines was in fifth grade, she already identified and presented as a girl and was using the girls’ restroom at school. One boy insisted on monitoring her habits and ultimately his grandfather complained about her to the school. The school decided to force her to only use the staff bathroom, which isolated her form her peers and led to her being bullied and ostracized more.

Nicole is now 15 and planning to undergo a physical transition to further find authenticity in her gender identity. The Maine Human Rights Commission supports her family’s case, arguing that the Maine Human Rights Act bars discrimination based on sex.

A Colorado family is seeking the same relief for their six-year-old trans daughter, who was also forced to use either the boys’ room or a staff or nurse’s bathroom.

In both cases, the schools have argued these girls’ gender is irrelevant and that what genitals they have should determine what bathroom they use. Such a perspective erases their identities and opens them up to both ridicule and legitimate safety concerns.

Last summer, a gay couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, was refused a wedding cake by Colorado bakery Masterpiece Cakeshop. Another same-sex couple who was denied a cake there called back and the shop actually agreed to do a cake for a dog wedding, but still not a same-sex wedding. Mullins and Craig decided to file a complaint with the assistance of the ACLU, and an investigation by the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) found multiple examples of the bakery denying service to same-sex couples in violation of state law.

Now, the state Attorney General’s office has filed a formal complaint against the bakery, requiring its owners to testify at a hearing in the fall. Here are a few examples of the Masterpiece Cakeshop’s discrimination from the CCRD’s investigation:

The Charging Party states that on July 20, 2012, in an effort to obtain more information as to why her son was refused service, Munn telephoned Phillips. During this telephone conversation, Phillips stated that “because he is a Christian, he was opposed to making cakes for same-sex weddings for any same-sex couples.”[...]

S. Schmalz subsequently posted a review on the website Yelp describing her experiences with the Respondent. An individual identifying himself as “Jack P. of Masterpiece Cakeshop” posted a reply to Schmalz’s review, in which he stated that ” … a wedding for [gays and lesbians] is something that, so far, not even the State of Colorado will allow” and did not dispute that he refuses to serve gay and lesbian couples planning weddings or commitment celebrations.[...]

Allen and Sandlin state that they later spoke directly with Phillips. During this conversation, Phillips stated that “he is not willing to make a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

Baked goods do not have any legal standing and are thus unaffected by whether or not the stated purpose of the cake is recognized under state law. What Colorado law does say is that it is unlawful to refuse goods or services to an individual because of their sexual orientation. Just like the Washington florist facing similar litigation, Masterpiece Cakeshop is in clear violation of this provision, and the owners’ religious beliefs are actually irrelevant. As the ACLU points out, “the store has no more right to turn away a gay couple than to turn away an interracial couple, no matter what the owners’ personal beliefs.”

The Delaware Senate voted 11-7 Thursday to approve a bill that will add gender identity to the state’s hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws. This includes protections in employment, housing, and public accommodations. It now goes to the House for consideration. When Delaware approved marriage equality earlier this year, the Senate’s vote was 12-9.

The trans nondiscrimination bill has the support of Attorney General Beau Biden and Gov. Jack Markell. Opponents have attacked it as a “bathroom bill,” making unfounded claims about how trans people are dangerous. Delaware would only be the 17th state to offer such legal protections for the trans community.

A scary graphic running on the Delaware Family Policy Council's webpage.

• Organizations must allow people to access gender-segregated programs, activities, and facilities in accordance with the sex they choose. For example, an all-girls school would have to allow a biological male to participate in classes or athletic programs.
• Organizations such as schools with dorms, homeless shelters or rehabilitation centers would have to allow individuals to be housed with the gender that they choose. A women’s homeless shelter, for example, must allow a biological male who professes a female identity to sleep in the women’s facilities.
• Organizations would have to allow individuals to access bathrooms, showers, and locker-room facilities in accordance with the sex they choose. Creating a separate “family” or “unisex” bathroom is proving to still not be enough to prevent a lawsuit.

Terms like “biological male” are used to paint a false picture of who trans women are and what their experience in society is. Trans women are women — they not only identify as women, but they are perceived as women as well. Likewise, plenty of trans men are only known to the people who know them as men. Last year, Kylar Broadus testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee about how people always perceived him to be a man, but he was ostracized when he openly identifies as a trans man.

Thus, use of the facilities with which they identify is an important safety concern for transgender people. An individual who identifies (and looks) like a woman should not have to use a men’s bathroom or lockerroom, and vice versa. Likewise, trans people are more likely to experience extreme poverty, so a trans woman seeking shelter would have the same impetus to seek the safety of a women’s shelter as any other woman.

Arizona lawmaker Rep. John Kavanagh (R) has tried to enshrine discrimination against transgender people into law, because he believes that trans people’s bodies can be psychologically traumatizing to others. Fortunately, his bill has been shelved — for now. But his sentiment that trans people should only be defined by their bodies and that those bodies are dangerous can be heard in the opposition to Delaware’s bill. These narrow arguments focus only on trans people’s genitalia, ignoring the lives they lead and their whole identities as people beyond being trans. And none of these arguments actually answer the question of where trans people should go to the bathroom or which locker room they should use, suggesting that they’re not welcome anywhere at all. Delaware lawmakers have the opportunity to send a different message to the trans community.

The Delaware Family Policy Council is recycling a “bathroom bill” scare ad that has been used in other states that simply shows a man going into a women’s room, which has nothing to do with transgender people or the implications of the protections. Watch it:

Yesterday, the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), the Center for American Progress (CAP), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a comprehensive new report examining the myriad hardships and barriers facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workers across the country. That report, called A Broken Bargain, puts together for the first time all available information about LGBT workplace issues. According to the report: “If fairness and equality are part of America’s basic workplace bargain, this bargain is clearly broken for LGBT workers. This broken bargain, in turn, can create an untenable situation for employers.”

One of the initial findings from this report unearths the unique demographic characteristics of LGBT workers in the United States. For example, the report finds that:

• LGBT workers are racially and ethnically diverse. One in three LGBT respondents (33%) in a 2012 Gallup poll identified as people of color, compared to 27% of non-LGBT individuals.

• LGBT workers are geographically dispersed. As many as 4.3 million LGBT people live in states with no state laws providing employment protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

• LGBT workers in the United States are at a higher risk of poverty than other workers. Among the hardest-hit by the broken bargain for LGBT workers are those who are parents, together with their children.

In creating this comprehensive resource, researchers then examined the one-two-three punch that LGBT workers in America face: discrimination in employment, fewer benefits, and higher taxes, simply based on their LGBT status.

Read more

Preston Mitchum is a policy analyst for LGBT Progress.