Answering Anonymous Commenter’s Question: What Rights Do We Have That The LGBTQ+ Community Doesn’t?

On my previous post, “Pride Month in Middletown: Actions Are Louder Than Words” someone asked me to explain, “…what rights do we have that the LGBTQ+ community doesn’t have.”

I sighed after reading this comment. It’s clear the commenter has an issue with the LGBTQ+ community and its fight for equal rights—rights that would grant them the same freedoms to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without hostility or prejudice, just as members of the heterosexual community enjoy. But I’m going to try my best to indulge this person. Bear with me; there’s a lot to unpack. Let’s start by diving into the comparison of rights between heterosexual individuals and the LGBTQ+ community.

First off, let’s clear the air: rights should be universal, but, spoiler alert, they aren’t always evenly distributed. Heterosexual people, by virtue of societal norms, historically enjoy a number of privileges that LGBTQ+ individuals have had to fight for—sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much.

For starters, let’s talk about the “right to marry.” Heterosexual couples have been tying the knot without much fuss for centuries. For same-sex couples, marriage equality is a relatively new phenomenon. Even in places where same-sex marriage is legal, the journey to the altar has been marred by political and social resistance. Imagine needing a court ruling just to say "I do" to your soulmate—yikes!

While a heterosexual couple usually won't be refused services based on their relationship status, LGBTQ+ couples may still encounter businesses that decline to serve them, invoking religious beliefs as a justification. This kind of discrimination underscores the ongoing struggle for true equality.

One prominent case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs. The Court ruled in favor of the baker, not on the grounds of broad discrimination rights, but due to perceived hostility towards his religious beliefs by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case, however, opened the door for further legal battles over the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections.

Fast forward to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), another landmark decision where the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. The Court held that requiring her to do so would violate her First Amendment rights by compelling her to express a message she disagrees with.

These cases highlight a significant area where heterosexual individuals typically face fewer obstacles. 

Now, onto family life. Heterosexual couples seldom worry about the legalities of having children. LGBTQ+ individuals often face additional hurdles, whether it’s through adoption, surrogacy, or parental rights. Some states and countries still place restrictions on same-sex couples adopting children. Picture explaining to your kids why their potential sibling is stuck in legal limbo—talk about a bedtime story gone wrong.

Let’s not forget about public displays of affection (PDA). Heterosexual couples can walk down the street holding hands, giving each other a peck on the cheek, without a second thought. For LGBTQ+ individuals, such simple acts can sometimes invite unwanted stares, or worse, aggression. Imagine needing a sixth sense just to gauge if it's safe to hug your partner in public—sounds exhausting, doesn’t it? 

Healthcare is another area where disparities between heterosexual and LGBTQ+ individuals are stark. While everyone might dread a trip to the doctor, LGBTQ+ individuals often face additional hurdles. Imagine gearing up for your annual physical and instead of just worrying about the usual pokes and prods, you’re also anxious about how you’ll be treated because of your sexual orientation or gender identity. Not exactly a picture of health, right?

Take, for instance, the lack of knowledgeable and sensitive care. LGBTQ+ individuals frequently encounter healthcare providers who are either uninformed about their specific needs or, worse, hold biases that affect the quality of care they receive. Transgender individuals, in particular, might struggle to find providers knowledgeable about gender-affirming treatments. Imagine explaining your medical needs only to be met with a blank stare or, even worse, outright hostility.

Discriminatory policies and practices in healthcare settings can discourage LGBTQ+ individuals from seeking care altogether. For example, in some states, religious exemptions allow healthcare providers to refuse treatment based on their beliefs. This means an LGBTQ+ person might be turned away from receiving critical services, such as hormone therapy or even routine medical care, based on the provider’s personal convictions.

LGBTQ+ individuals face higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide, often due to societal stigma and discrimination. Accessing mental health care can be particularly tough when providers are not culturally competent or sensitive to LGBTQ+ issues. Imagine seeking help during a mental health crisis and feeling misunderstood or judged—it's an additional layer of stress no one needs.

LGBTQ+ youth are at a greater risk of homelessness, often being rejected by their families due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. This leads to a higher likelihood of encountering violence, exploitation, and health issues. Heterosexual youth, while also facing challenges, generally do not face family rejection solely based on their identity. The safety net for LGBTQ+ youth is often full of holes, highlighting yet another disparity in lived experiences.

