Everybody Suddenly Realizes the Supreme Court Is About To Hear an Important LGBT Issue
It’s the Trump administration vs. civil rights groups on federal protections from workplace discrimination.
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.
Former Biscayne Park Police Chief Raimundo Atesiano is accused of arrested black men for burglaries to boost the department's image.
Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris proposes a ban to loosen company policies on neckties.
We pride ourselves on having abolished the hereditary privileges once associated with aristocracy. But our citizenship system replicates many of the same evils.
Let's get behind economic freedom for everyone, even when we don't like how they use it.
Her money is green, and you can talk to her while she's chowing down.
Despite its ruling in favor of a Colorado baker, the Court remains hostile to religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on state officials' apparent hostility to the bakers' religious beliefs. There is far stronger evidence of such hostility in the travel ban case.
Immigrants who commit crimes should be punished. But no more than others who commit the same offense.
Free extra credit to "encourage female students to go [in]to information sciences."
If the Supreme Court rules that Trump's campaign statements cannot be used to prove that his travel ban order was an attempt to discriminate against Muslims, it could create a dangerous precedent.
Best known as the "father of Harlem," he was guided by the theory that free markets penalize bigotry.
A third court disagrees. The Supreme Court had the chance to take on the case to resolve the conflict, but it declined.
Meanwhile, drunk driving and vehicular assault by officers are not firing offenses in Hudson County.
Lower courts are split on whether sex-based protections cover orientation.
Businesses shouldn't have to serve those who offend them.
This country has a long history of protections for freedom of conscience.
Politicians should butt out of people's personal habits.
"Our findings reveal widespread suspicion that morality requires belief in a god."
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks