At the end of every week, the National Organization for Marriage’s president, Brian Brown, sends out a weekly newsletter summing up the week’s events. Though many thought last week was a rough week because of the Boston Marathon bombings and West, Texas explosion, it was this week that Brown described as “a tough week” because of the many victories for marriage equality. This week’s letter remarkably crams most of NOM’s talking points all into one post, so here is a reminder of NOM’s various claims about the consequences of same-sex couples marrying:

Marriage Equality Discriminates Against Christians (Because They Want To Discriminate)

NOM is still upset that Rhode Island passed marriage equality this week. Rather than repeat his own claim that same-sex marriage is worse than divorce or death, Brown emphasized that marriage equality “redefines marriage for all people” by imposing upon Christian businesses who don’t wish to serve same-sex couples. Earlier this week, NOM admitted its desire to blatantly “refuse service” to gays and lesbians.

Marriage Equality Harms Children

As always, NOM ignores that many same-sex couples are already raising children, so Brown instead claims that “the rights of adults to marry any person they love trump a child’s right to a loving mom and dad.” He once again obsessed over a New York middle school that taught students about the diversity within the LGBT community, as if learning about the world was somehow harmful.

NOM Effectively Targets Republicans Who Support Marriage Equality

Referencing how the Republicans in the Rhode Island Senate unanimously supported marriage equality, Brown committed to challenging their re-election, boasting NOM’s success doing that in New York. The only problem is that NOM was only successful at flipping one of the four seats they challenged in New York; two of them were lost to Democrats because of NOM’s too-conservative primary challengers.

Being Gay Is A “Preference”

With the exception of Jennifer Roback Morse, NOM generally tries to avoid openly endorsing ex-gay therapy, but it finds subtle ways to condone the harmful practice. Brown used the email to champion Rhode Island Sen. Harold Metts (D), who offered a 12-minute religious condemnation of homosexuality during Wednesday’s floor debate. Among his claims, as quoted in NOM’s newsletter: “I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to, but I can’t change my color.”

Read more

Washington Sen. Sharon Brown (R) swearing to uphold the equal protection of all her constituents.

Republicans in Washington state have proposed a bill that would allow businesses to openly discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation if they want to do so because of their religious beliefs. SB 5927 carves out a specific exception to the state’s nondiscrimination law that says only federal protections — which don’t include sexual orientation — apply when a person’s religious belief is “burdened”:

Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization’s freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual’s or entity owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience. This subsection does not apply to the denial of services to individuals recognized as a protected class under federal law applicable to the state as of the effective date of this section. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience may not be burdened unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.

Unsurprisingly, the bill’s sponsor is state Sen. Sharon Brown (R), whose district is home to Arlene’s Flowers, a business facing two lawsuits because it refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Conservatives have claimed that the nondiscrimination protections Arelene’s violated are tantamount to Nazi homofascism, a sentiment Brown seemed to echo by claiming, “There’s a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law.”

The Philadelphia City Council passed a groundbreaking new bill advancing LGBT equality today with a sweeping 14-3 vote. Here are a few of the bill’s provisions:

• Businesses that offer employee health plans that include same-sex partners will receive a tax credit incentive.
• The city’s health care plan can not discriminate against non-union transgender city employees.
• There is also now a Transgender Health Tax Credit to allow companies to cover healthcare needs specific to people who are transgender.
• City buildings are now required to provide gender-neutral restrooms.
• The city’s nondiscrimination law now protects sexual orientation and gender identity, including public accommodations.

These simple changes will ensure that LGBT people have equal access to health services and the other benefits offered by the city. The comprehensive bill and the support it received will serve as a valuable role model for other cities to enact similar protections.

LGBT Americans are regularly fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And, despite what most people believe, there is no federal law to stop it.

That could change if a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) on Thursday becomes law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect LGBT Americans from discrimination in the workplace, just like women and racial minorities. This is particularly vital for transgender Americans, 90 percent of whom have experienced workplace discrimination.

While most Americans support the measure — which has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 — opponents have come up with creative excuses to distract from their homophobia. Here are the top five reasons Republicans offered ThinkProgress to explain why they think it should be legal to fire people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity:

1. Being LGBT is a choice. Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), the fifth-ranking House Republican, explained that he opposes workplace discrimination protections for LGBT people because being gay is “a choice issue.”

