NY Criminalizes Calling A Man "He", And A Woman "She"

Lesbian Human Rights Commissioner Carmelyn P. Malalis, who previously pushed sending out spies in order to entrap religious people for violating anti discrimination laws, issued new Guidelines this week that fine employers (up to $250,000) for referring to transsexuals by their real sex and other such evils.


Bolding particularity evil parts of the new guidelines, and highlighting some of our additional comments

GENDER IDENTITY/GENDER EXPRESSION: LEGAL ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing. It also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law enforcement. The NYCHRL, pursuant to the 2005 Civil Rights Restoration Act, must be construed “independently from similar or identical provisions of New York state or federal statutes,” such that “similarly worded provisions of federal and state civil rights laws [are] a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.” 1
The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) is the City agency charged with enforcing the NYCHRL. Individuals interested in vindicating their rights under the NYCHRL can choose to file a complaint with the Commission’s Law Enforcement Bureau within one (1) year of the discriminatory act or file a complaint in New York State Supreme Court within three (3) years of the discriminatory act.
The NYCHRL prohibits unlawful discrimination in public accommodations, housing and employment on the basis of gender. Gender is defined as one’s “actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.” 2 This document serves as the Commission’s legal enforcement guidance of the NYCHRL’s protections as they apply to discrimination based on gender, and gender identity and gender expression, which constitute gender discrimination under the NYCHRL. This document is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of all forms of gender-based discrimination claims under the NYCHRL.
I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT
In 2002, the New York City Council passed the Transgender Rights Bill to expand the scope of the gender-based protections guaranteed under the NYCHRL, and ensure protection for people whose “gender and self-image do not fully accord with the legal sex assigned to them at birth.” 3 The City’s intent in amending the law was to make explicit that the law prohibits discrimination against transgender people.4 The legislative history reflects that transgender people face frequent and severe discrimination such that protection from discrimination is “very often a matter of life and death.” 5 Recognizing the profoundly debilitating impact of gender-based discrimination on transgender and other gender non-conforming individuals, the amendment makes clear that “gender-based discrimination – including, but not limited to, discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived sex, and discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression – constitutes a violation of the City’s Human Rights Law.” 6
II. DEFINITIONS
These definitions are intended to help people understand the following guidance as well as their rights and responsibilities under the NYCHRL.
Cisgender: an adjective denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex, i.e, someone who is not transgender. in short we now have a special word for normal like we are the ones with the problem
Gender Identity: one’s internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth. One’s gender identity may be male, female, neither or both, e.g., non-binary. Everyone has a gender identity. Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation.
Gender Expression: the representation of gender as expressed through, for example, one’s name, choice of pronouns, clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, or body characteristics. Gender expression may not be distinctively male or female and may not conform to traditional gender-based stereotypes assigned to specific gender identities.
Gender: an individual’s actual or perceived sex, gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned at birth.
Gender Non-Conforming: an adjective sometimes used to describe someone whose gender expression differs from traditional gender-based stereotypes. Not all gender non-conforming people are transgender. Conversely, not all transgender people are gender non-conforming.
Intersex: a term used to refer to a person whose reproductive or sexual anatomy and/or chromosomal pattern does not fit typical definitions of male or female. There are many different medical diagnoses or conditions that an intersex person may have.  isn't linking normal people with confused people bigotry?
Sex: a combination of bodily characteristics including chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, and gender identity. Most people are assigned male or female at birth based on the appearance of their external genitalia.
Transgender: an adjective used to describe someone whose gender identity or expression is not typically associated with the sex assigned at birth. It can be used to describe people with a broad range of identity or expression. Someone who identifies their gender as androgynous, gender queer, non-binary, gender non-conforming, MTF (male to female), or FTM (female to male) may also consider themselves to be transgender.
III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Gender discrimination under the NYCHRL includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and transgender status. 7 The definition of gender also encompasses discrimination against someone for being intersex. Under the NYCHRL, gender discrimination can be based on one’s perceived or actual gender identity, which may or may not conform to one’s sex assigned at birth, or on the ways in which one expresses gender, such as through appearance or communication style. Gender discrimination is prohibited in employment, housing, public accommodations, discriminatory harassment, and bias-based profiling by police and exists whenever there is disparate treatment of an individual on account of gender. When an individual is treated “less well than others on account of their gender,” 8 that is gender discrimination under the NYCHRL.
Harassment motivated by gender is a form of discrimination. Gender-based harassment can be a single or isolated incident of disparate treatment or repeated acts or behavior. Disparate treatment can manifest in harassment when the incident or behavior creates an environment or reflects or fosters a culture or atmosphere of sex stereotyping, degradation, humiliation, bias, or objectification. Under the NYCHRL, gender-based harassment covers a broad range of conduct and occurs generally when an individual is treated less well on account of their gender. While the severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is relevant to damages, the existence of differential treatment based on gender is sufficient under the NYCHRL to constitute a claim of harassment. Gender-based harassment can include unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; however, the harassment does not have to be sexual in nature. For example, refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment. Comments, unwanted touching, gestures, jokes, or pictures that target an individual based on gender constitute gender-based harassment.

Unlawful gender-based discrimination is prohibited in the following areas:
Employment: It is unlawful to refuse to hire, promote, or fire an individual because of a person’s actual or perceived gender, including actual or perceived status as a transgender person. It is also unlawful to set different terms and conditions of employment because of an employee’s gender. Examples of terms and conditions of employment include work assignments, employee benefits, and keeping the workplace free from harassment.
Public Accommodations: It is unlawful for providers of public accommodations, their employees, or their agents to deny any person, or communicate intent to deny, the services, advantages, facilities or privileges of a public accommodation directly or indirectly because of their actual or perceived gender, including actual or perceived status as a transgender person. Simply put, it is unlawful to deny any person full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation because of gender.

