Trump Administration Argues Firing People For Being Transgender Is Legal

The Trump administration has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Michigan funeral home that fired a longtime employee for coming out as transgender and beginning her transition.

Aimee Stephens worked for Harris Funeral Homes for five years before she began to transition in 2012.

Saying she was "violating God's commands," fired Stephens two weeks later.

Stephens is suing the funeral home saying she experienced sex discrimination the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is the Trump administration's position that transgender people can be fired just for being trans.

More from Dominic Holden at Buzzfeed News:

The Justice Department’s brief on Friday contends the word refers to a person’s “biological sex” and, further, that transgender discrimination isn’t addressed by a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that found Title VII bans sex stereotyping.

“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status,” says a filing by the Justice Department, adding, “It simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual’s gender identity or a disconnect between an individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex.”

The counterargument from LGBTQ advocates and several lower courts, however, is that the intent of lawmakers does not limit a law’s reach, but rather its meaning is defined by the statute’s plain text. They say anti-transgender discrimination can result from a person defying traditional sex stereotypes or because the person transitioned from one sex to another — and thus, it is inherently a type of sex discrimination.

The case at issue is one of three currently before the court about the rights of LGBTQ workers under Title VII — and the only one concerning a transgender worker.

The Trump administration maintains that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was authored, the idea of transgender people wasn't present in the "ordinary public meaning of 'sex'" as biological sex.

But here's the double-standard: if you can only apply laws as what people knew or understood at the time the were written, that would mean military assault-style weapons would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment because the Founding Fathers didn't know such weapons would ever exist. And that's just the beginning.

Stephens' legal team maintains the plain text of Title VII addresses "sex" discrimination. And it's impossible to consider her being transgender without taking into account the concept of her sex.

SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in the case on Oct. 8, along with two additional cases that address whether sexual orientation discrimination is protected by Title VII.

SCOTUS Rules Trump Can Use Defense Funds For Border Wall

Donald Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Trump administration can use Pentagon funds to build Donald Trump's beloved border wall.

From the AP:

The Supreme Court said Friday that it would lift a freeze on the money put in place by a lower court. The Supreme Court’s action means the Trump administration can tap the funds and begin work on four contracts it has awarded. Four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.

A trial court initially froze the funds in May and an appeals court kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

Pro-LGBTQ 'Friends Of The Court' Briefs Being Filed By Diverse Sectors In Advance Of Title VII Arguments At SCOTUS

U.S. Supreme Court

In advance of the upcoming oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, many sectors of America are urging SCOTUS to rule in favor of LGBTQ people.

A group of 36 former federal government officials who served during the Obama administration has filed a 43-page 'friend of the court' brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold LGBTQ rights.

Additionally, over 34 prominent LGBTQ-friendly Republicans, led by former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, have offered their own amicus brief which aims to 'resonate' with the conservative members of the high court on the issue.

Advocacy groups Family Equality, The Trevor Project, and PFLAG National submitted an their own amicus brief in support of queer employees in the critically-important LGBTQ employment discrimination cases that will be considered by SCOTUS in the 2019-2020 term.

And big business has weighed in as well with over 206 major corporations (including Apple, Amazon, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ben & Jerry's, Coca-Cola, Domino's Pizza, Goldman Sachs, IBM, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Starbucks, Viacom, Walt Disney and Xerox) signing on to their own brief in support of LGBTQ protections.

200+ Companies Sign Brief Asking SCOTUS To Rule Title VII Prohibits LGBTQ Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for October 8 on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in banning LGBTQ discrimination.

There will be three cases regarding Title VII heard that day. The crux of the cases concerns whether anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.

LGBTQ advocates say discrimination against gay people is sex discrimination because anti-gay bias is borne out of opposition to people who love others of the same sex.

A brief filed by the ACLU last week read, in part, "Firing a man because he is attracted to other men is like refusing to hire a woman because she has school-age children, failing to promote a woman because she is too ‘macho,’ or countenancing the sexual harassment of a man who is perceived by his coworkers to be vulnerable.”