2. LGBT people aren’t fired for their orientation in the US. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) dismissed the idea of a law making it illegal to fire someone for being gay because, as he explained, it’s not “a big issue” and “that don’t happen out here in the United States of America.”

3. LGBT people “already” have legal protections. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) argued that, contrary to reality, a law making it illegal to discriminate against gay employees is “already on the books.” Marchant, incidentally, voted against that very bill when ENDA came up for a vote in 2007.

4. It could allow LGBT people to sue for discrimination. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) refused to support legislation that would make it illegal to fire someone for being gay because it would give LGBT workers “legal rights” that could “spawn a lot of litigation” and “would make it more difficult for employers to feel comfortable.”

5. Anti-LGBT discrimination is not a federal issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued that racial minorities deserved federal discrimination protections, but not LGBT workers. “Should [it] be a federal crime, specific to federal law? No,” said Lee.

In the United States today, it’s perfectly legal under federal law and in a majority of states to fire someone for being LGBT. Today, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate once again introduced legislation that would change that.

If passed, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA) would prohibit most public and private employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), this commonsense bill levels the playing field for LGBT workers by finally affording them the same workplace rights and safeguards afforded to other protected classes on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability, among others.

If this bill sounds familiar, that’s because it’s been around for quite a while. ENDA was first introduced in 1994 and has been introduced in every single session of Congress with only one exception. What’s more, this commonsense bill has only been seriously considered before Congress twice. In 2007, the House voted on and actually passed ENDA (though the bill lacked protections on the basis of gender identity), but the bill went nowhere and died in the Senate. In 1996, the full Senate voted on ENDA (also without protections for transgender workers) the same day it approved the anti-gay and discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While most expected it to pass, the bill lost by a single vote that year.

The fact that this bill has languished in the halls of Congress for nearly two decades is absurd, especially considering that Americans have supported equal opportunities and fairness for LGBT workers since the early 1980s. Today, 73 percent of likely voters support ENDA, and that includes a majority of Republicans and self-identified conservatives. Even 50 percent of people who have generally unfavorable views about LGBT people support equal treatment for LGBT workers. On top of public support, businesses large and small — from Wall Street to Main Street — support this bill.

Even with all of this support, ENDA still has yet pass.

Perhaps what’s most remarkable about the bill is that nine out of ten voters already think its protections are law. Treating workers equally — regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity — is a no-brainer for the vast majority of the American public.

ENDA’s premise is simple: everyone who works hard and plays by the rules should be able to make a living to support themselves and their families. Sadly, mountains of research confirms that many LGBT people don’t have that opportunity due to high rates of employment discrimination, which leaves them without a job and without a steady income to make ends meet. In fact, it’s largely because of employment discrimination and the absence of ENDA that LGBT families are more likely to live in poverty and report lower annual incomes than non-LGBT families.

One of the reasons that ENDA is still not law of the land is that opponents of LGBT equality continue to use misleading and false rhetoric to distract and derail the bill from being enacted. For example, anti-gay conservatives continue to claim that ENDA poses a threat to religious liberty, despite the fact that the bill contains a robust exemption for religiously-affiliated organizations (notably, some groups think that provision goes too far in exempting religious organizations from claims). Others use scare tactics about transgender workers and ridiculous arguments about bathrooms, changing rooms, and invasion of privacy issues, even though few if any problems of that nature have arisen in states with employment protections on the basis of gender identity.

The good news is that there is now more momentum than ever to finally pass ENDA into law. Lawmakers are literally rushing to come out in favor of LGBT equality. Now that this bill has been re-introduced, it’s time for lawmakers to walk the walk and vote in favor of equality.

Crosby Burns is a policy analyst for LGBT Progress.

Anti-gay conservatives are very concerned about a new bill proposed in California that would require insurance companies to cover fertility treatments for same-sex couples just like they do for opposite-sex couples. AB 460 stipulates that such coverage cannot be denied because of sexual orientation — in other words, any couple that is unable to conceive “after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception” would be entitled to coverage equally.

