Supreme Court's LGBT Discrimination Decision Revives Interest in the Federal Equality Act
The Equality Act would significantly expand government power and it also threatens religious freedom.
The Equality Act would significantly expand government power and it also threatens religious freedom.
The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is well-justified from the standpoint of textualism (a theory associated with conservatives), but less clearly so from the standpoint of purposivism (often associated with liberals).
Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority decision offers a textualist argument for the ruling.
The agency should relax the yearlong deferral period.
The Supreme Court is about to tackle the issue.
The city's overzealous commission has ordered the company to stop selling dolls some said were racial caricatures.
The courts may not strike it down. But it remains both illegal and deeply unjust.
The Trump administration's proposed rewrite of fair housing regulations would ditch lengthy Obama-era reporting requirements in favor of a laserlike focus on housing affordability.
Erroneous reporting set off a bizarre backlash that obscured the real problem.
The “Fairness for All Act” would add federal protections against discrimination for gay and trans people. But its exemptions go too far or not far enough, depending on who you ask.
Plus: the foundations bankrolling bad tech policy, they is the word of the year, and more...
A Department of Justice lawsuit argues Hesperia’s rental ordinance amounts to illegal racial discrimination.
Assessment of motives is often an essential tool for protecting our constitutional rights.
But the technical nature of the decision might not stop future lawsuits.
Justices weigh textual conflict over what counts as “sex discrimination” versus what Congress originally intended.
Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cover sexual orientation and gender identity?
The Commission on Human Rights is likely running afoul of the First Amendment.
Justices rule that invitations are expressive speech and businesses cannot be compelled to write messages they oppose.
It’s the Trump administration vs. civil rights groups on federal protections from workplace discrimination.
Transgender activist Jessica Yaniv has forced the British Columbia Human Rights council to hear a truly absurd complaint.
"It is illegal for employers in Washington to refuse to hire qualified potential employees because the employer perceives them to be obese."
The 2020 contender wants to give $25,000 grants to homebuyers living in historically segregated neighborhoods.
SCOTUS wants to see anti-discrimination laws applied without religious bias.
After the state ends a lawsuit over a transgender celebration cake, the customer files her own civil claim.
Here's why that's a bad idea—and it has nothing to do with God's wrath, women's rights rollbacks, or locker-room predators.
Does current precedent forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex-based stereotypes apply here?
The answer is no, despite conservatives' claims to the contrary. But that does not entirely resolve questions about the wisdom of the policy.
Plus: closing the border is bad for U.S. "profits" and Jesse Singal on left-wing identitarianism.
A state-level decision against the property owner shows the limits of the Supreme Court's wedding cake ruling.
But is it actually even needed?
The justices were wrong to reject a religious discrimination claim in a case where a person sentenced to death was not allowed access to a Muslim cleric at the moment of death. But the decision was not the result of anti-Muslim bigotry.
The city defines nudity as showing nipple, but only if you're a woman.
Shahid Shafi identifies as a Republican because he believes in small government.
Asians sue Harvard for discrimination in a case that may end college racial preferences.
Is he rejecting a customer or rejecting a message? The difference matters.
Living constitutionalists argue that their methodology allows us to improve constitutional law over time. But what if it actually makes it worse? Legal scholar Ernest Young raises that very question in an important new article.
Justices are being asked yet again to argue about wedding cakes and whether the Civil Rights Act covers discrimination against gay and transgender people.
The most sensible and effective way to police private college admissions practices isn't litigation or regulation, but competition.
No, a baker cannot be compelled to "support gay marriage" with frosting.
A ban on gay sex dated back to 1861, when India was ruled by the British.
Both right and left decry implicit government discrimination on the basis of religion when it targets groups they sympathize with. But both are all too ready to turn a blind eye in other cases.
The feds hound Facebook for ads that allegedly violate the Fair Housing Act.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10