Some court watchers say they are not overly-hopeful for a pro-LGBTQ ruling in light of Donald Trump’s choices for far-right leaning justices on the high court.

But Chief Justice John Roberts has, at times, surprised the LGBTQ community.

During arguments for the Obergefell decision in 2015, which made marriage equality the law of the land, Roberts made comments wondering if banning same-sex marriage would constitute a kind of sex discrimination.

In advance of the oral arguments, 206 companies have signed on to a ‘friend of the court’ brief asking SCOTUS to rule in favor of Title VII prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQs.

The list of companies includes big tech like Facebook, Apple and Adobe; food giants like Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Domino’s Pizza; also Uber, Zillow, MGM Resorts, Hilton, HSBC Bank and more.

The Human Rights Campaign reports the amicus brief has the largest number of business signers than any other brief filed in an LGBTQ discrimination case.

The brief reads, in part, “Even where companies voluntarily implement policies to prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, such policies are not a substitute for the force of law.”

“Only a uniform federal rule can enable businesses to recruit and retain, and employees to perform, at their highest levels,” says the brief.

The brief was organized by several LGBTQ advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign, Out & Equal, Freedom for All Americans and Lambda Legal.

(h/t Washington Blade)

SCOTUS Will Rule If Existing Civil Rights Laws Ban LGBTQ Discrimination

The current U.S. Supreme Court (image via SupremeCourt.gov)

The United States Supreme Court has announced it will weigh in on whether existing civil rights laws prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Currently, federal law bans discrimination in the workplace on the basis of religion, race, color, sex or national origin. While there is no specific federal law that protects LGBTQ individuals at work, advocates for the LGBTQ community say Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964prohibits being fired due to sexual orientation because that is a form of sex discrimination.

Lower courts have been split on the issue.

Of the cases that SCOTUS accepted for review Monday, two appeals courts ruled that the firings of a gay man and a transgender woman were illegal discrimination under Title VII, while a third case court ruled being fired for being gay does not fall under the purview of the civil rights law.

According to NBC News, here are the three cases:

• A New York skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, said he was fired after telling a female client she didn’t need to worry about being tethered together by confiding he is gay. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found, in that case, that sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination.

• A transgender woman in Michigan, Aimee Stephens, sued her former employer, a funeral home, after she was fired in the aftermath of sharing that she is transgender. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said transgender discrimination is banned due to Title VII.

• A Georgia man, Gerald Bostock, was dismissed by his employer after discovering his participation in a gay softball league (yes, that really happened), the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the 1964 civil rights law does not include sexual orientation.

Judge Diane Wood, of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in a 2017 ruling that "it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex."

But over in the 11th Circuit, Judge William Pryor pointed to lawmakers in his ruling saying that Congress "has not made sexual orientation a protected class."

The high court will hear the cases during its next term that begins in October.

JoLynn Markison, a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney in its labor and employment practice and an advocate for the LGBTQ community, has been following this issue closely.

“This shift in the Supreme Court’s willingness to rule on the issue of whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination extends to gender identity and sexual orientation—which are quintessential expressions of “sex”—has been a long time coming,” Markison says.

Markison points to the newest member of the high court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as a fairly substantial ‘unknown’ in the upcoming deliberations in that he doesn’t have a clear judicial record on LGBTQ issues.

However, we do know his nomination was heavily supported by far-right, conservative groups like the Family Research Council, which has long advocated against LGBTQ equality.

That said, there’s another wild card player to watch here.

“Is there a swing vote on the Supreme Court? Or is this issue already as good as decided? The balance could lie with Chief Justice John Roberts, who notably did not join the conservative dissenters in Pavan v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court held that married same-sex couples are entitled to be listed on their children’s birth certificates the same as married heterosexual couples," said Markison.

GLAAD, the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, tweeted, “With more than 100 anti-LGBTQ attacks from the Trump Administration, this is exactly why we need to pass the #EqualityActnow and look toward explicitly protecting LGBTQ people with a constitutional amendment.”

