Supreme court ruling lgbtq discrimination
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a girl is based on hereditary sex
Former swimmer Sharron Davies tells BBC female athletes must be protectedpublished at 13:49 British Summer Hour 16 April
Sheelagh McClaren
BBC Scotland
In our earlier post, we touched on what today's verdict could mean for trans people in sport, and now we've heard from Sharron Davies - a former British swimming champion who has previously said trans athletes should not compete in female competitions in order to "protect women's sport".
She says she's "extremely pleased" by today's judgement. "I think it’s just really important that we can define what a woman is," Davies tells me.
Today's judgment did not concern sports directly, but Davies says she hopes organisations including the Football Association and the English Cricket Board will now take see and "stop discriminating against women and girls".
"It doesn’t mean to say that we can’t respect people across the whole of society, however they desire to present themselves", she says. "My position was always one that, biologica
Bostock v Clayton County and LGBT rights: a UK perspective
In a timely decision for Lgbtq+ fest Month, the US Supreme Court has recently commanded in a landmark anti-discrimination judgment that gay and transgender workers are protected by federal civil rights laws. In what is a first, in Bostock v Clayton County the US Supreme Court spoke directly about legal protections for transgender individuals. The judgment in part of the movement by campaigners to secure more legal protections for the LGBT community, including transgender people, in the UK and the US. In this blog post, we observe this significant decision from a UK perspective.
The American and British public’s views on LGBT issues are clear on the need to give protection to the transgender people and the US Supreme Court’s decision reflects this shift in public attitudes. In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 protects transgender people against discrimination in the workplace. Nonetheless, American and British trans person people still experience profound discrimination in every area of their lives. The Trump administration[1] and Boris Johnson’s government[2] have been criticised for their recent actions affecting transgend
7 Supreme Court Cases That shaped LGBTQ Rights
The LGBTQ movement in America dates back at least as far as the 1920s, when the first documented gay rights organization was founded. The Society for Human Rights only survived for about a year before it was disbanded in 1925, but its mark was left on our country.
Increased visibility and activism of LGBTQ individuals since the 1970s has helped the movement make progress on multiple fronts. Just as advocates fought their battle in American culture, they also did so in the courts. Here, we look at a not many cases that have shaped LGBTQ rights in America and celebrate some of the milestones of the movement.
1) 1958 One, Inc. v. Olesen
The first Supreme Court case to contemplate LGBTQ rights had to do with the First Amendment right to release of speech. A publisher released ONE: The Homosexual Magazine, America’s first widely-distributed magazine for gay readers. Not drawn-out after publication began, its August and October editions were seized by Los Angeles postmaster Otto Olesen for supposedly violating obscenity laws. In its judgment, the Supreme Court tossed out a lower court’s ruling and sided with One, Inc. SCOTUS establis
Human Rights Campaign: Supreme Court’s Impetuous Ruling in 303 Creative Case Undermines Non-Discrimination Laws for LGBTQ+ People and Others
by Aryn Fields •
SCOTUS grants exemption to nondiscrimination laws for custom goods and services; Does NOT grant blanket discrimination ability to all businesses or services
WASHINGTON — Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest lesbian, queer , bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization, condemned the Supreme Court’s radical decision on 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case regarding whether a business that is open to the public can be granted an unprecedented free speech exemption from state anti-discrimination law in direct to turn away customers they would rather not help. In a extreme, unprecedented 6/3 verdict, the Court governed that a “free speech” exemption can be given to public accommodations non-discrimination laws for custom goods and services.
Human Rights Campaign President (HRC) Kelley Robinson released the monitoring statement:
“This ruling by the Supreme Court is a dangerous step backward, giving some businesses the power to discriminate against people simply because
Crucially, the ruling provides a clear framework for what equality laws mean. The EHRC says it is "working at pace" to update its guidance, and expects that to be ready by the summer.
It has already made it distinct that if a single-sex space, appreciate a toilet or changing room, is women-only, that means biological males who identify as women should not employ it.
It says instead that trans people should use their "powers of advocacy" to campaign for third spaces, such as unisex toilets.
And it has said it will pursue the NHS if it does not go after the latest ruling.
Health service guidance on single-sex wards currently says that "trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation, the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use".
Currently this allows trans women to be offered beds on women-only wards.
The NHS says its policy is under review.
Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption says that while the ruling means organisations can ban trans women from women only facilities, they are not necessarily obliged to do so.
He told Radio 4's PM programme that in sport, for example, it would be down to individual go