Housing: It is unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, or lease housing to someone because of their actual or perceived gender, including actual or perceived status as a transgender person. It is unlawful to withhold from any person full and equal enjoyment of a housing accommodation because of their gender. 9

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. can we call them "IT"? 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11

d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.
2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities and Programs Consistent with Their Gender
The NYCHRL requires that individuals be permitted to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification. The law does not require entities to make existing bathrooms all-gender or construct additional restrooms. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 12
Some people, including, for example, customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender or gender non-conforming individual.

Examples of Violations
a. Prohibiting an individual from using a particular program or facility because they do not conform to sex stereotypes. For example, a women’s shelter may not turn away a woman because she looks too masculine nor may a men’s shelter deny service to a man because he does not look masculine enough.
b. Prohibiting a transgender or gender non-conforming person from using the single-sex program or facility consistent with their gender identity or expression. For example, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to prohibit a transgender woman from using the women’s bathroom.
c. Requiring a transgender or gender non-conforming individual to provide proof of their gender in order to access the appropriate single-sex program or facility.

d. Requiring an individual to provide identification with a particular sex or gender marker in order to access the single-sex program or facility corresponding to their gender.

e. Barring someone from a program or facility out of concern that a transgender or gender non-conforming person will make others uncomfortable.

f. Forcing a transgender or gender non-conforming person to use the single-occupancy restroom.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL, by, wherever possible, providing single-occupancy restrooms and providing private space within multi-user facilities for anyone who has privacy concerns. Covered entities may accommodate an individual’s request to use a single-occupancy restroom because of their gender. For example, an individual who is non-binary or who is in the process of transitioning may wish to use a single-occupancy restroom. As noted above, however, it is unlawful to require an individual to use a single-occupancy restroom because they are transgender or gender non-conforming. Covered entities should create policies to ensure that all individuals are allowed to access the single-sex facility consistent with their gender identity or expression and train all employees, but particularly all managers and employees who have contact with members of the public, on compliance with the policy, and their obligation under the NYCHRL to provide non-discriminatory access to single-sex facilities including for transgender and gender non-conforming people. Covered entities should post a sign in all single-sex facilities that states, “Under New York City Law, all individuals have the right to use the single-sex facility consistent with their gender identity or expression.” Covered entities may adopt policies or codes of conduct for single-sex facilities delineating acceptable behavior for the use of the facilities that are not themselves discriminatory and do not single out transgender or gender non-conforming people.
An individual’s assessment of their own safety should be a primary consideration. Covered entities should offer opportunities for people to come to them if they have safety concerns and should establish a corresponding safety plan if needed. For example, if a transgender resident requests assignment to a facility corresponding to their sex assigned at birth instead of a placement corresponding to their gender identity, that request should be honored.  how about the reverse?

3. Sex Stereotyping
Discrimination based on an individual’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes is a form of gender discrimination under the NYCHRL. Sex stereotypes are widely-held over-simplified expectations about how people of a particular sex or gender should be or how they should act. They include expectations of how an individual represents or communicates gender to others, such as behavior, clothing, hairstyle, activities, voice, mannerisms, or body characteristics. Sex stereotypes also relate to the roles or behaviors assigned to those who identify as male or female. Covered entities may not require individuals to conform to stereotypical norms of masculinity or femininity. The law also recognizes that unlawful sex stereotyping often manifests itself as anti-gay epithets, or attributing a particular sexual orientation to individuals who do not conform to sex stereotypes.
Examples of Violations
a. Using anti-gay epithets when speaking to or about an individual based on their non-conformity with gender norms.
b. Overlooking a female employee for a promotion because her behavior does not conform to the employer’s notion of how a female should behave at work.

c. Enforcing a policy in which men may not wear jewelry or make-up at work.
Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by training all staff on creating and maintaining an environment free from sex stereotyping.
4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or Gender
Under the NYCHRL, employers and covered entities may not require dress codes or uniforms, or apply grooming or appearance standards, that impose different requirements for individuals based on sex or gender. Under federal law, differing standards based on sex or gender are permitted so long as they do not impose an undue burden, an evidentiary standard that the plaintiff must prove. Differences that have been perceived by courts to be slight or that do not impose significantly greater burdens based on gender have generally been permitted; for example, courts have upheld requirements that female bartenders wear makeup, or that male servers wear ties. 13 While some courts have found uniforms and grooming standards that perpetuate sex stereotypes impermissible in extreme cases – for example, where an employer required only female employers to wear an overtly sexualized uniform 14 – courts have generally upheld such standards when courts deem them innocuous or based in long-held, traditional gender norms.
In keeping with the requirements of the Restoration Act of 2005, the NYCHRL looks to these cases as a floor rather than a ceiling, and to that end, does not require a showing that different uniform or grooming standards create an unequal burden or disparate effect to qualify as gender discrimination. Under the NYCHRL, the fact that the grooming standard or dress code differentiates based on gender is sufficient for it to be considered discriminatory, even if perceived by some as harmless. Holding individuals to different grooming or uniform standards based on gender serves no legitimate non-discriminatory purpose and reinforces a culture of sex stereotypes and accepted cultural norms based on gender expression and identity.

The variability of expressions associated with gender and gender norms contrast vastly across culture, age, community, personality, style, and sense of self. Placing the burden on individuals to justify their gender identity or expression and demonstrate why a particular distinction makes them uncomfortable or does not conform to their gender expression would serve to reinforce the traditional notion of gender that our law has disavowed. Differing standards based on gender will always be rooted in gender norms and stereotypes, even when they may be perceived by some as innocuous. When an individual is treated differently because of their gender and required to conform to a specific standard assigned to their gender, that is gender discrimination regardless of intent, and that is not permissible under the NYCHRL.
Employers and covered entities are entitled to enforce a dress code, or require specific grooming or appearance standards; however it must be done without imposing restrictions or requirements specific to gender or sex. It will not be a defense that an employer or covered entity is catering to the preferences of their customers or clients.

Examples of Violations
a. Maintaining grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to individuals who identify as men or women or which have gender-based distinctions. For example, requiring different uniforms for men and women, or requiring that female bartenders wear makeup.

b. Requiring employees of one gender to wear a uniform specific to that gender.
c. Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewelry or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair. Requiring all servers, for example, to always have long hair tied back in a ponytail or away from their face is not a violation unless it is applied unequally based on gender.

d. Permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.

e. Requiring all men to wear ties in order to dine at a restaurant.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating gender-neutral dress codes and grooming standards. so a man should be allowed to wear a skirt? For example, a covered entity may require individuals to either wear their hair short or pulled back from the face or require that workers must wear either a pantsuit or a skirt suit. Covered entities may provide different uniform options that are culturally typically male and typically female. For example, an employer that provides uniform shirts may provide a shirt that is more typical of a woman’s blouse and another that is looser fitting in a style more typical of a man’s button down shirt. It would be unlawful, however, to require an employee to wear one style over another.
5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender
The NYCHRL prohibits covered entities from offering employee benefits that discriminate on the basis of gender. To comply with the law, entities must offer benefits equally to all employees regardless of gender. Employee benefit plans that are covered by, and in compliance with, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and applicable federal anti-discrimination laws are also in compliance with the NYCHRL. 15
It is unlawful for an employer to provide health benefit plans that deny or exclude services on the basis of gender. To be non-discriminatory with respect to gender, health benefit plans must cover transgender care, also known as transition-related care or gender-affirming care.  So not only are you required to hire a man who thinks he's a woman, but you are also required to pay for his operation  In no case, however, will an employer that has selected a non-discriminatory plan be liable for the denial of coverage of a particular medical procedure by an insurance company, even when that denial may constitute discrimination on the basis of gender.
Transgender care is medically necessary, effective, and even life-saving for many transgender people. Transgender care includes a range of treatments, including, for example, hormone replacement therapy, voice training, or surgery. What a particular individual will seek differs according to their needs and overall health. Some insurance plans categorically exclude transgender care from coverage. Federal law requires self-insured plans governed by the Affordable Care Act to cover medically necessary transition-related care and New York State law requires fully-insured New York plans to do the same. 16

Examples of Violations
a. Employers offering health benefits to the opposite-sex spouses of employees, but not same-sex spouses.  forcing you to accept the "marriage"
b. Employers offering health benefits that do not cover care when an individual’s sex assigned at birth or gender otherwise recorded in a medical record or insurance plan is different from the one to which health services are ordinarily or exclusively available. For example, offering benefits that cover prostate cancer screening for cisgender men but not for transgender women.

c. Employers offering health benefits that categorically exclude from coverage, or limit coverage for, health services related to gender transition.

d. Employers offering any other employee benefits that discriminate on the basis of gender. For example, offering a stipend for child care to female but not male employees.
Covered entities may avoid violations under the NYCHRL by reviewing their existing health benefit plans, and if they do not already, provide an option that includes comprehensive coverage for transgender people. Employers should take care to select plans that follow recognized professional standards or medical care for transgender individuals, for example, the standards of care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Because there are few health care providers currently performing certain transition-related and/or gender-affirming care, employers should consider selecting plans that do not prohibit, place limits on, or have significantly higher co-pays or low reimbursements rates for out-of-network care.

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations
The NYCHRL prohibits covered entities from considering gender when evaluating requests for accommodations for disabilities, or other requests for changes to the terms and conditions of one’s employment, participation in a program, or use of a public accommodation, which may include additional medical or personal leave or schedule changes. 17 When a covered entity grants leave or time off of work to employees for medical or health reasons, it shall treat leave requests to address medical or health care needs related to an individual’s gender identity in the same manner as requests for all other medical conditions. Covered entities shall provide reasonable accommodations to individuals undergoing gender transition, including medical leave for medical and counseling appointments, surgery and recovery from gender affirming procedures, surgeries and treatments as they would for any other medical condition.
Examples of Violations
a. An employer who has a policy of routinely granting unpaid medical leave upon request to individuals who have been working for the employer for over a year, who refuses to honor that policy when the request is made by a transgender individual.

b. When an employer or covered entity permits a reasonable accommodation for a cisgender woman seeking reconstructive breast surgery deemed medically necessary but refuses that same accommodation when requested by a transgender woman undergoing the same medically necessary surgery.  medically necessary?

c. Requesting medical documentation to verify leave time from transgender employees or participants, but not cisgender employees or participants.
d. Determining the retention and accrual of benefits, such as seniority, retirement, and pension rights, during personal or medical leave periods for employees based on gender.

Employers may avoid violations under the NYCHRL by creating internal procedures to evaluate all requests for accommodations in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment
The NYCHRL prohibits discriminatory harassment or violence motivated by a person’s actual or perceived gender identity or expression that attempts to interfere with, or actually interferes with, the free exercise of a legal right. Discriminatory harassment includes violence, the threat of violence, a pattern of threatening verbal harassment, the use of force, intimidation or coercion, defacing or damaging real property and cyberbullying. For example, a tenant assaulting or threatening to assault a neighbor because of her gender expression, in addition to committing a crime, is also violating the NYCHRL.

8. Engaging in Retaliation
The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation against an individual for opposing discrimination or requesting a reasonable accommodation for a disability based on gender identity or expression. Opposing discrimination includes, but is not limited to, making an internal complaint about discrimination, making an external complaint of discrimination to the Commission or another government agency, or participating in an investigation of discrimination. An action taken against an individual that is reasonably likely to deter them from engaging in such activities is considered unlawful retaliation. The action need not rise to the level of a final action or a materially adverse change to the terms and conditions of employment, housing, or participation in a program to be retaliatory under the NYCHRL. When an individual opposes what they believe in good faith to be unlawful discrimination, it is unlawful to retaliate against the individual even if the conduct they opposed is not ultimately determined to violate the NYCHRL.