With more than 100 anti-LGBTQ attacks from the Trump Administration, this is exactly why we need to pass the #EqualityAct now and look toward explicitly protecting LGBTQ people with a constitutional amendment. https://t.co/9AlJCy6qUz

— GLAAD (@glaad) April 22, 2019

Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, followed that with her own tweet: “With Trump stacking the Supreme Court with anti-LGBTQ judges it’s clear that we need a constitutional amendment that protects LGBTQ people and all marginalized communities.”

With Trump stacking the Supreme Court with anti-LGBTQ judges it’s clear that we need a constitutional amendment that protects LGBTQ people and all marginalized communities. https://t.co/l5r00C97FB

— Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) April 22, 2019

In terms of state laws, it is currently legal to fire an LGBTQ person in more than 26 states across the nation. You can find information about your state at the Movement Advancement Project.

House Judiciary Chair: Democrats Will 'Absolutely' Fight All The Way To SCOTUS For Mueller Report

House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

Speaking to CNN's Dana Bash this morning, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said his committee was prepared to subpoena the full report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller' investigation.

He also said House Democrats would "absolutely" take the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain the report.

Nadler also preemptively addresses the idea that Donald Trump may claim executive privilege in order to keep the report from Congress, but has no right to do so.

"He has no right to claim executive privilege on any evidence of wrongdoing. That was made clear by the 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court during the Nixon (Watergate) case."

House Judiciary Chairman @RepJerryNadler says that Congress “absolutely” will take the demands to get the full Mueller report to the Supreme Court if necessary, adding he would issue a subpoena and would not wait months to begin the fight. #CNNSOTU https://t.co/nXNJoUoEox pic.twitter.com/qqBOAxufUa

— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) March 24, 2019

House Judiciary Chairman @JerryNadler: “The special prosecutor is limited in scope, his job was limited in scope and limited to crimes. What Congress has to do is look at a broader picture. We have the responsibility of protecting the rule of law" #CNNSOTU https://t.co/nXNJoUoEox pic.twitter.com/7OyJ0idX6l

— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) March 24, 2019

SCOTUS Says 'No' To Anti-LGBTQ Bed & Breakfast

The U.S. Supreme Court declined the hear the appeal of a bed & breakfast owner in Hawaii who refused to host a same-sex couple due to her religious objections over homosexuality.

The initial lawsuit, Aloha Bed & Breakfast v. Dianne Cervelli, stems back to an incident in 2007 when Cervelli contacted the B&B owner, Phyllis Young, about accommodations.

Cervelli indicated there would be two guests as she would be traveling with her same-sex partner, Taeko Bufford.

According to the complaint, Young asked “Are you both lesbians?” Young then refused to board the couple saying she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her home.

The couple filed complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission which found Young had illegally discriminated against the couple. Hawaii’s public accommodation law clearly bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Associated Pressreportedthat Young told the commission she is Catholic and feels that homosexuality is wrong. She felt her decision to deny accommodations to the couple was protected by her right to free exercise of her religious beliefs under the First Amendment.

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple in 2011, along with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission as co-plaintiffs. 

In April of 2013, the Hawaii First Circuit Court ruled in favorof Cervelli.

Young appealed the ruling, and in February 2018, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision.

The B&B owner tried to take her case to the Hawaii state Supreme Court, but the high court refusedthe hear the appeal last year.

In October, Young filed a petition to have her appeal heard at the U.S. Supreme Court.

As SCOTUS has declined to take up the case, Young has exhausted her legal options and the ruling by the lower court will stand.

Peter Renn, counsel for Lambda Legal’s Western Regional Office, celebrated the news.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court ruling stand reaffirms that the freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to violate nondiscrimination laws that protect all individuals from harm, whether on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation,” said Renn in a statement to the Washington Blade. “The Supreme Court declined to consider carving out an exception from this basic principle when a business discriminates based on the sexual orientation of its customers.”

“LGBT people deserve an equal right to go about their everyday life without the fear that discrimination waits for them around the corner,” he added.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Declared Cancer-Free

The 'notorious' Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been declared cancer-free by her doctors and is recovering well from her recent surgery, according to a Supreme Court spokesman.

