13 states and the District of Columbia currently have laws on the books banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Those states include: Minnesota; Rhode Island; New Mexico; California; District of Columbia; Illinois; Maine; Hawaii; New Jersey; Washington; Iowa; Oregon; Vermont; Colorado

7 states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation only.

Those states include: Wisconsin; Massachusetts; Connecticut; New Hampshire; Nevada; Maryland; New York

Pending legislation/killed legislation:
Idaho bill died in committee (2/24/09)
West Virginia passed bill in Senate (3/14/09)
Kansas bill passed committee, now seems to be on hold (3/19/09)
New Hampshire House voted 181-149 to kill bill adding Trans protection to existing anti-discrimination law (3/26/09)
Delaware passed bill in House (3/27/09)
North Dakota House killed bill (4/3/09)

The House voted 54-34 to kill the bill (Senate Bill 2278).

House members on Friday argued that outlawing discrimination against gays and lesbian North Dakotans would “protect behavior that can be changed and which God abhors.”

Just like how those very legislators can be “changed” into gay and lesbian folks I guess. Ignorant jerks.

In time my friends, in time.

Rep. Corey Mock, D-Grand Forks, one of the six sponsors of the bill, noted that 20 other states already have laws barring discrimination against gays and lesbians. In those places, he said, the laws do not grant special rights, privileges or legal immunity for sexual deviants, as some bill opponents have claimed would happen here.

“There is not a person in this chamber that is not related to or friends with someone that would be affected by Senate Bill 2278,” he said. “That means people we know and love may be evicted, denied services or terminated because they are gay, straight, bisexual or transgendered with no regard or consideration of merit.”

Mock and another co-sponsor, Rep. Kathy Hawken, R-Fargo, were among several bill supporters who noted how North Dakotans of all kinds came together in recent days to help others hit by or endangered by flooding.

“I’m relatively sure on one was checking the sexual orientation of the volunteer sandbaggers in Fargo. It simply didn’t make a difference. People were just people,” she said.

“It has been said that this is a choice,” Hawken said. “Religion is also a choice but yet that’s protected,” she noted. “To make our constitution work, protection must be put in statute. Right now we can and do discriminate on our citizens based on sexual orientation.”

In a letter (pdf) to the Subway franchisee in Merced, Calif., the company wrote: “While we understand that as an individual you have a right to your personal beliefs and freedom of association, when you use the Subway trademark it reflects on the entire Subway brand. … Further [the franchise agreement] states that you agree to ‘not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark’ and ‘to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.’”

Subway got wind of the franchise agreement violation last Friday from a gay blogger, who found the contribution on a list of ‘Yes on 8’ contributors compiled by the Human Rights Campaign. Mike Rogers, 45, of Blogactive.com threatened to rally a major boycott of Subway sub-shops if his demands weren’t addressed: repudiating the gift, adding ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ to the company’s nondiscrimination policy and giving an equal gift to the other side.

The franchisee, Subway says, has asked for a refund of the $2,500 contribution. A person at the Subway shop in Merced Mall said the manager isn’t available today and will be back tomorrow. Subway has also updated its nondiscrimination policy to include the ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ clause. Mr. Rogers dropped the last demand for a quid-pro-quo contribution.

In a phone interview, he says he was quite surprised by Subway’s quick response. “I thought it was great. It was amazing.”

He adds, “The time for complacency is over. With the power of the Web, corporations will be brought to the table or suffer the consequences of ignoring the call for justice and equality.”

Subway, which generated $8.2 billion in the U.S. last year, says it has sent a letter to all of its franchisees that it is a violation to use the Subway name when making political and/or controversial topic donations.

“We offer our apologies if you were offended by this action and hope you will view our quick response to this as a sign that we will not tolerate discrimination, of any type, in our system,” the company says in a statement.

Via The WSJ

“The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law,” the Transition team says on its official Web site.
Although the commitment pertains only to transition team workers, LGBT civil rights activists say they believe Obama will issue an Executive Order shortly after being sworn in to extend that throughout the administration.

“The inclusion of gender identity is a bold departure from the past – and it sends a clear message,” said Christopher E. Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel.