Examples of Violations
a. Repeatedly assigning an individual to work the least desirable shifts contrary to the normal practice of rotating those shifts equally among staff after the individual makes an internal complaint of discrimination.
b. Demoting or firing an individual who has filed a complaint with the Commission or has filed their own case in civil court.
c. Failing to grant accommodations for an individual otherwise not required under the law but that are routinely provided by the employer after the individual was interviewed as a witness in a coworker’s case alleging discrimination.

d. Refusing to advance a program participant to the next stage of the program despite their successful completion of the previous stage because the participant raised concerns about unequal treatment.
Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by implementing internal anti-discrimination policies to educate employees, tenants, and program participants of their rights and obligations under the NYCHRL with respect to gender identity and expression and regularly train staff on these issues. so now the main purpose of a job is propaganda Covered entities should create procedures for employees, tenants, and program participants to internally report violations of the law without fear of adverse action and train those in supervisory capacities on how to handle those claims when they witness discrimination or instances are reported to them by subordinates. Covered entities that engage with the public should implement a policy for interacting with the public in a respectful, non-discriminatory manner consistent with the NYCHRL, respecting gender diversity, and ensuring that members of the public do not face discrimination, including with respect to single-sex programs and facilities.

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
* The severity of the particular violation;
* The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
* The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
* The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.

These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.


__________________________________________________
1 Local Law No. 85 (2005); see also N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130 (“The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title have been so construed.”)
2 Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C Admin. Code § 8-102(23).
3 Id.
4 Report of the Governmental Affairs Division, Committee on General Welfare, Intro. No. 24, to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to gender-based discrimination (April 24, 2002) accessible through http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Legislation.aspx.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23).
8 Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 872 N.Y.S.2d 27, 39 (App. Div. 2009)
9 Protections on the basis of gender under the NYCHRL are subject to the same limitations as all other protected categories. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-102(5); 8-107(5)(a)(4)(1),(2); 8-107(4)(b).
10 Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.
11 Where covered entities regularly request a form of identification from members of the public for a legitimate business reason, requesting a form of identification from transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals is not unlawful. Just as is the case for many cisgender individuals, many transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals’ appearances may not appear the same as what is represented on their photo identification. Covered entities may use a form of identification to corroborate an individual’s identification, but may not subject a transgender or gender non-conforming individual to a higher level of scrutiny than any other person presenting a form of identification.
12 A single-occupancy restroom is a room with a single toilet, walls, a sink, and a door.
13 See, e.g., Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) aff’d on reh’g, 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (granting summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that requiring female bartenders to wear makeup placed greater burden on women than on men); Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1977) (finding that a requirement that male employees wear ties was not sex discrimination under Title VII because it was not overly burdensome to its employees); Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 549 F.2d 400, 401 (6th Cir. 1977) (holding that “employer grooming codes requiring different hair lengths for men and women bear such a negligible relation to the purposes of Title VII that we cannot conclude they were a target of the Act.”); Longo v. Carlisle DeCoppet & Co., 537 F.2d 685 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that requiring short hair on men and not on women does not violate Title VII).
14 EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 F. Supp. 599, 608-09 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), supplementing decision, 521 F. Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
15 N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(e)(i).
16 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 (2010); N.Y. Dep’t. of Fin. Serv., Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 on Health Insurance Coverage for the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria (Dec. 2014). The Commission does not have jurisdiction to enforce these laws.
17 While it is not the focus of this guidance, transgender individuals may have additional rights under Section 8-107(15) of the NYCHRL, including the right to reasonable accommodations. Some transgender people have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which is a disability within the meaning of the NYCHRL. As with any disability, covered entities must make reasonable accommodations for individuals with gender dysphoria.

 link to the document

Ex-Broadcaster Craig James Sues Fox After Being Fired For His Opposition To Same Sex "Marriage"

First They came for the CEOs and broadcasters
Soon they'll go after lawyers, accountants, and other professionals
Then they will after janitors, and secretaries
Finally they will after those who work for "Jewish" magazines

Ex-Broadcaster Craig James Sues Fox Sports Over Firing

DALLAS — Aug 3, 2015, 7:52 PM ET

By DAVID WARREN Associated Press

Former college football television analyst Craig James on Monday filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against Fox Sports that contends he was fired because he had expressed opposition to gay "marriage" during a failed run for the U.S. Senate.

The former running back for Southern Methodist University and the New England Patriots is seeking at least $100,000 in damages. Fox hired him in August 2013 — months after he lost the Texas Senate primary to Ted Cruz — only to fire him days later.

James filed his suit in Dallas County, where he is seeking a jury trial to hear claims against the network that include breach of contract and violations of state law.

Fox Sports didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment Monday on the lawsuit, and a Dallas attorney for the network did not immediately return a call for comment.

James was a longtime color commentator for ESPN who quit to run for the Senate in 2012. During the campaign, James said he opposed gay "marriage" and that gay people would one day "have to answer to the Lord for their actions."

from the (plaintiffs petition)

Last year, James filed a complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission over his firing. Fox later issued a statement saying James was hired by regional executives and was not "properly vetted."

James has alleged that a national Fox Sports spokesman told The Dallas Morning News that James was terminated from Fox Sports Southwest for religious beliefs against same-sex "marriage".

James is being represented in his lawsuit by the Texas-based Liberty Institute.

Hiram Sasser, deputy chief counsel with the conservative advocacy group, said that when Fox fired James, the network publicly stated that his view on marriage was a reason. Sasser said that James was fired after Sports Illustrated magazine contacted Fox about the hiring in light of James' comment during a primary debate that he opposed gay marriage.

"It's pretty rare that a company engages in religious discrimination in the firing of an employee and then issues a statement confirming that's the reason," Sasser said.

In its statement last year, Fox called James "a polarizing figure in the college sports community" and said "the decision not to use him in our college football coverage was based on the perception that he abused a previous on-air position to further a personal agenda."(AP)

“This case is much bigger than me,” James says in a prepared statement. “It affects every person who holds religious beliefs. I will not let Fox Sports trample my religious liberty. Today, many people have lost their jobs because of their faith. Sadly, countless are afraid to let their bosses know they even have a faith. This is America, and I intend to make sure Fox Sports knows they aren’t above the law.”

(college sports blog)

Court Rules "Homophobic Speech" Not Covered Under The First Amendment

particularity dangerous section from the court decision

DETROIT – A state attorney fired for an anti-gay campaign against a college student can’t collect unemployment benefits, the Michigan appeals court says, rejecting claims that his off-hours activities were protected by the First Amendment.

The attorney general’s office was justified in firing Andrew Shirvell in 2010 because his posts on Facebook and an anti-gay blog, as well as his campus visits and TV appearances, clearly had an adverse impact on the agency’s credibility, the court said in a 3-0 decision released Friday.

The court overturned a ruling by an Ingham County judge, who said Shirvell was entitled to jobless benefits because he was fired for exercising free speech.

“The department, as the chief law enforcement agency in the state, represents all of the citizens of Michigan irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or creed. … Shirvell’s conduct reasonably could have created the impression that neither he nor the department enforced the law in a fair, even-handed manner without bias,” the court said.

There’s no dispute that Shirvell targeted Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student government president at the University of Michigan. Shirvell appeared on local and national TV shows to defend his blog and criticize what he called Armstrong’s “radical homosexual agenda.”

In response, Attorney General Mike Cox’s office received more than 20,000 complaints.

“Shirvell’s conduct undermined one of the department’s specific missions — i.e. the integrity of its anti-cyberbullying campaign,” said judges Stephen Borrello, Christopher Murray and Peter O’Connell. “By employing an individual such as Shirvell, whose conduct Cox agreed amounted to bullying, the department undermined its own message.”

Reached for comment, Shirvell of Palm Coast, Florida, said he’ll appeal the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.

“Every public employee, whether liberal or conservative, will now be in fear of what they’re doing on their off hours,” he said.

Armstrong’s attorney, Deborah Gordon, said the decision was “excellent.”

In a separate matter, a federal jury in 2012 ordered Shirvell to pay $4.5 million to Armstrong for defamation and emotional distress. An appeal is pending.

“You cannot expect to behave in such an outrageous, illegal, harmful, menacing manner and think that your employer is going to keep you on board as a government employee and it’s not going to affect how you’re perceived by the public,” Gordon said.

(AP)

Atlanta's Fire Chief Fired For Writing That Homosexual Behavior Is A Perversion

For writing this in a book, Kelvin Cochran was fired

Mayor Kasim Reed clearly admitted in the beginning of his press conference that he was firing him FOR HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS despite contradicting himself later. (his denials were the only parts picked up by the media of course)

"What I Want you to know is the cities position is a very clear one. The cities non discrimination policy endorsed by my office, and by the Atlanta City Council, really unequally states, that we will not negotiate, that we will not discriminate on the basis of race, nor gender, nor religon, nor creed, nor sexual orientation nor physical ability, nor gender identity, that's been codified by the City Council and that has been the rule of the executive branch as well.  And what we had said is that any person that violates this conduct, or creates an environment were we believe that is a concern, will not be a part of our administration.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

I also want to point out that if we had made the decision to retain Chief Cochran, really that the folks in the fire and rescue department, who may have been discriminated against in some future occasion, would have had a valid case in my mind (and I know Cathy is getting nervous) but after the fire chief so clearly stated his position on a number of issues, I thought that it created a potential liability for the city that was unacceptable to me as mayor of the City of Atlanta.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published "controversial" comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a month long suspension in November and had to attend mandated "sensitivity" training classes. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens  — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs as long as it's pro gay."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.
"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said. so either quit or be fired unjustly is fair?

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value "diversity" and how we adhere to a non-"discriminatory" environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement based on the bible that homosexuality is a perversion is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
(usa today) highlights our additions

The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership. What’s more, Reed said he believes Cochran opened up the city to the potential for litigation over future discrimination claims.

Reed stressed that his decision is not because of Cochran’s faith: “His religious (beliefs) are not the basis of the problem. His judgment is the basis of the problem.”

The mayor said though Cochran consulted the city’s ethics officer before publishing the book, Nina Hickson did not grant approval.

Cochran has a differing account. He said he received verbal clearance from Hickson to publish the book, and therefore didn’t believe he needed permission from Reed as city law allowed it. Hickson could not be reached for immediate comment on Tuesday.

What’s more, Cochran said he gave a copy of the book to Reed’s executive assistant in January 2014, and that the mayor later confirmed receiving it. Cochran also said he was told not to speak to the media, specifically, about his suspension. Cochran has spoken publicly about the matter to religious groups.
____________________________________________


Among what city leaders said were troubling remarks in the fire chief’s book was a description of homosexuality as a “perversion” akin to bestiality and pederasty. Reed said in November that such writings were inconsistent with the city’s employment policies how are private writings that have nothing to do with employment inconsistent with Atlanta's employment policies? and opened an investigation into potential discrimination within the fire department. The findings of that investigation have not yet been released.

(ajc) highlights out additions

To contact: Mayor Kasim Reed

55 Trinity Ave. SW #2500, Atlanta, GA, 30303

Phone: (404) 330-6100

Firechief Suspended And Ordered To Go To Sensitivity Training For Religious Book He Wrote Labeling Homosexuality A Sexual Perversion

If you agree with the highlighted portions you may soon be fired

Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran has been suspended without pay for one month according to the AJC, the month-long suspension without pay will cost him $14,333 and must undergo sensitivity training for authoring a Christian book in 2013 that described homosexuality as a “sexual perversion.”