From The New York Times:

“Her recovery from surgery is on track,” the spokeswoman, Kathleen Arberg, said in a statement. “Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.”

Justice Ginsburg, 85, underwent surgery in late December to remove two nodules from her left lung. She missed this week’s arguments, and will be absent from the bench next week, too, Ms. Arberg said.

“Justice Ginsburg will continue to work from home next week and will participate in the consideration and decision of the cases on the basis of the briefs and the transcripts of oral arguments,” Ms. Arberg said.

Earlier this week, Politico reported aides to Donald Trump were "reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court."

But our girl is just fine, folks. No worries.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is expected to be back in the Supreme Court with her normal work schedule by early next month.

Notorious RBG is a badass. Period. Powers that be, keep our hero safe.

— Ricky Davila (@TheRickyDavila) January 11, 2019

Supreme Court Declines To Block Trump's Asylum Ban

Donald Trump's week just got that much worse as the Supreme Court has refused to reinstate Donald Trump's asylum ban while a government appeal is pending.

From The New York Times:

The court was closely divided, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the four-member liberal wing in turning down the administration’s request for a stay of a trial judge’s order blocking the program.

The court’s brief order gave no reasons for its action. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted the stay.

In a proclamation issued on Nov. 9, President Trump barred migrants from applying for asylum unless they made the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those applying at a port of entry would be eligible, Mr. Trump said, invoking what he said were his national security powers to protect the nation’s borders.

Lower courts blocked the initiative, ruling that a federal law plainly allowed asylum applications from people who had entered the country unlawfully.

“Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States,” the relevant federal statute says, may apply for asylum — “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.”

In related news, NPR is reporting that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery Friday for early stage lung cancer.

Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York performed a lobectomy, removing one of the five lobes of the lung.

Short of complications in recovery, doctors say prospects look good for a full recovery for Ginsburg, 85. She hopes to be back on the court for the start of the next argument session in early January.

Trump Administration Asks SCOTUS To Allow Trans Military Ban Before Review

The Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service members to go into effect while waiting on SCOTUS to decide whether or not to even take the case up for review.

Apparently, the United States is in a state of emergency regarding the few thousand transgender people currently serving with honor in the U.S. military.

I know - it doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s go back a bit, shall we?

In July of 2017, President Trump surprised American military leaders and the world when he announced his plan to ban trans military service members after “consultation with my Generals and military experts” due to the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender service members.

Remember, this is the guy who told Americans during the 2016 presidential campaign that he would ‘fight’ for the LGBTQ community.

Riiiiight.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

Conservatives loved the idea; Liberals and LGBTQ activists were outraged.

In the ensuing months, numerous injunctions were ordered by judges blocking the implementation of the policy, and for good reason.

Not only has The American Medical Association (AMA) issued a statement saying there is ‘no medically valid reason’ for banning transgender people from serving in the United States military, but all four service chiefs (Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force) have testified they’ve seen no negative effects from transgender military personnel serving the country they love.

According to a 2016 RAND Corporation study, there are an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender individuals out of the 1.3 million service members on active duty.

That same study estimated the cost of health care coverage for transgender personnel could range from $2.4 million and $8.4 million a year, which is about one-fifth of what the Department of Defense spent on Viagra in 2014.

So, we can afford dick pills, but not trained trans soldiers...?

Then, earlier this month, Department of Justice Attorney Brinton Lucas told the D.C. Circuit Court that if the Trump policy were to be implemented, transgender troops would not be “discharged on the basis of their transgender status.”

(Wait for it…)

But, they would have to identify as the biological sex assigned to them at birth meaning they would have to stop any transition-related medical treatment - treatment that every major medical association has deemed necessary and life-saving for trans people.

This is active duty Air Force Staff Sergeant Logan Ireland. This is who @realDonaldTrump wants to kick out of the military. pic.twitter.com/K8YqZHGyEV

— Mary "Individual-1" O'Hara (@MaryEmilyOHara) July 26, 2017

Then, over Thanksgiving weekend, the Trump administration bypassed the appeals court process and requested the Supreme Court review the case before the circuit level courts even issue their opinions.