“By including sexual orientation and gender identity in its non-discrimination policy, the Obama-Biden transition team makes clear that it will focus on the relevant qualities that actually predict an applicant’s success on the job – professional experience, character, skills and education.”

Although President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 11478, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are no explicit federal protections from gender identity bias in government hiring.

via 365

In its second major decision advancing gay rights this year, the state high court ruled that religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

“The 1st Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . antidiscrimination requirements,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe T. Benitez, an Oceanside lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm.

Benitez filed a suit after Dr. Christine Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, said she would not perform an intrauterine insemination. In her lawsuit, Benitez alleged that Brody said her religious views prevented her from providing the procedure to a lesbian.

Another physician at the clinic, Dr. Douglas Fenton, later told Benitez that the staff was uncomfortable helping her conceive a child and advised her to find another doctor outside the medical group, Benitez said.

The doctors denied the allegations. Brody said she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, heterosexual or homosexual.

The state high court said the doctors’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion did not trump the state antidiscrimination law because the state has a compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical care.

But the doctors “remain free to voice their objections, religious or otherwise, to the [law's] prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination,” Kennard wrote.

via LA Times

It calls for passage of expanded hate crime legislation and a comprehensive employment discrimination bill, while not specifically saying both pieces of legislation would directly affect LGBT people. It does, however, use the term gender identity.
The platform also calls for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the ban on LGBT people serving openly in the military, and for the first time it calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act used to bar gay and lesbian couples from receiving federal benefits.

The platform additionally calls for the full inclusion of same-sex couples and their families and for a national strategy to combat HIV/AIDS.

Read the rest here.

So we’ve all heard now that Oregon’s Tennessee’s Arizona’s… Let’s try this again. Ech hem.

So we’ve all heard that out-of-state (though parading around as Oregonians) anti-gay groups have called it quits on attempts to repeal Oregon’s Domestic Partnership and Anti-Discrimination laws. Obviously great news as no one was looking forward to another six million dollar ballot measure campaign, the bad news great news is that they’re bringing it back for a 2010 ballot initiative. And to be clear, I would never welcome a ballot measure campaign, but given that repeated polling indicates that the majority of Oregonian’s honestly don’t give a shit about committed gay and lesbian couples getting domestic partnered and also indicates that Oregon’s overwhelmingly support Oregon’s anti-discrimination law, bring it on.

Because if Oregonian’s care little about repealing our Domestic Partnership law now, in 2010 these out-of-state religious zealots will be viewed as an even more hostile threat to our society than even now. So bring it.

The Actual Bad News
The one thing that could come to bite us in the ass very soon is the Lemons v. Bradbury case. Pro-equality Oregonians won the first battle, but the Arizona based ‘Alliance Defense Fund’ has appealed and it will now be heard by a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments will be heard in Portland on the morning of Tuesday, July 8. It’s simply just another round in the legal battle, though if lost, could have serious consequences by putting at least of of these laws on the ballot in November 2008.

Lemons v. Bradbury was brought on by the ‘Alliance Defense Fund’ late last year after attempts to put the DP and AD laws on the ballot. They failed at collecting enough signatures after making their way through the verification process. For more on Lemons v. Bradbury visit Basic Rights Oregon’s site here.

That’s all for now folks.

I have to question their logic. Have they not done polling? Quite obviously they haven’t – as multiple polls indicate a record number of Oregonians support this anti-discrimination law.

For more background on the whole debacle, see our post from yesterday (here & here). I highly recommend reading it as it explains all the background details.

In an email to supporters, David Crowe from “Restore America” said the following:

Initiative 144 is legally flawed and apparently beyond use. Now corrected, it has been refiled by Marylin Shannon, as Initiative 146.

The process described above is underway on 146, and it may well be too late to get to the people for signature and then to the Elections Division by the deadline, which is July 3rd.

The likelihood is that we will have just enough time to get enough signatures for 145 on the ballot, but not 146.

Again, they need about 83,000 signatures to qualify – meaning they need to shoot for well over 100,000 to actually make it unless they have an incredibly clean list without many mistakes.