Mayor Kasim Reed’s spokeswoman Anne Torres said the administration didn’t know about book, titled “Who Told You That You Are Naked?” until employees came forward with complaints last week, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

The book identifies Mr. Cochran as Atlanta’s fire chief and says it’s his first priority as chief is to run the department “to cultivate its culture to the glory of God,” a local ABC affiliate reported.

The mayor’s office has opened an investigation to determine whether the chief’s actions violated city policies or "discriminated" against employees.

Two specific passages of the book are cited by The Ga Voice for their anti-gay stance.

“Uncleanness — whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion,” the book states.

“Naked men refuse to give in, so they pursue sexual fulfillment through multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body-temple and dishonor God,” another passage states.

Mr. Reid issued a statement Monday afternoon distancing himself from the fire chief’s views.

“I was surprised and disappointed to learn of this book on Friday,” he said, the ABC affiliate reported. “I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community. I will not tolerate "discrimination" of any kind within my administration unless it's targeted against religious people.”

Mr. Cochran will also be barred from distributing copies of his books to public employees, which is something he reportedly did in the past.

Deputy Chief Joel Baker will serve as acting fire chief in Mr. Cochran’s absence.
(Washington Times) highlights outs

Atlanta Mayor's facebook comment on situation

Retired Atlanta Fire Department Captain Cindy Thompson, who is openly gay, was informed of the book by other firefighters who were disturbed by the book. Thompson, who retired in 2009 after 30 years with the department, contacted the GA Voice to get the word out about the anti-gay book. Today she she said she talked with Robin Shahar, the LGBT liaison for Mayor Reed’s office, about the book and the worry from local firefighters.

“I talked to her a long time. She was pretty shocked by the book herself, I believe. She wished some employees had come forward. But they are not that comfortable. Even though they are to be protected by doing so, some don’t feel that way. And also [speaking out] can follow you,” Thompson said.

Thompson, who now lives in California with her partner, has family in Atlanta and is visiting here for the Thanksgiving holiday. That’s when the fire department employees happened to catch her and ask her for her help.

“This is highly disturbing. I can’t quite believe it, especially since he attached his name and his job to it. That pretty much says how the department thinks,” Thompson said.

Thompson said she knew Chief Cochran while she worked at the department but “didn’t know this side of him.” She did say she knew he was a religious man and because she had “bad vibes” about him she voluntarily took a demotion from battalion chief to captain. “I just didn’t get a good feeling from him,” she said. “Now I see this book and know I was right all along.”

If an employee of the fire department wrote this book and attached their name and title with it, Thompson said she’s sure they would face a stiff penalty, if not termination. She said she believes Cochran should face the same kind of punishment, if not stricter.
first amendment be darned

“I think he should be held to a higher standard. If you’re going to publicize something, a book or publication, you’re supposed to get it approved,” she said. “So he didn’t get it approved. In my personal opinion, I don’t think he should be working there. If someone is writing a book against other groups, like a member of KKK writing something … Atlanta doesn’t tolerate stuff like that. This doesn’t follow any of the anti-discrimination policies or general feeling of the city.”

UPDATE at 5:30 p.m.: Glen Paul Freedman, chair of Georgia Equality’s board of directors, issued a statement that he didn’t believe Reed’s actions were tough enough "sensitivity" training and a one month suspension. Georgia Equality is the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization.

“The Mayor only gave him one month off without pay and then he will be back in charge of the AFD and giving orders to his entire department. His views towards the LGBT community are shameful. He will be back in charge and I am sure telling his staff anti-LGBT stuff. I wonder how many LGBT AFD staff were not promoted or held back because of his views and telling his staff his views. The Mayor should fire him!” Freedman said.

“The mayor is walking a very fine line here and only giving the chief one month without pay is not the answer in this situation and the LGBT community should demand more they always do after the city of Atlanta  just received 100 percent on the HRC [municipal] equality index, New York also got a 100% rating so all government workers who agree with that statement should also be fired” he added.

(thegavoice) highlights our additions

The mayor has read the book, Torres told The Post. “There are a number of passages in the book that directly conflict with the city’s "nondiscrimination" policies,” she added. how can you be in conflict with a discrimination policy in a book?

(Washington Post) highlights our additions

But Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, says Reed isn’t going far enough and says Cochran must go.

“It appears that his language is so extreme, so "belittling" of gay people who practice homosexuality and transgender it doesn't even seem he mentions this people that I don’t see how he could possible lead a diverse workforce,” said Graham.

Cochran’s book, titled "Who Told You That You Are Naked?", includes a passage that compares compares homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. The book has been available publicly at least since November 2013, according to Amazon.com.

“I think he needs to be held accountable for his words that are clearly biblicaly based and that frankly the only course of action at this point and time is his immediate and permanent dismissal,” said Graham.

In response, Reed spokeswoman Anne Torres said, “it is too soon to say whether or not additional action will be taken. That will depend on the outcome of the investigation.”

(wabe radio station) highlights our additions

Houston Subpoenaed Sermons By Religious Leaders Regarding Homosexuality

Her "excuse" to subpoena sermons

City subpoenas sermons against pastors for speeches on LGBT
By Katherine Driessen

October 14, 2014 | Updated: October 15, 2014 11:11am


Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists who have sued the city.

Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.


City attorneys issued subpoenas last month as part of the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

The subpoenas were issued to pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance: Dave Welch, Hernan Castano, Magda Hermida, Khanh Huynh and Steve Riggle. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization known for its role in defending same-sex "marriage" bans, filed a motion Monday on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas, and in a press announcement called it a "witch hunt."