This isn’t a very popular approach as SCOTUS doesn’t like to review a case before it has made its way through the lower courts.

The high court likes to have cases work their way through traditional channels so they have the benefit of the opinions of lower court judges by the time cases reaches SCOTUS.

This week, the Trump administration filed emergency briefs asking the high court to allow the transgender ban to go into effect until SCOTUS can review the case in 2019.

According to Think Progress, the emergency briefs claimed waiting any longer to boot transgender military service members poses “too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality” and it would be “contrary to the Nation’s interests.”

But such arguments have gained little traction in the past.

For example, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal ruled in September that “loss of unit cohesion” was the same argument used to keep Black people, women, and gay people from joining the military.

“The military has repeatedly proven its capacity to adapt and grow stronger specifically by the inclusion of these individuals,” wrote Bernal as he dismissed claims that including trans people would generate any different outcome.

It’s worth noting that the emergency briefs filed this week object to numerous motions for discovery filed in the cases. It seems the Trump administration wants to claim that all documentation related to how the ban was developed would fall under executive privilege.

What they really mean is that if those documents came to light, the American public might discover that Vice President Pence (a known homophobe) and his virulently anti-LGBTQ friends were instrumental in pushing the new ban through.

Should the Supreme Court allow the policy to be implemented before the case reaches SCOTUS, thousands of transgender soldiers could be discharged for being who they are.

This short video from the New York Times introduces just a few of the trans soldiers who are at risk of being discharged.

Trump Administration Leap Frogs Over Appeals Courts, Asks SCOTUS To Rule On Trans Military Ban

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and review its long-intended ban on military service by transgender Americans.

According to The Washington Post, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco has filed a request asking SCOTUS to bypass traditional legal processes and rule on the challenges to the ban which have held the proposed policy to be unconstitutional.

In July of 2017, Donald Trump surprised many, including members of his own administration, with an abrupt announcement proposing the ban on transgender service members.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

At the time, Trump tweeted that he had consulted with his “Generals and military experts” before announcing the ban.

But in March of this year, more than 20 retired generals and admirals signed on to a letter opposing such a ban.

“The administration’s announcement on the treatment of transgender service members is a troubling move backward,” the 26 officers wrote in their statement via the Palm Center, which researches issues of gender and sexuality.

“There is simply no reason to single out brave transgender Americans who can meet military standards and deny them the ability to serve.”

Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association both say claims by Secretary of Defense James Mattis indicating trans soldiers diagnosed with gender dysphoria cannot effectively serve in the military are false.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted an injunction that blocked implementation of the ban in October 2017.

This past August, she rebuffed a request by the Trump administration to lift the injunction after some of the proposed language had been amended.

Kollar-Kotelly was not convinced saying discharging trans soldiers and denying enlistment would most likely to be found discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 10 regarding Kollar-Kotelly’s order that blocked the ban.

It’s highly unusual to approach the Supreme Court before exhausting the available appeals court processes.

“Trump’s lawyers fail to understand that the government is not entitled to play leapfrog whenever it loses in federal court,” says attorney Joshua Matz, who filed an amicus brief in the case. “If the department’s battery of ‘emergency’ petitions were granted, they would immediately overload the Supreme Court docket with politically fraught challenges to Trump administration policies.”

In addition to Kollar-Kotelly’s injunction, judges in three other states - California, Maryland and Washington - have also enjoined the bans implementation thanks to challenges filed in those states.

In related news, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether to grant review to another case regarding protections for transgender Americans at the high court’s November 30 conference.

According to BloombergLaw.com, the issue in question in that case concerns whether trans discrimination in the workplace constitutes discrimination based on sex, which is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Opponents say transgender status is not related to the issue of ‘sex.’

Oregon Bakers Ask Supreme Court To Overturn Anti-LGBT Violation

Melissa and Aaron Klein (image via Facebook)

Just months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling on Colorado baker Jack Phillips’ appeal for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple, another anti-LGBT bakery has asked the Supreme Court to consider their appeal.

