Weeks before The Walt Disney Co. took a stand against Florida’s contentious “Parental Rights in Education” law — which has been called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by its critics — the theme park operator and entertainment conglomerate donated $190,000 to support Florida Republicans.
The company gave $125,000 to the Republican Party of Florida and $65,000 to a committee that helps elect GOP state senators, led by incoming state Senate President Kathleen Passidomo. All the donations, which were disclosed in new campaign filings Monday, arrived as the state legislative session was getting underway in January.
Disney last month announced it would pause making campaign donations in Florida amid a backlash over its jumbled response to the legislation.
If convicted, medical professionals face up to 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for providing what researchers argue is ‘life-saving’ care to trans minors.
Ivey’s signature makes Alabama the latest state in the US to pass legislation restricting gender-affirming care after Arkansas, Tennessee and Arizonapassed various anti-trans healthcare bans. But Alabama is the first state to impose criminal penalties for such care, according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Two doctors and two families of trans kids have filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging the new law which is set to go into effect on 8 May.
The families said in the complaint, which was filed on Monday (11 April), that being denied the medically necessary treatment will be devastating to the mental health of their children. The lawsuit alleges that the new Alabama law violates the Affordable Care Act and the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
One plaintiff, referred to as Robert Roe, is the father of a 13-year-old trans girl who is called Mary in the lawsuit. The complaint detailed how it is “essential for Mary’s mental health” that she can receive “puberty-blocking medications every three months” and can receive future medical treatments that her healthcare providers determine are “medically necessary to treat her gender dysphoria”.
“For Mary to be forced to go through male puberty would be devastating; it would predictably result in her experiencing isolation, depression, anxiety and distress,” the lawsuit continued. “Mary’s parents are also concerned that without access to the puberty-blocking medication she needs, Mary would resort to self-harm as a means of coping with her psychological distress or even attempt suicide.”
Roe said in a press release by the HRC, which is supporting the lawsuit, described how his family has seen “our daughter change from being reclusive and anxious to being an engaged, happy child” after being able to access the “care she needs” to flourish.
But he said this law threatens “all of this” and “takes away our ability to follow the advice of highly qualified medical professionals”.
“I was born and raised in Alabama and came back here with my wife to raise our family,” Roe said. “We love this community which has shown us incredible support. But if this law goes into effect we may be forced to leave the state we call home in order to protect our daughter’s life.”
The parents of another trans teen, referred to as John Doe, described in the lawsuit how starting hormone therapy had been “amazing” for the 17-year-old as he was finally able to feel “more like himself, building greater confidence” and is now “happier overall”.
However, the lawsuit said that John will suffer “devastating physical and psychological consequences” if the trans healthcare ban goes into effect. According to the lawsuit, the teen’s healthcare will be “disrupted” as he won’t be able to access “medications his physicians have prescribed to treat his gender dysphoria” if the law goes into effect and won’t be able to undergo gender-affirming surgery until he “reaches the age of majority, which in Alabama is age 19”.
Dr Morissa Ladinsky, a third plaintiff, works at the Children’s Hospital of Alabama alongside another plaintiff, Dr Hussein D Abdul-Latif. Both physicians provide medical care to trans youth in Alabama.
The lawsuit described how Dr Ladinsky has treated and is currently treating “dozens of trans youth people for gender dysphoria” – including the two trans teens listed in the complaint – in her role as a paediatrician as well as co-lead of the multi-disciplinary gender clinic at the UAB Hospital.
Dr Ladinsky said in a statement that governor Ivey has told “kind, loving and loyal Alabama families that they cannot stay here without denying their children the basic medical care they need” by signing the trans healthcare ban.
“She has undermined the health and well-being of Alabama children and put doctors like me in the horrifying position of choosing between ignoring the medical needs of our patients or risking being sent to prison,” she said.
The plaintiffs are represented by a host of LGBT+ and civil rights organisations including the Southern Poverty Law Center, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the HRC with King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.
A trans woman in Ukraine has said the community is struggling to access essential healthcare as the Russian war rages on.
Anastasiia, director of Cohort NGO, an organisation for transgender people in Ukraine, has chosen to remain in the country – though many trans people have had that choice taken away from them, and are unable to flee.
“I’m empowered by the opportunity to help people,” Anastasiia told Gaydiohosts Dave Cooper and Paris Munro.
She explained that many trans women are unable to leave because they have male gender markers in their passports. The same is true for cis queer men, and some intersex people.
When asked by Gaydio what the community needs, Anastasiia said: “We need medication [and] hormones.”
Russia has targeted hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout its barbaric invasion, including children’s hospitals.
The World Health Organisation reported in late March that there had been more than 70 separate attacks on hospitals, ambulances and doctors in Ukraine. It said the number was rising on a daily basis.
Anastasiia also urged Gaydio listeners to support local trans and LGBT+ groups financially. She recommended her organisation, Cohort, alongside Kyiv Pride, Trans Generation and Insight, which provide shelter, financial aid and medical help to LGBT+ people in Ukraine.
“This broadcast, this visibility allows us to be spoken about, and not forgotten at this time,” she added. “It creates the opportunity for donations, not just from organisations, but also from private donors.”
Anastasiia added: “I’m not intimidated by violence and danger, I have two revolutions behind my back.”
She continued: “It’s important that I can do this work, and that I can do this work mostly from here.
“If I was anywhere else I wouldn’t find my place, I would be restless and full of self-deprecation. Here, I can really do the work that I need to be doing. It empowers me when I see that I’m really helping people.”
More than four million people have fled the country since Russia invaded, while 20,000 have been killed, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Human Rights Campaign’s TikTok account was suspended for two days after it posted in support of another TikTok user’s pro-LGBTQ+ video.