The city's lawyers will face a high bar for proving the information in the sermons is essential to their case, said Charles Rhodes, a South Texas College of Law professor. The pastors are not named parties in the suit, and the "Church Autonomy Doctrine" offers fairly broad protections for internal church deliberations, he said.

Calling it an "unusual but not unprecedented" subpoena request, Rhodes said the city would stand a better chance of getting the sermons if it were a criminal case in which the message or directive in the sermons prompted a specific criminal action.

Still, he said, the city likely will get a boost because many of the sermons are broadcast or recorded and are intended to be shared with the public.

"This is unusual to see it come up in a pure political controversy," Rhodes said. "The city is going to have to prove there is something very particular in the sermons that does not come up anywhere else."

To that end, Feldman said the pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing. That included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes, who largely take issue with the "rights" extended to gay and transgender residents.

Feldman pointed to a training video that surfaced this summer showing Welch, of the Houston Area Pastor Council, explaining the rules signature gatherers needed to follow during a church presentation. With aPowerPoint presentation behind him, Welch tells the audience the city's stringent repeal referendum process "makes it more challenging for us" to qualify for the ballot.

Ordinance supporters said the video proved the signature gatherers were aware of the rules but flouted them anyway.

"If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it's political speech, then it's not going to be protected," Feldman said.  say goodbye to the first ammendment

Plaintiff Jared Woodfill disagreed, saying the subpoenas impinge on protected religious freedoms.

"This is the city trampling on the First Amendment rights of pastors in their churches," said Woodfill, a former chairman of the Harris County Republican Party.

Woodfill and other critics pledged to take the issue to the voters after the City Council approved the ordinance in May, banning discrimination among businesses that serve the public, private employers, in housing and in city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt. not individuals of course

City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to qualify the opponents' petition, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Feldman then looked through all of the petition pages to see if those who gathered signatures met city charter requirements - namely, whether signature gatherers were Houston residents and whether they signed the petition pages.

That process disqualified more than half the 5,199 pages. In their suit, opponents claimed Russell's original count should be the most important one and alleged Feldman had inserted himself into the process illegally.

In August, opponents agreed to drop their request for an emergency temporary injunction, aimed at forcing a referendum this November. The group has filed several appeals in an effort to expedite the case, including a pending appeal at the Texas Supreme Court.

The subpoenas, however, are tied to the January district court date and request more than just sermons. The requests touch on a wide range of communications among the pastors, with their congregations and with city officials about the ordinance, including "any discussion about whether or how HERO does or does not impact restroom access."

Opponents frequently have cited the perceived threat of male sexual predators dressed in drag entering women's restrooms, dubbing the measure the "Sexual Predator Protection Act."

The ordinance protects transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression in short if a perverted man says their woman womens bathroom it is, regardless of their biological sex, but puts the onus on the individual to prove he or she was a victim of bias.

The city also is seeking any information about payments and incentives offered to people contracted to circulate the petitions, and the tax information associated with those payments.

The city does not intend to back down from its request and is working on a response to the Alliance Defending Freedom's motion, Feldman said.
(houstonchronicle) highlights my additions

Rabbis remember to make a copy of your shabbos hagadol drashos available for the goverment








Houston city attorneys modify subpoenas that had sought clergy sermons in equal rights lawsuit

Published October 17, 2014

HOUSTON – Houston city attorneys are no longer seeking through subpoenas sermons from five pastors who publicly opposed an ordinance banning discrimination against gay and transgender residents. after a major campaign against Houston including by formal presidential candidate Micheal Huckabee and Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Mayor Annise Parker said Friday that the city was backing off the sermon request but would not withdraw the subpoenas, which seek other information from the pastors as part of a lawsuit over a petition drive to repeal the equal "rights" ordinance.

"They were too broad," Parker said at a news conference. "They were typical attorney language in a discovery motion. They were asking for everything but the kitchen sink." that's not what she said before the pressure (see her tweet at the top of the page)

While the word "sermons" was being deleted from the subpoenas, the revised request for other speeches or presentations was appropriate, Parker said.

"This is not about what anyone is preaching; this is not about their religion; it's not about the free exercise of religion," she said. "It is our right to defend the city and asking legitimate questions about the petition process."

In May, the City Council passed the equal rights ordinance, which consolidates city bans on discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion and other categories and increases protections for gay and transgender residents. Parker, who is gay, and other supporters said the measure is about offering protections at the local level against all forms of discrimination in housing, employment and services provided by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

Religious institutions are exempt, but city attorneys recently subpoenaed the pastors, seeking all speeches, presentations or sermons related to the repeal petition.

Christian activists had sued after city officials ruled they didn't collect enough signatures to get the question on the ballot. The city secretary initially counted enough signatures, but then city attorney David Feldman ruled that more than half of the pages of the petition were invalid.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian religious rights legal organization that filed the motion to quash the subpoenas, said the city "still doesn't get it."

"It thinks that by changing nothing in its subpoenas other than to remove the word 'sermons' that it has solved the problem," Stanley said. "That solves nothing."

Subpoenas still demand 17 different categories of information that encompass speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members, he said.

"They must be rescinded entirely," Stanley said, contending the city needs to respect First Amendment religious freedoms.

Feldman said that the subpoenas were routine in the give-and-take between lawyers in a lawsuit and that the now-contentious matter could have been defused in negotiations involving attorneys for both sides.

"They decided to make it a media circus," he said.

The controversy has touched a nerve among religious conservatives around the country, already anxious about the rapid spread of gay "rights" and what it might mean for faith groups that object. Religious groups, including some that support civil "rights" protections for gays, have protested the subpoenas as a violation of religious freedom.

(AP) highlights my additions

Kentucky Court Orders T Shirt Company To Make Pro Gay Shirt

Ordered To Go To Diversity Training Courses

T-Shirt that they tried to force religious people to make

An administrative law judge has ruled that a Kentucky printer’s refusal to print gay pride t-shirts “constitutes unlawful discrimination,” and, by extension, that printers cannot refuse to print materials promoting ideas they disagree with.