Conservatives like Breitbart.com’s Ben Shapiro and WorldNetDaily’s Bob Unruh described the bill as “bizarre,” claiming it takes “pro-homosexual actions to a whole new level.” The American Family Association published the following quote from fellow hate group leader Peter LaBarbera:

This is about biology. Biologically, homosexuals cannot produce children, so politics cannot trump biology. The sad part is, we do have kids being placed in homes which are intentionally motherless or intentionally fatherless – and that’s very sad. But to force insurance companies to provide infertility treatment benefits to homosexual couples is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and hopefully the taxpayers of California will restore some common sense to the Legislature and say no.

And in her condescending fashion, Maggie Gallagher added, “The fantasy continues…”

Currently, 15 states, including California, require insurance companies to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment in some fashion. In other words, heterosexual couples in those states who want to have children will have the same opportunity to do so without financial burden whether they can conceive the old-fashioned way or require some medical assistance to do so.

Same-sex couples currently must spend tens of thousands of dollars in order to have a child through methods like surrogacy and egg donors. This is an unfair financial burden that punishes same-sex couples and deprives them of the same opportunity to raise a family. Under this bill, all couples would have the same support to have children. It has nothing to do with “trumping biology”; it’s about creating equity for all California families.

Last week, a Hawaii judge ruled that a bed & breakfast broke the law when it refused service to a same-sex couple, a ruling which the National Organization for Marriage took particular exception to. As expected, NOM claimed that the B&B owner was being told he “had NO first amendment rights when it came to renting out rooms at his own business.” And even though Hawaii doesn’t even have marriage equality, NOM suggested that “cases such as this one are only more frequent and harder to fight against where marriage is redefined.” It’s unclear how a change in marriage law would impact the enforcement of nondiscrimination protections, but NOM seems to believe it does.

What’s most notable about NOM’s response, however, is the signage used in images on its Facebook page and blog in association with this story. Both contained the message, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”:

Uncle Sam adds, “This Includes YOU”:

NOM used scare quotes to describe the B&B owner’s “discrimination,” but discrimination is discrimination, with or without such quotes. By using such provocative signing, the group has extended its message from simply opposing marriage equality to promoting outright discrimination against the LGBT community, regardless of what it calls such refusals of service.

Carla Hale (Photo Credit: Brooke LaValley, Columbus Dispatch)

When Carla Hale was fired from Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus Ohio because she’s gay after working there for 19 years, students were quick to rally to her cause. A Change.org petition calling on the Catholic high school to reinstate her already has over 11,000 signatures. And now, Hale has come forward to tell her own story. When her mother died in March, she included her partner’s name in her obituary, and apparently an anonymous parent thought that was sufficient reason to complain to the Diocese of Columbus. Hale told the Colmbus Dispatch that the school then fired her a week later:

HALE: If it were not for an obituary that appeared in the paper, none of this would be happening… She asked me if I really wanted to put her name in there — in the obituary — but as we sat there that day — my mom really loved Julie and Julie  loved my my mom and as I sat there with my brother, you know, it was like… his wife was mentioned, my niece’s husband was mentioned, so why not? Why not my person I love?

Watch it:

This is hardly the first time the Catholic Church has punished employees simply for being gay. Last year, a music teacher in Missouri and a music director in North Carolina were fired for planning weddings with their same-sex partners. Many more such incidents likely go unreported. The Church refused to comment because it is a personnel matter.

The city of Columbus has nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation with no exemptions for religious organizations, and the Columbus Dispatch argues that she would have a viable case if she filed a complaint.

A McDonald’s franchise in Seattle, Washington provides a perfect example of how easy it is to make sure transgender customers feel safe using the restaurant’s restrooms. A policy posted on bathroom doors reads the following:

We respect the rights of all customers and employees. We believe all people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities regardless of their gender identity or expression. Therefore, the following policy has been adopted for this restaurant at 1530 3rd Avenue.

Employees and customers may use any restroom that corresponds with and is based upon the gender identity they publicly and exclusively assert or express.

We are committed to the principals (sic) of non-discrimination as provided by Washington Law.

The notice has apparently been posted or at least in effect since Washington’s nondiscrimination law passed in 2006, but has gained new public attention due to a posting on Reddit this week. Protections for transgender people are causing concern in numerous other states. A trans woman was banned from a grocery store in neighbor-state Idaho simply for using the appropriate restroom there. A Republican state representative in Michigan is campaigning against a local nondiscrimination ordinance, suggesting warning signs should be posted in bathrooms trans people might use. And Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh (R) is trying to protect businesses who might discriminate against transgender people.