While strides have been made towards equality, the LGBTQ+ community continues to face unique challenges and systemic inequalities. From the right to marry, to protection from workplace discrimination, to receiving adequate healthcare, the journey towards equal rights and treatment continues. 

By understanding these disparities, we can better appreciate the progress made and the work that still needs to be done. 

Equality isn’t just about laws on paper; it’s about equal experiences and opportunities in everyday life. So, let’s keep pushing for a world where everyone, regardless of who they love or how they identify, enjoys the same rights and respect.

Pallone Introduces the Equality Act with Colleagues to End LGBT Discrimination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 23, 2015


WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) introduced the Equality Act as an original cosponsor of the bill. The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The legislation would apply to public accommodations, federal funding, education, employment, housing, credit, and jury service.

“No one should ever be discriminated against, live in fear of being fired, or be denied equal basic protections under the law because of who they love,” said Congressman Pallone. “As a longtime advocate for LGBT equality, I am proud to help lead the fight to rid our country of this unacceptable discrimination.”

Despite last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirmed marriage equality, discrimination against LGBT individuals remains legal in most states. For example, today, only 19 states offer employment and housing protections for the LGBT community. Furthermore, just 17 states prohibit discrimination for public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Among Pallone’s ongoing efforts for full LGBT equality, he has long-urged government action against LGBT discrimination in the workplace. He led letters in Congress asking the President to sign an executive order that would require any company seeking a federal contract to have adopted workplace policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2014, the President heeded the call and extended protections to LGBT workers.

CWA CALLS ON CHRISTIE TO HOLD LEGITIMATE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON CIVIL SERVICE BROAD BANDING

Holding One Meeting in Trenton at 3 pm is Affront to Good Government & a Slap in the Face to Working Families.

(TRENTON, NJ) – Next Wednesday, April 10th, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission (CSC) will hold a single public hearing on a rule proposal eliminating Civil Service as we know it. The proposal will eliminate most competitive promotions and open the door to a flood of patronage, favoritism and discrimination. It will completely eliminate veterans’ preference in hiring and promotions.

Civil Rights organizations, advocates for the disabled, veterans’ groups, legislative leaders, unions and concerned citizens will all attend the hearing - to be held at 3 p.m. in a small room at the Civil Service Commission in Trenton. However, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) is calling on the CSC to hold additional public hearings in other parts of the state, so working families are able to have their voices heard via a true, public vetting process before the Christie Administration adopts the most radical changes to Civil Service in decades.

“The Civil Service Commission scheduled a single, rubber-stamp public hearing as if it’s one of the Governor’s Town Hall meetings – holding it in the middle of the week during working hours, making it virtually impossible for those affected or who may be opposed to have their voices heard,” said Hetty Rosenstein, CWA NJ State Director. “They’ll simply put up a stenographer to record testimony and then jam through whatever they wanted to do in the first place - public good be damned. Over the past thirty years, I’ve been through dozens of rule change hearings, yet this is the first time I can recall that Civil Service did not accommodate a request for more public hearings.”

Even though the New Jersey Constitution requires public jobs be awarded through a competitive testing process wherever possible, the CSC is seeking to bypass Constitutional requirements by "broad banding" titles. They want to place dozens and possibly hundreds of titles into “job bands” where management would be allowed to unilaterally “advance” favored workers through the band instead of requiring competitive examination. This would eliminate transparent lists of promotion-eligible workers, public postings of who was awarded the position. It would also eliminate the preference that veterans and disabled veterans not be bypassed promotion if they meet eligibility requirements and score high enough on the list.

“Every single advancement will be subject to political pressure,” added Rosenstein, “Disabled workers, LGBT workers, women, workers of color, older workers, and veterans will all have to overcome prejudice every step of the way.”

Not only does the new regulation allow discriminatory advancement, it also eliminates the one neutral avenue to appeal. Under the current system, if discrimination is alleged as the reason for not receiving a promotion, the worker can go before a neutral judge to present proof of discrimination at the Office of Administrative Law. That course of action is completely eliminated under the proposal.

