Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore previously ordered local judges to defy federal guidelines allowing same-sex marriage. But on Friday he was suspended from his position by a unanimous vote from the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, the COJ. Moore will also have to pay for the legal proceedings against him and will not be compensated for the remainder of his term, which is set to end in 2019.

But the decision to suspend Moore is not because Alabama has become more open-minded. The court pointed out that the decision was not technically because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows same-sex marriage–Alabama adopted a law in 2016 that says only straight couples can marry–but because of Moore’s behavior and decisions.

Roy Moore, Alabama’s chief justice, has been essentially been fired for his defiance to marriage equality. https://t.co/6cc0sa9bv3

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) September 30, 2016

Earlier this year, Moore ordered local judges to go against the federal ruling that allows same-sex marriage and stop the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples, which created chaos in the state’s marriage license offices. He was charged with six counts of violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Moore on his part claimed he was only providing judges a “status update.” The COJ did not buy that explanation, but couldn’t agree on whether or not to remove him from office, which left them with the option to suspend him. There is no real difference in practice between removing and suspending someone from office.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) first filed the complaint against Moore that later led to the charges against him. SPLC President Richard Cohen was relieved on Friday, saying in a statement:

The Court of the Judiciary has done the citizens of Alabama a great service by suspending Roy Moore from the bench. He disgraced his office and undermined the integrity of the judiciary by putting his personal religious beliefs above his sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Moore was elected to be a judge, not a preacher. It’s something that he never seemed to understand. The people of Alabama who cherish the rule of law are not going to miss the Ayatollah of Alabama.

SPLC tweeted the six charges against Moore.

Here are the judicial canons Ala. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is guilty of violating: https://t.co/H8DqRKzv1A pic.twitter.com/gvmYv6j53F

— SPLC (@splcenter) September 30, 2016

Moore was previously removed from office in 2003 for his refusal to take down a Ten Commandments monument from a judicial building, despite orders from a federal court. He then claimed he was removed because of his acknowledgement of God, and voters re-elected him in 2012. But this time Moore, 69, cannot run again because of the age restriction for the position.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Chief Justice Suspended Over Anti-Gay Marriage Order appeared first on Law Street.

Do you guys remember Kim Davis? You know, the t-shirt layering Kentucky clerk who kicked off the Supreme Court’s landmark marriage equality ruling by illegally denying gay couples marriage licenses under “God’s authority?”

Well if you thought her 15 minutes of fame were up, you’re wrong. Davis has reportedly been invited by a secret lawmaking admirer to attend President Obama’s final State of the Union tonight–and people are not happy about it.

Davis’s attendance openly contrasts that of Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the landmark marriage equality case, who has also been invited along with Army Ranger Lisa Jaster and engineer (and immigrant) Oscar Vazquez to attend Obama’s speech. They, along with other guests, will help to commemorate Obama’s accomplishments over the past year, while he lays out his plans for his final year in office.

The identity of Davis’ mystery date is still unknown, but whoever they are is clearly making one big passive-aggressive gesture for GOP optics.  After the controversial clerk’s presence was confirmed, social media users began voicing their distaste for Davis online:

Kim Davis is attending Obama’s final State of the Union address. No word yet on if Mel Gibson’s invite got lost in the mail #SOTU @absrdNEWS

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 12, 2016

I hope they sit #KimDavis next to, in back of and in front of gay married couples at #SOTU. — Ripley in CT (@RipleyInCT) January 12, 2016

Kim Davis will be at the SOTU, because Republicans needed someone more unconstitutional than they are to balance out the crowd.

— Sarah Wood (@SarahWoodwriter) January 11, 2016

While we’re not quite sure how all of this will play out, it is likely to be some kind of spectacle. But hey, if Davis is looking for a post-speech night cap to calm the nerves she’s already got an invite to DC’s famed gay sports bar Nellie’s. I wonder if she’ll take him up on the offer: 

I’m taking Kim Davis to Nellie’s after the SOTU – anyone want to join???? — Andy Cohen (@Andy) January 12, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Gay Clerk Kim Davis to Attend President Obama’s Final SOTU appeared first on Law Street.

A Maryland family is defending themselves against One Million Moms after the conservative parenting group launched a boycott against American Girl, alleging they “promoted sin” by featuring the family.

The controversy began after 11-year-old Amaya Scheer and her family were featured in last month’s edition of the magazine in an article titled “Forever Family.” In the article Scheer, who is adopted, talks about the charity her family started, which provides foster children with “comfort cases” filled with clothes and toiletries. The cause is deeply personal because before Scheer and her three siblings were adopted by their gay dads, they were all in foster care.