The petition for review, filed last Friday by the conservative law firm First Liberty on behalf of Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, asserts the couple’s First Amendment rights to refuse service to a lesbian couple, according to SCOTUSblog.

In 2013, Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer asked the Gresham, Oregon, bakery to sell them a cake for their upcoming commitment ceremony.

Based on her ‘deeply held religious beliefs,’ Melissa Klein refused to sell the couple a cake saying same-sex marriage was not consistent with her religious beliefs.

It's worth underscoring that the Bowman-Cryers weren't asking for a wedding cake, or holding any kind of religious ceremony, as marriage equality hadn't been adopted by Oregon at the time.

Also, the state of Oregon’s public accommodation laws clearly prohibit any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state’s Bureau of Labor & Industries which found the bakery had, indeed, violated the state’s laws.

The Bureau fined the couple $135,000 for the violation, which the Kleins' claim put them out of business, even though a Christian-led crowdfunding campaign raised over $352,000 for the couple.

The Kleins appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals, but the Bureau’s decision was upheld.

The bakers then asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review the decision, but the state’s high court refused that request earlier this year.

It’s worth noting that this summer’s ruling regarding the Colorado baker was a win for Phillips only in that the Supreme Court felt the Colorado administrative agency that initially ruled against him appeared to be “too hostile” to Phillips’ religious beliefs. The Supreme Court never actually ruled on whether religious beliefs trump public accommodation laws.

The Supreme Court has several options regarding the petition for review.

In order to accept the case, at least four justices must vote to do so.

The court could decline the review completely, or decline to review but vacate the earlier rulings in Oregon remanding the case back to the earlier courts to review their decision.

That’s the route the high court took in June of this year regarding an anti-LGBT florist in Washington state, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers.

According to SCOTUSblog, the state of Oregon now has 30 days to respond to the filing although a 30 extension is possible.

Should the Supreme Court choose to review the case, after oral arguments a decision would come down sometime before the end of June 2019.

Trump "Apologizes" To Brett Kavanaugh, Falsely Claims He Was "Proven Innocent"

At a ceremonial swearing in at the White House last night, Donald Trump falsely claimed that newly-installed Justice Brett Kavanaugh had been "proven innocent" of the allegations of sexual misconduct brought against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Trump claimed the allegations were based on "lies and deceptions."

Said Trump:

“On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure. Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of personal and political destruction based on lies and deception.

"What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process. In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

"And with that, I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent.”

The Trumpster literally can't stop himself from lying, as if by saying something over and over again he can create his own reality.

President Trump: "On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure." https://t.co/Xbm6NsUopP pic.twitter.com/gsoNBLYVae

— The Hill (@thehill) October 9, 2018

Predator trump: “On behalf of our nation I want to apologize to Brett for the terrible pain and suffering you’ve been forced to endure.”

Hi @realDonaldTrump, you don’t speak for me or millions of other Americans you corrupt pervert. I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. F*ck Kavanaugh. 🖕

— Ricky Davila (@TheRickyDavila) October 9, 2018

Today @POTUS apologized to Kavanaugh.

But a majority of Americans opposed the confirmation of Kavanaugh. Who is going to apologize to them? https://t.co/3dGkDiXOLd

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) October 9, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed To The Supreme Court By Vote Of 50-48

Brett Kavanaugh 

The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 50-48.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski withdrew her 'no' vote as a courtesy to Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines, who is walking his daughter down the aisle in Montana today.

Confirmed SCOTUS justices
Scalia 98-0
Kennedy 97-0
Souter 90-9
Thomas 52-48
Ginsburg 96-3
Breyer 87-9
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 6, 2018

There's an irony that Kavanaugh is the 69th judge confirmed by the Trump administration.

