Civil Rights Champions Call for a Decision for Equal Dignity under Law at the Supreme Court
“Open To All” Coalition’s Statement of Principle Released in Advance of Masterpiece Cakeshop Oral Arguments Next Week
WASHINGTON — More than 50 organizations joined in declaring their support today for equal dignity under the law for LGBT Americans. The statement of principle comes days before the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Signatories are comprised of national, state, and local civil rights champions as well as social justice advocates and religious organizations representing diverse communities. On its digital platform, the coalition called for the high court to affirm all Americans’ rights to live free from discrimination, and that public accommodations remain “Open To All.” Signing organizations called for a recommitment to the promises made in the wake of the civil rights movement of the 1960s that businesses open to the public may not turn anyone away because of who they are.
Standing in solidarity with Masterpiece plaintiffs Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, the coalition also spoke to the widespread implications of a Supreme Court decision against the couple, saying, “It would say there is a constitutional right to discriminate — which could be used not only against LGBTQ people but also against people of color and religious minorities, unmarried couples, single mothers, young people, people with disabilities, and many, many others.”
Among the coalition members are the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Black Justice Coalition, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in addition to leading LGBT rights advocates GLAAD, Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and the National LGBTQ Task Force, among others.
“Our clients in the Masterpiece case have already felt the stinging harm of being turned away from a business simply because of who they are, a harm that no one should ever have to endure,” said James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT and HIV Project. “A ruling in this case to give businesses the right to refuse service to customers would shatter longstanding non-discrimination laws and have wide impacts on religious and racial minorities, single mothers, people with disabilities, and others. We are proud to stand with our allies as well as Charlie and Dave, our clients, in this campaign to encourage people to share their support for equality.”
“Nobody should be turned away or denied service just because of who they are,” said Kris Hayashi, executive director of the Transgender Law Center. “Allowing businesses to pick and choose which laws to follow would have devastating consequences for transgender and gender non-conforming people of color, who already face intense discrimination in every aspect of life.”
The full list of statement signatories is below:
Advocates for Youth
Americans United for Separation for Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Americans Advancing Justice/AAJC
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Believe Out Loud
Center for American Progress
Center for Black Equity
Center for Reproductive Rights
CenterLink: the Community of LGBT Centers
Constitutional Accountability Center
Council for Global Equality
Diverse and Resilient
Equality California
Equality Federation
Equality Florida
Equality Michigan
Equality North Carolina
Fairness West Virginia
Family Equality Council
Freedom for All Americans
Georgia Equality
GLAAD
GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders
GLSEN
HIV Medicine Association
Human Rights Campaign
Keep Our Birth Control Copay Free Campaign
Lambda Legal
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Main Street Alliance
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Council of Jewish Women
National Health Law Program
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National LGBT Bar Association
National LGBTQ Task Force
National Minority AIDS Council
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Women’s Law Center
Outfront Minnesota
People for the American Way Foundation
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
SAGE: Advocacy and Services for LGBT Elders
Southern Arizona Gender Alliance
The Trevor Project
Transgender Law Center
Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund
Union for Reform Judaism
Whitman-Walker Health
The full statement and more information on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission can be found at www.opentoall.com.
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.