The ACLU have just released their latest Anti-LGBT Legislative Roundup which spotlights key anti-LGBT legislation to watch and informs of efforts aimed at restricting the rights of LGBT people.
You can find all of the bills at www.aclu.org/LGBTbills. A few noteworthy bills are highlighted below:
“State legislatures are at it again, targeting LGBT people and children with their discriminatory legislation,” said Eunice Rho, ACLU advocacy & policy counsel. “A bill allowing anyone, including businesses, to refuse to provide services or goods based on religious objections in Oklahoma and a bill that would allow adoption and foster care agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples and kids in South Dakota have passed the first committee and are moving to a floor vote. Texas is unrelenting in its desire to discriminate against LGBT people and have introduced another seven bills in the past week.”
Missouri — anti-trans bill receiving first committee hearing today
Senate bill 98 requires all public school students to use sex-segregated facilities (such as restrooms and locker rooms) in accordance with what it deems to be the person’s “biological sex” defined as a “person’s chromosomes … identified at birth by a person’s anatomy and indicated on their birth certificate.” This is a dangerous proposal that puts transgender students at risk by preventing them from using the restroom or locker room that matches the gender they live every day.
South Dakota – sweeping, discriminatory bill that harms kids
After passing the first committee on a 5-2 vote, bill is scheduled for a full Senate vote on Wednesday, 2/22
SB 149 is extraordinarily broad — it grants a broad right for child-placing agencies to discriminate against children and families and deny children needed services based on the agency’s religious or moral beliefs. And it virtually eliminates what the state may do in response. Here are its main effects:
- Child-placing agencies have a broad right to refuse to make adoption or foster placements or provide services to children they are being paid by taxpayers to care for, so long as the objection is religiously or morally-based. While an agency still may not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, it can refuse to place a child based on the family’s religion (or lack thereof) or any other religious or moral beliefs, including about sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status.
- The state would be virtually powerless to do anything in response. A discriminatory agency would still be entitled to state funding and contracts. The state cannot sue or stop the agency from discriminating. As a result, SB 149 would exacerbate the shortage we already have of available families and leave more children to grow up without ever finding a permanent home.
Oklahoma — anti-LGBT bill moves forward
Senate Bill 197 passed the first committee today and is headed for a full floor vote in the Senate.
SB 197 would allow any individuals, government employees, privately-held businesses, or a religious organization to refuse — based on religious beliefs about a “marriage, lifestyle, or behavior” — being part of any aspect of a wedding or “celebration.” This means couples who want to get married may be denied anything from getting a marriage license, renting a hotel room, creating invitations, buying a wedding cake, and more. But the bill is even more sweeping and would allow discrimination in the context of anything amounting to a “celebration,” including birthdays, holidays, graduation, and retirement, just to name a few.
Texas — seven more anti-LGBT bills introduced, bringing total to 10 so far
Building off of a wave of anti-LGBT bills already filed in Texas, an additional seven anti-LGBT bills were introduced and marked as priorities.
Bills allowing child welfare organizations receiving state funds to discriminate (SB 892, HB 1805):
These bills would allow any child welfare service provider (defined broadly to include organizations providing counseling, adoption, foster care, help to abused and neglected children, reproductive services, etc.) to refuse to provide any services if they have a religious objection. The organization would not lose their license, funding, or other contracts even if they discriminate.
First Amendment Defense Acts (Senate Bill 893, House Bill 1923):
These bills would protect someone who sought to discriminate based on their religiously held beliefs that (a) marriage is limited to a man and a woman and (b) sexual relationships are “properly reserved” for only those marriages. This means that individuals, businesses, and religiously affiliated organizations may discriminate against same-sex couples, single parents, and LGBT people. In response, the government’s hands would be tied: a discriminatory employee could not lose his or her job, a locality could not enforce its nondiscrimination laws, and a counselor would still keep his or her professional license and continue practicing.
College student group discrimination bill (HB 428):
Under this bill, public colleges and universities must provide funding and other benefits to religious student groups even if those groups refuse to follow the school’s nondiscrimination policies.
County clerks may opt out of their duties based on religious reasons (SB 522, HB 1813):
County clerks may refuse to issue marriage licenses if they have religious objections. Another government employee will be required to fulfill those duties instead.