Brett Kavanaugh is now officially the 69th judge confirmed during the Trump administration

— Joe Perticone (@JoePerticone) October 6, 2018

The scene outside the Supreme Court right now is unreal. pic.twitter.com/JRsmDmALwI

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 6, 2018

Protesting right outside the front doors of the Supreme Court while Kavanaugh is being sworn-in. He can hear us, and I hope our voices today haunt his legacy.#BelieveSurvivors pic.twitter.com/Wjy8PgAamz

— Charlotte Clymer🏳️‍🌈 (@cmclymer) October 6, 2018

Sens. Susan Collins & Joe Manchin Announce 'Yes' Votes To Confirm Kavanaugh To Supreme Court

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced during a lengthy speech on the floor of the Senate that she will vote 'yes' on confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

JUST IN: Sen. Susan Collins: "I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh." https://t.co/gQzVtunCYT pic.twitter.com/Ix5JykVAsI

— ABC News (@ABC) October 5, 2018

Shortly after her announcement, red state Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin also announced he will vote 'yes' as well, which appears to give Kavanaugh the 51 votes he needs for confirmation.

Manchin, in a tough re-election fight in West Virginia, is the only Democrat to cross party lines and vote for Kavanaugh.

For decades, @SenatorCollins promised Maine voters she would protect their rights. Today, she broke that promise, choosing Trump and McConnell over those constituents who believed her. This is her legacy vote - and she knows exactly what will flow from it. This is who she is

— Joe Sudbay (@JoeSudbay) October 5, 2018

Are you all not, on one level, relieved that Susan Collins has finally revealed herself fully to the people of Maine?

People of Maine, please beat her in 2020, and send her into retirement.

— Michelangelo Signorile (@MSignorile) October 5, 2018

Deeply disappointed in @SenatorCollins today. This is the most consequential vote of her lifetime — and of her constituents' lifetimes. The harms of this vote will last decades.

— Chad Griffin (@ChadHGriffin) October 5, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh Pens Op-Ed: "I Might Have Been Too Emotional At Times"

Judge Brett Kavanaugh

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh penned a last-minute op-ed for the conservative Wall Street Journal defending his defensive and pointed Senate Judiciary Committee testimony last week.

From The Wall Street Journal:

My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me.

At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.

I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

It's notable that Kavanaugh chose two Murdoch-owned media outlets to make his case: Fox News for his TV interview and Wall Street Journal for his op-ed.

Judge Kavanaugh’s stunning decision to pen an op-ed bluntly confirms he has neither the judgment nor the temperament to be on our highest court. He can’t erase blaming credible sexual assault allegations ‘on the Clintons,’ attacks on senators, and vows of revenge with an op-ed.

— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) October 5, 2018

Sen. Richard Blumenthal on Brett Kavanaugh's op-ed defending his emotions during his testimony: "This op-ed in no way removes the issue of temperament...that testimony was written, carefully prepared, planned, premeditated not some emotional outburst" https://t.co/9pY1NpVpgv pic.twitter.com/2U52lYBM5K

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 5, 2018

WATCH: First Senate Vote On Kavanaugh Scheduled For This Morning

Brett Kavanaugh

After rough and tumble political upheaval, the U.S. Senate will begin to vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavansugh to the U. S. Supreme Court today.

According to many political reporters, Republicans have 48 of the 50 votes (Vice President Mike Pence would become the 51st in case of a tie) to approve Kavanaugh.

There are four unannounced senators at this time. Three Republicans - Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski - and West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin.

The GOP needs just two of them.

The first cloture vote is scheduled for 10:30AM ET/7:30AM PT.

Watch the live feed below.

Senate votes to advance Kavanaugh nomination on 51-49 procedural vote, final vote still to come.

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) October 5, 2018

BREAKING: Key votes: Sen. Murkowski votes no on procedural vote to advance Judge Kavanaugh to final Senate confirmation vote; Sens. Flake, Manchin and Collins vote yes. - @NBCNews

— NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt (@NBCNightlyNews) October 5, 2018

Yesterday, Senator Murkowski spent hours with female constituents who had been sexually assaulted.

Today, she voted no on moving forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation process.

That’s how democracy should work.

Your voice matters.

— Kaivan Shroff (@KaivanShroff) October 5, 2018

FBI Investigation 'Complete,' Republicans Say Time To Move On To Kavanaugh Vote

Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Well, that was quick.