Hands On Originals is a business that prints custom designs on clothes, accessories and other items like mugs and bottles. According to the ruling, Blaine Adamson, its managing owner, “instructed his sales representatives to decline to design, print, or produce orders whenever the requested material was perceived to promote an event or organization that conveys messages that are considered by the sales representative or Mr. Adamson to be inappropriate or inconsistent with Christian beliefs.”

Don Lowe, board member of the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, contacted three different printing companies in February 2012 about t-shirts for an upcoming gay pride festival, including Hands On Originals. A HOO sales representative approved the design without consulting Adamson, and Adamson didn’t see the design until weeks later, when Lowe called Adamson asking how to pay the deposit and attempting to negotiate a lower price.

During their conversation, Lowe told Adamson that the GLSO was sponsoring the Lexington Pride Festival, “the region’s up and coming premiere festival for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning community and its allies,” according to their website. At this point Adamson said his company would not be willing to print material “for an event that encouraged people to be proud of their same-sex behavior,” in the words of the ruling, but offered to give Lowe the name of another company that would do the same work for the same price. Lowe declined, and within a month a complaint was filed with Lexington’s Human Rights Commission.

In November 2012 the Commission found that HOO violated the local “Fairness Ordinance,” which “prohibits a public accommodation from "discriminating" against individuals based upon their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Adamson disagreed, arguing that his refusal was not motivated by Lowe’s sexual identity, but by Adamson’s own religious beliefs. “[Hands On Originals] and its owners did not want to convey the ideological message that people should take pride in engaging in sexual relationships or sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman,” as the ruling explained. Adamson does, however, regularly do business with and employ homosexual people.

Adamson’s lawyers also argued out that the GLSO, who filed the complaint, “does not have standing to bring a complaint of discrimination before the Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission” because only individuals may do so. "Luckily" for the GLSO, nonprofits are people too, because of a Kentucky statute that defines “person” as “one or more individuals, labor organizations, joint apprenticeship committees, partnerships, associations, corporations,” and so on. but liberal hate it when people say that owners don't lose their first amendment rights in their capacity as the owner of a business

The judge, R. Greg Munson, said that he is “fully convinced” that Adamson’s religious beliefs are sincerely held, but that “this, however, does not end the inquiry.”

a copy of the ruling (to read the whole decision )

“The ordinance effectively places discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity on par with the effects of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and age,” he explained. “An analysis of the Fairness Ordinance does not support a finding that the ordinance ‘substantially burdens’ [HOO's] freedom of religion.” in short liberals get to "decide" what your religion allows or doesn't He also explained that “the Commission has presented clear and compelling evidence that the Fairness Ordinance addresses a compelling interest of Lexington-Fayette County government in safeguarding specified classes of individuals from the humiliation and other deleterious subjective and objective effects of being denied equal access to public accommodation.”

Adamson’s team also tried to defend his decision on First Amendment grounds, arguing that being forced to print the t-shirts would violate his freedom of speech, forcing him to convey a message he did not want to convey. They pointed out that Adamson did not deny Lowe service until he knew what the t-shirt design was, arguing that because the refusal was based on the design and not the customer or his group it did not constitute discrimination.

When asked what about the t-shirt design he objected to, Adamson said “specifically, it’s the Lexington Pride Festival, the name, and that it’s advocating pride in being gay, in being homosexual, and I can’t promote that message.”

Munson didn’t buy it, saying that acceptance of their argument “would allow a public accommodation to refuse service to an individual or group of individuals who hold and/or express pride in their status. …  which is 100 allowed according to the first amendment even when it's reprehensible kal vechormer when it's admirable The Hearing Commissioner [Munson] agrees with the Commission’s contention that [HOO's] objection to the printing of the t-shirts was inextricably intertwined with the status of the sexual orientation of members of the GLSO.”

As GLSO President Aaron Baker himself admitted during the hearing, “I believe that a gay printer would have to print a T-shirt for the Westboro Baptist Church… And if the Westboro Baptist Church were to say, ‘Look, we’re a church; we’re promoting our church values by having our name on a T-shirt,’ I don’t see how you could refuse that.” that because it was theoretical in practice it has never happened and will never happen

“No one wants to live in that kind of America – a place where people who identify as homosexual are forced to promote the Westboro Baptists and where printers with sincere religious convictions are forced to promote the message of the GLSO,” said Bryan Beauman, one of HOO’s lawyers. “In America, we don’t force people to express messages that are contrary to their convictions.”

Not only did the judge rule that Adamson’s actions constituted unlawful discrimination in violation of the Fairness Ordinance, he also ordered him “to participate in diversity training to be conducted by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission within twelve months of the issuance of this order.”

According to Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group helping defend Adamson, the Commission can either accept or modify Munson’s recommended ruling. ADF senior counsel Jim Campbell told the Daily Caller that “Hands On Originals has 10 days to file its objections to the recommended decision with the Commission. Once that happens, it is unclear how long it will take the Commissioners to decide whether to adopt or modify the recommended decision.”

The Lexington-Fayette Human Rights Commission “is an independent chartered agency of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government” whose statutory functions are to “promote and secure mutual understanding and respect among all ethnic groups in Lexington-Fayette County and act as conciliator in controversies involving inter-group and inter-racial relations; cooperate with Federal, State and other local agencies in the efforts to develop harmonious inter-group and inter-racial relations and…endeavor to enlist support of civic, religious, laborer, and commercial groups and leaders dedicated to the improvement of human relations and the elimination of discriminatory practices; and receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings and make studies as will able the Commission to carry out the purposes of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.

(Daily Caller) highlights my additions

If this is what happened in the "conservative" state of Kentucky what do you think is going to happen in NYC