LGBTQ rights: Five years after gay marriage lg, battl ntue

Contents:

• GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
• GAY RIGHTS
• AFTER YEARS OF PROGRS ON GAY RIGHTS, HOW DID THE US BEE SO ANTI-LGBTQ+?

GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

”The Supreme Court extend workplace protectns natnwi last week for the LGBTQ muny, lg 6-3 that a landmark civil rights law barrg sex discrimatn the workplace appli to gay, lbian and transgenr the urt's majory, led by nservative Associate Jtice Neil Gorsuch, did not close the door on relig exemptns, sayg "other employers other s may raise ee exercise arguments that mer reful nsiratn.

"'The air was electric'The high urt's 5-4 cisn that stat nnot ny marriage rights to gay men and lbians was hand down on June 26 – the same date as earlier landmark LGBTQ lgs agast state sodomy laws 2003 and the feral Defense of Marriage Act 2013. "Lookg back, the victory is equally gratifyg to those like Evan Wolfson, founr of the Freedom to Marry mpaign; Jam Esseks, director of the Amerin Civil Liberti Unn's Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgenr & HIV Project; Roberta Kaplan, who reprented Edie Wdsor of New York the 2013 se that forced the feral ernment to regnize same-sex marriage; and Mary Bonto, the natn's leadg LGBTQ rights lawyer, who won both the Massachetts se 2003 and the Supreme Court se 2015.

GAY RIGHTS

ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex Woolf for The New York TimThe Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to sign weddg webs for same-sex upl spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people. The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent an impassned dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the oute signaled a return to a time when people of lor and other mory groups faced open discrimatn.

AFTER YEARS OF PROGRS ON GAY RIGHTS, HOW DID THE US BEE SO ANTI-LGBTQ+?

Kavangh and Amy Coney Barrett, shifted the urt to the urts have generally sid wh gay and lbian upl who were refed service by bakeri, florists and others, lg that potential ctomers are entled to equal treatment, at least parts of the untry wh laws forbiddg discrimatn based on sexual owners of bs challengg those laws have argued that the ernment should not force them to choose between the requirements of their fahs and their livelihoods.

Addnally, several stat terpret existg laws agast sex discrimatn to apply to bias relatg to sexual orientatn and genr inty, even though they do not have laws explicly forbiddg such stat that do not offer protectns to gay and transgenr people on those grounds, municipal laws ver many Human Rights Campaign, an L. McCoy for The New York TimThe urt’s cisn favor of a Colorado web signer, Lorie Smh, had an unual feature: It was based on njecture and Smh, who objects to providg weddg-related servic for same-sex marriag, never turned down a gay uple. ETFriday’s lg was another reassurg cisn for relig celebratory moment outsi the Supreme Court on Friday, after the urt livered the latt a strg of judgments favor of relig Zuhaib/Associated PrsConservativ who have moral and theologil objectns to gay marriage saw the Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday as reassurance that they would be able to assert their beliefs a public square that they see as creasgly hostile to a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the jtic agreed wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.