The 'new' FBI investigation into allegations that Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when the were teens, is done say Senate Republicans.

The report, which will not be released to the public, is available for all 100 U.S. Senators to review, albeit for only an hour.

And one at a time, as only one copy has been made available in an effort to ensure it's not leaked to the public.

There are apparently 46 pages of interview summaries in the report, with nine pages devoted to Kavanaugh's former bestie, Mark Judge, who agreed to cooperate.

Ford says Judge was in the room years ago when the alleged assault took place.

Republicans say there's nothing new to see.

“There’s nothing in it that we didn’t already know,” Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Thursday. “These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the F.B.I. could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations.”

But Democrats counter that there's nothing in the report that makes them believe Ford's allegations any less.

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley tweeted, "I read the FBI report. This whole thing is a sham. This stunted, strangled investigation was designed to provide cover, not to provide the truth."

According to The New York Times, several leads and identified witnesses were not interviewed.

In any case, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already scheduled preliminary votes in the full Senate regarding Kavanaugh's nomination.

The Times notes that Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine, two important Republican swing votes, have indicated they seem satisfied with the report, although neither have announced how they ultimately plan to vote on Kavanaugh's nomination.

Interestingly, Axios reports that the Kavanaugh debacle seems to have tightened several races in the upcoming midterm elections as the issue seems to have energized Republicans in states like Montana, Indiana, West Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee.

Plus, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released yesterday found that the "wide Democratic enthusiasm advantage that has defined the 2018 campaign up to this point has disappeared."

While last month the Democrats appeared to hold a double-digit lead over Republicans in a generic ballot, that lead has now dropped to only 6 points.

Poll: Vast Majority Of Americans Support Roe v. Wade

Judge Brett Kavanaugh

 A new poll by Axios/SurveyMonkey shows the vast majority of Americans want Roe v. Wade to be left alone.

The results of the new survey come as the U.S. Senate is weighing the nomination of conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal eagles are concerned Kavanaugh could flip the high court to a solid conservative bent that might overturn the groundbreaking abortion ruling.

According to the survey, 71% of respondents say they would NOT like to see SCOTUS make abortions illegal, while 23% do support a change in the law.

Axios points out that even rural voters, who skew conservative, want Roe v. Wade to remain the law of the land.

Additionally, the poll found a plurality of Americans disapprove of the choice of Kavanaugh, 48% - 44%.

16 States Ask SCOTUS To Limit LGBT Workplace Protections

Republican governors and attorneys general from 16 states have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that LGBT employees can be fired based merely on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The states that signed onto the friend-of-the-court brief are Nebraska, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, Maine, Mississippi, and Kentucky.

Currently, only 20 states plus Washington, D.C. have passed laws expressly banning LGBT discrimination in the workplace.

A study by the Human Rights Campaign in 2011 showed a whopping 87% of voters erroneously believe its illegal under federal law to fire someone just for being LGBT.

Its notable that Maine and Utah, two of the 20 states that have LGBT workplace protections in place, have signed on in support of the brief.

The request to the Supreme Court comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a transgender funeral home employee in Michigan, Aimee Stephens, who was fired in 2013 after sharing with her supervisor she was transitioning.

In 2017, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Harris Funeral Homes illegally discriminated against Stephens in firing her referencing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans workplace discrimination based on sex.

At the time, Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the 6th Circuit wrote in the opinion that anti-trans discrimination is inherently sex based.

“[I]t is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” she wrote. Businesses that discriminate against a worker on the basis of being “transgender or transitioning status,” is taking sex into account thus violating Title VII.

Led by Nebraska Attorney General David Bydalek, the 16 states are asking SCOTUS to overturn that appeals court decision saying Congress didn’t intend for the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII to cover bias against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender employees.

“The States’ purpose is to note that ‘sex’ under the plain terms of Title VII does not mean anything other than biological status,” Bydalek wrote.

The Supreme Court will decide this fall whether to take up the case.

(h/t Bloomberg Law)