American Girl features a same-sex family article, One Million Moms attack it: https://t.co/iFTrEvTAzI via @RawStory pic.twitter.com/qMAFWaMX8Z

— Slant (@SlantNews) November 9, 2015

The story was meant to showcase the amazing work that this unique family is doing for their community, but One Million Moms claimed American Girl “could have chosen another child to write about and remained neutral in the culture war.” The organization justified the boycott on its website writing:

American Girl is attempting to desensitize our youth by featuring a family with two dads. If your child has not seen this yet, then be careful she is not exposed and can avoid a premature conversation she is far too young to understand.

First of all it is ridiculous that this organization believes the magazine should have passed over Scheer’s stellar accomplishments to instead feature a more “neutral” family (presumably one less gay and less ethnic). American Girl’s positive representation of an LGBT-parented family in its pages isn’t an attempt to brainwash conservative youth. Instead it’s an example of charity, compassion, and family–plain and simple.

I fully understand that every parent is entitled to raise their children with their personal set of morals and values, but trying to keep children in a homosexual-free bubble is futile. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 of the United States, and more and more families will begin looking like the Scheers. So these conversations are going to happen one way or another, and I would hope parents would use it as an opportunity to teach about love and respect, rather than hate and fear.

Rob Scheer told Good Day DC on Monday that he expected a certain amount of criticism, but was shocked that the attack came from a group of “moms.” Scheer said,

These were moms! These were moms that were saying that my family was wrong, that the love that my husband and I are giving our four kids and what we’re doing was wrong.

He then pointed out,

I would expect moms not to say these type of things about our family. But at the same time, these are a ‘million moms,’ they could really be helping the 364,000 kids in foster care.

[…]

This is our family and it works for us. And you know what? We have four amazing kids that we adopted out of foster care. These are four kids that have fulfilled our life more than we ever thought.

But luckily Amaya Scheer didn’t need the help of her fathers or my liberal rant in order to fire back at her motherly haters. Instead she articulated the perfect response ever when a news host asked her what she would say to those people who don’t understand her family. She stated:

“I would say ‘This is none of your business.'”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 11-Year-Old Girl Shames Conservative Moms’ “Anti-Gay” American Girl Doll Boycott appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s treatment of its gay citizens has long been very unforgiving. The country often systematically discriminates against LGBT citizens, has rashes of hate crimes, and has been decried by much of the international community for the human rights abuses against the LGBT community. Read on to learn about the recent history of LGBT abuse in Russia, current issues, and what the future may hold.

Recent History of LGBT Rights in Russia

Russia is extremely socially conservative when it comes to LGBT rights. The influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church plays a large part in this, as it consistently stands very strongly against homosexuality.

On June 30, 2013, the upper house of Russia’s parliament passed a bill banning propaganda involving non-traditional sexual activity from being given to minors. The law defines propaganda as:

distribution of information that is aimed at the formation among minors of nontraditional sexual attitudes, attractiveness of nontraditional sexual relations, misperceptions of the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or enforcing information about nontraditional sexual relations that evokes interest to such relations . . . .

The law sets the penalty for individuals distributing propaganda at 4,000-5,000 rubles ($120-$150). The penalty for groups, such as NGOs or corporations, is up to 1 million rubles ($30,000). There are also harsh penalties for non-Russian citizens who break the laws. Foreigners can be sentenced to 15 days in prison, and possibly even deported from the country.

Around the same time, a much broader blasphemy law came into effect in Russia, which allows for prison sentences of up to three years for those who attend protests that infringe on Russian citizens’ religious feelings.

Courtesy of AmnestyUK.

HBO just released a documentary entitled “Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia.” The striking documentary chronicles attacks against LGBT individuals by vigilante groups in Russia, and the consistent indifference of the authorities to the issue. The film depicts the nightmare that LGBT people in Russia face on a daily basis.

Case Study: 2014 Olympic Games

Russia’s approach toward gay rights became a strong topic of contention during last year’s Olympic Games. Yelena Kostychenko, an independent newspaper journalist, said that “this law has brought fascism to my country.” International human rights groups have indicted this law as “the worst human rights climate in the post-Soviet era.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) heard from various sponsors expressing their concern over the new law. On SumOfUs.org there is a petition signed by 35,000 people asking for Coco-Cola to speak publicly against this law. Forbes even reported that “the safety and dignity of Russians, athletes and fans is in doubt as long as Russia’s anti-gay laws are intact.” In addition to the many activist groups, athletes, and general public against Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, the “Open Games” has been created. Viktor Romanov’s gay-friendly Olympics in Moscow happened three days after the Sochi Winter Olympics for athletes of any orientation. Romanov has said he isn’t afraid and has taken this law and turned it into an outlet for acceptance.