If they do make it even just an attempt to repeal the anti-discrimination law then I predict a very nasty campaign from their side, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the days of Lon Mabon. At the same time I do wonder how they will finance their anti-gay crusade. It could easily cost millions if history is correct. Back in 2004 Basic Rights Oregon spent roughly 3 million dollars to fight Measure 36 and the opposition group is struggling to even get $25,000 and they are almost 7k in the hole.

Oy vey. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday folks.

Yesterday we talked about the group “Concerned Oregonians” who actually happens to be led by David Crowe who now resides in Tennessee. Make of that what you will. In any case – their desperate pleas for tens of thousands of dollars, even if answered, would still leave their anti-gay crusade in limbo. And funny enough currently it looks as though they are in debt.

Giving credit where credit is due.
Basic Rights Oregon has proven once again that it will relentlessly fight these initiative attempts to strip families of their basic rights as citizens of this state. Thanks BRO! (ech hem – donate here)

Credit should also be given to everyday Oregonians. Oregonian’s don’t see this as a Measure 36 – and rightly so. They see this simply for what it is, workplace protections against blatant discrimination and as I said above, the ability to legally provide and care for your family.

No victory dance yet folks.
Again, lets not get our hope up too high. But come July when anti-gay forces must turn in over 83,000 valid signatures to qualify and they can’t do it – I’ll be the first cracking open that bottle of bubbly.

Counting down the days.
Just think, each and every day that this bigoted attempt to strip Oregon families and individuals of their basic human rights is delayed, that’s just another day these folks cannot gather signatures.

Related:
Appeal to Oregon Supreme Court Sparks Delay in Anti-Gay Plans

Via JustOut:

Basic Rights Oregon’s legal representation – Margaret Olney, of Smith, Diamond and Olney, representing BRO’s Jeana Frazzini and Frank Dixon – have just filed appeals to the state Supreme Court regarding Attorney General Hardy Myers’ certified ballot titles for Initiatives 144 and 145, initiatives designed to repeal the Oregon Family Fairness Act and the Oregon Equality Act, respectively, according to documents obtained from the Secretary of State Elections Divisions Office.

According to state Elections Division compliance specialist Summer Davis, the Supreme Court could take “up to several months” to deliver an opinion on the appeals,” depending on what other items “are on the Court’s plate,” though state law charges the Court to address the appeals “in an expeditious manner,” although, she added: “Expeditious is not defined.”

This could prove to be a major setback for Concerned Oregonians, the umbrella group organizing behind the repeal initiatives. In a recent email to supporters, the organization had said it was anticipating having petitions “printed and delivered to distribution sites hopefully by April 26th,” though the current Supreme Court appeals could set their efforts back at least several weeks’ time, if not longer – as petitions cannot be circulated until the Supreme Court’s final judgment is delivered. Locations of potential petition distribution sites and self-described “collection goals” are posted on the Concerned Oregonians website.

Davis also said the Court was not required to take into consideration in its decision the final deadline by which the initiatives’ sponsors were required to turn in their signatures: the deadline (82,769 valid signatures are required) is 5 pm on Thursday, July 3. “They’re under no obligation to issue their opinion or final judgment based on when signatures are due,” Davis said.

And in other news Amy Ruiz at the PDX Mercury had this to say on the anti-gay group “Concerned Oregonians” lack of funding. It sure seems like they have bigger concerns than just stripping away the rights of families. They have no money. I have to question how far they will get if they were to get on the ballot. It’s going to be a multi-million dollar campaign and they are begging and pleading for a mere $50k?

The campaign to repeal Oregon’s new domestic partnership and anti-discrimination laws is in bigger trouble than I thought. For starters, though the groups involved only have until early July to gather up tens of thousands of signatures on each of the two initiatives, they haven’t been cleared to start collecting signatures yet. Clock’s ticking, as they say.

[...]

Yep, the sky is falling in Concerned Oregon. It takes a lot of cash to fund a statewide signature gathering campaign, and they’ve only collected $4,385.00. The Concerned Oregonians PAC-which, according to their filing, exists to oppose the land use Measure 49-has $517.06 in the bank as of this writing, but enough outstanding accounts payable to put them in the hole by $6,191.70.