The proposed rule change could affect hundreds of thousands of workers, as well as expose every single New Jerseyan to higher taxes due to corruption, cronyism and special favors. CSC should hold a public process that is accessible to those taxpayers and workers who would be directly affected by any rule changes. They all deserve a chance to have their voices heard in a meaningful way.

As such, CWA has launched a petition for supporters to call on the CSC to additional public hearings locations, dates and times. The petition can be viewed – and signed - at www.cwanj.org.

The Communications Workers of America (AFL-CIO) represents both private sector and public workers. CWA represents more than 70,000 working families in New Jersey, including over 40,000 state workers, 15,000 county and municipal workers, and thousands of workers in the telecommunications, airlines, health care and direct care industries. It represents thousands of public workers both in Civil Service jurisdictions and those that have not adopted Civil Service.

Middletown's Discrimination; Law Suits Could Have Been Avoided If Human Rights Commission Were allowed To Do Its Job

To the Editor:

Middletown recently settled a racial harassment discrimination lawsuit by one of its own police officers for $300,000 dollars, of which the town must pay $70,000. The township attorney stated that the officials would be reviewing their discrimination policies and procedures.

There was an earlier sexual harassment settlement by a township employee.

A few years ago, while chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, I experienced disability discrimination by the township. As part of my settlement the township was supposed to review discrimination policies and train employees.

It is way past time for Middletown officials to take serious action to ensure a harassment-free environment for all employees. The logical action would be for the Middletown Human  Rights Commission to help the Township Committee review its discrimination policies and train employees.

But wait, the MHRC has been decimated, reduced to four of the required eleven members and is nearly defunct!  The remaining members have only met once since December.

If the MHRC were  allowed to do its job, these expensive lawsuits and cash settlements could be avoided.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Schwebel

Pallone Letter Calls for Executive Order Protecting LGBT Workers from Workplace Discrimination

For Immediate Release:
April 4, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06), along with 71 Members of Congress, sent the following letter to President Obama on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, calling for an executive order prohibiting contractors from receiving federal funds unless they have sexual orientation and gender identity anti-discrimination policies in place.

The letter was prompted by several examples of LGBT workplace discrimination, including one where a former employee at DynCorp, a military contractor profiting from billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, reported that he was a victim of continual anti-gay discrimination and harassment while working at the corporation.  In 1965, President Johnson established an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 “I am pleased to join so many colleagues and reputable organizations to call for an executive order that ensures all Americans are afforded the same protections in the workplace,” said Congressman Frank Pallone. “This action by the President will send a clear sign that we will not tolerate such discrimination and serve as a step forward in our efforts to ensure LGBT equality.”

“Americans recognize that discrimination is bad for business and they want our government to take action,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “An executive order is the best step we can take right now to ensure that what matters is how you do your job, not who you are.  We thank Representative Pallone and all of the cosigners of this letter for their leadership and their continued commitment to LGBT workplace equality.” 

“Extending the current executive order to cover the LGBT population is good and fair policy. Good because it would require federal contractors to follow a common and efficient best HR practice, and fair because it helps put LGBT workers on equal footing with all other employees at these businesses, said Jeff Krehely, Vice President for LGBT Progress at Center for American Progress. Thank you to Congressman Pallone for his leadership on this letter and all cosigners for their commitment to LGBT equality.”

“Having worked with Rep. Frank Pallone and his staff on persuading nearly half of the Democratic Caucus to sign this congressional letter to President Obama, I know firsthand that our LGBT community owes Mr. Pallone a debt of gratitude for his strong leadership promoting workplace fairness,” said Tico Almeida, the founder and President of the national LGBT organization Freedom to Work.  “More than 110,000 people have signed the Freedom to Work online petition proclaiming that ‘We Can’t Wait’ any longer for President Obama to sign this executive order.  The right time is now.”

The ACLU views this executive order as the single most important step that President Obama could take this year to eradicate anti-LGBT discrimination from American workplaces,” said Ian Thompson, ACLU Legislative Representative.  With the impressive number of signers on this letter, it is clear that this view is widely shared on Capitol Hill.  We thank Representatives Pallone, Frank, and Capps for their outstanding leadership on this letter and on issues of workplace fairness generally.