Others believe that while this law may affect people’s perception of Russia, it should not affect the way athletes viewed the Olympics as an objective, unbiased event that draws on nothing except the skills of the various competitors. Alex Ovechkin stated, “I’m a hockey player and I’m not [into] politics.” Johnny Weir, who is an openly gay retired athlete was an analyst with NBC in Russia. He stated that he will not risk jail time by making a political statement. He, like Ovechkin, mentioned that he was not a politician and would respect Russia’s law. Russian athlete Ilya Kovalchuk agrees with the anti-gay propaganda law and said, “I’m Russian and we all have to respect that. It’s personal and, like I said, it’s a free world, but that’s our line. That’s our country, so everybody has to respect that.”

These athletes may or may not agree with the law, however they understood the importance of respecting Russian ideals. More than 70 human rights organizations showed support over Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law after the first week of publication, and hailed the country as guarding “genuine and universally recognized human rights” issues. Jack Hanick of Fox News supported Russia’s traditional values and banning of anything that diverts from this. The new propaganda law might have left a bad taste in certain people’s mouths, however it did not affect the competition or the actual games.

---

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Russia’s anti-gay laws didn’t end up having much effect on the 2014 Olympic Games, the conversation is far from over. Russia continues to sit by while the international community observes its many human rights violations happening on its soil. The way in which Russia moves forward on this issue could have a huge impact on its reputation within the international community.

---

Resources

The New York Times: ‘Open Games’ in Moscow to Test an Antigay Law

Forbes: Gay Rights Protesters Target Sochi Olympic Sponsors Coke, McDonald’s and Samsung

CNN: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law Could Hit Olympic Sponsors

Rawstory: Russia Passes Anti-’Gay Propaganda’ Bill

RYOT: Putin Says He Wants Gay Athletes to ‘Feel Comfortable’ at Sochi Olympics

CNN: Yelena Isinbayeva Defends Russia’s Anti-Gay Propaganda Law

Washington Post: Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: ‘I Just Support Everybody’

Life Site: Human Rights Groups Support Russia’s Law to Protect Children From Homosexual Propaganda

Equality Matters: Longtime Fox News Producer Testified in Support of Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws

SB Nation: Ilya Kovalchuk Supports Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws; U.S., Canadian Players Disagree

Advocate: Six U.S. Organizations Voice Support of Russia’s Antigay Law

Russia Beyond the Headlines: New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians

Moscow Times: Putin Signs ‘Blasphemy’ and ‘Gay Propaganda’ Bills

Equality Matters: REPORT: Fox News Ignores Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown, Winter Olympics Controversy

Guardian: Russia Passes Law Banning Gay ‘Propaganda’

Policy Mic: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that Democrat Brian Schweitzer, former Montana governor, has been watching a bit too much of “The Office.” It’s funny when Dwight Schrute, one of the characters, uses the term “gaydar” because he is Dwight. He truly believes that he orders an authentic device able to determine someone’s sexuality. That’s good, funny television.

When politicians use the word “gaydar,” however, they seem exactly like Dwight, which doesn’t look so good to constituents. Recently, Schweitzer made an anti-gay remark that may have decreased his appeal as a 2016 presidential candidate. Ever-so-slightly.

Here’s how it all went down. Marin Cogan, a journalist for National Journal, phoned Schweitzer to get his opinion on the defeat of Republican Eric Cantor in the Virginia primary. Schweitzer didn’t exactly share his thoughts on Cantor’s defeat, but rather on his sexuality.  “Don’t hold this against me, but I’m going to blurt it out. How do I say this … men in the South, they are a little effeminate.” When Cogan asked him what he meant, he explained:

They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say — and I’m fine with gay people, that’s all right — but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he’s not, I think, so I don’t know. Again, I couldn’t care less. I’m accepting.

At least he ended on that note, right? So redeeming.

Yes, that is pretty insensitive. But Texas Governor Rick Perry may have outdone Schweitzer in the unofficial contest to see who can best speak filter-free and simultaneously offend an increasingly important demographic. Perry’s shining moment occurred when he compared homosexuality to alcoholism not long after endorsing “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians who seek to change their sexual orientation through counseling.

In his 2008 book, Perry made the following statement: “Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” he wrote. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.” He has since stood by that comparison.

Does this count as a homosexual act?

As most of us know, Perry and Schweitzer are not the only politicians with questionable opinions about the LGBT community. Even more appalling contenders for the “who-can-best-offend-homosexuals” contest include Scott Esk, a Republican candidate for Oklahoma’s house of representatives, and Gordon Klingenschmitt of Colorado. Both claimed recently that those committing acts of homosexuality are “worthy of death.” Maybe Klingenschmitt is just mad about his last name and was unsure how to express that sentiment.

So, gays are comparable to alcoholics and just need to go to corrective therapy possibly led by Rick Perry, and Brian Schweitzer will find them with his 60-70 percent accurate gaydar. They’d make a great team. It is quite possible that their comments will lead to their rapid defenestration, or at least weighty consequences if they ever do try for office again.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Offensive Gay Statement Showdown: Rick Perry vs. Brian Schweitzer Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.