On Monday, the LGBTQ+ rights group wrote on Twitter explaining it had been suspended for a couple of days last week after it commented on a video protesting Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. The video in question showed a teenager driving past a sign welcoming people to the state while they yelled “gay!”
On Monday, the LGBTQ+ rights group wrote on Twitter explaining it had been suspended for a couple of days last week after it commented on a video protesting Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. The video in question showed a teenager driving past a sign welcoming people to the state while they yelled “gay!”
HRC posted “GAY” with hearts in yellow and blue, the organization’s colors. The comment received 2000 likes before it was taken down and reported by other TikTok users, according to HRC. The group’s account was suspended on April 3 and the group was notified on April 4. HRC had initially been told that its account would be suspended until April 10, however, they were able to appeal.
“What message does it send to young people when we comment or post LGBTQ+ content and it’s deemed inappropriate and a violation of community guidelines?,” Ty Cobb, senior director of strategic initiatives at HRC, told The Advocate in a statement. “We’re fighting a battle for our lives. Elected officials are trying to censor our speech and restrict our access to healthcare and equal opportunity. Our need to communicate to our community and allies is more important than ever right now. Having our TikTok account suspended for two days means our ability to post educational, affirming content was restricted, which is nothing short of devastating.”
TikTok has a history of blocking LGBTQ+ content. In 2020, the company even apologized for censoring it. The apology followed a report released by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute indicating that terms like “gay,” “lesbian,” and “transgender” were restricted in several languages for global users wherever they were.
In an email to The Advocate, a TikTok spokesperson explained the company took action immediately after it knew of the issue with HRC.
“We restored the comment as soon as we were made aware of this error and will continue to provide ongoing training to help our moderators make consistent and accurate decisions,” the spokesperson for the company said. “We are proud that LGBTQ+ community members choose to create and share on TikTok, and our policies seek to protect and empower these voices on our platform.”
In a landmark ruling, a federal court has ordered the Defense Department to end a long-standing Pentagon policy forbidding enlisted military service members from deploying in active duty outside the continental U.S. and being commissioned as officers if they have HIV.
Supporters hailed it as overdue legal affirmation that people receiving effective antiretroviral treatment for HIV are essentially healthy and pose no risk to others.
The judgment topples one of the country’s last major pillars of HIV-related employment discrimination. Federal law has for decades barred employers from discriminating against people with HIV under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The military has stood alone as the sole U.S. employer maintaining such explicit discriminatory practices.
“This is one of the biggest rulings for people living with HIV and enshrining their protections under the Constitution in decades,” said Kara Ingelhart, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which along with a team of private-practice attorneys litigated the cases.
Sgt. Nick Harrison.Lambda Legal
The Pentagon still bans people with HIV from enlisting in the military or from being commissioned out of military academies. The new ruling, which could affect those other prohibitions, concerns service members who are diagnosed after they enter the military.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Eastern Virginia ruled Wednesday in the two cases, Harrison v. Austin and Roe & Woe v. Austin, in which a trio of men sued the military for HIV-related discrimination. The Air Force tried to discharge two pseudonymous plaintiffs, while the D.C. Army National Guard denied Sgt. Nick Harrison a commission in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, or JAG Corps, because they had HIV.
Brinkema ruled that the Pentagon’s policy qualifying HIV as a chronic condition requiring a waiver was scientifically outdated and that it unfairly treated people with the virus differently from other service members living with chronic health conditions requiring routine medication.
“This is the first decision securing the rights of people living with HIV that is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” said Scott Schoettes, a former Lambda attorney in private practice in Chicago, who is co-counsel in the two cases.
Brinkema, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has ordered the Air Force to rescind the discharges of the two airmen. She further ordered the Army to rescind and reconsider its denial of Harrison’s JAG Corps application.
Under the ruling, the Pentagon can no longer use the virus as a reason to discriminate against asymptomatic HIV-positive service members whose viral loads are undetectable thanks to antiretroviral treatment. In particular, the Pentagon may not separate, discharge or deny applications for deployment from such people.
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2020, the court upheld a preliminary injunction in the case of the two airmen, blocking the Air Force from discharging them while their case was litigated.
President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign platform included a measure supporting the right of people with HIV to serve fully in the military. Ingelhart expressed hope that the administration will compel the Pentagon to reverse the remaining policies that discriminate based on HIV status.
The Defense Department is the world’s largest employer, with 3 million service members worldwide.
The Pentagon referred questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
In defending the two cases, the military argued that service members with HIV pose a theoretical risk to others, such as on the battlefield.
After the Pentagon appealed the injunction to the 4th Circuit in 2019, a group of former military leaders filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. The brief criticized as scientifically outdated the Pentagon’s policy qualifying HIV as a chronic condition requiring a waiver and argued that the policy compromised military readiness.
Effective antiretroviral treatment for HIV has been on the market since 1996. Today, HIV is typically treated with a once-a-day pill.
Scientists have known for decades that HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact. Extensive research led the global HIV scientific community to conclude in the late 2010s that people with undetectable viral loads thanks to HIV treatment cannot transmit the virus through sex.
According to Lambda Legal, nearly all of the approximately 2,000 members of the U.S. military living with HIV have undetectable viral loads.
Today, people treated for HIV have near-normal life expectancies.
“The military is being forced to acknowledge the current science regarding HIV: It is easily treatable; there are zero documented cases of transmission in combat; and, most importantly, it is never a reason for discrimination,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, who was not involved with the litigation.
Harrison, 45, an Oklahoma native who joined the military in 2000, was diagnosed with HIV in 2012 after he returned from a tour of duty in Kuwait. In May 2018, he sued the Army and the Defense Department for denying his application to become a military lawyer with the JAG Corps.
“It’s nice to see the court make a decision placing science over stigma,” Harrison said of the judge’s ruling.
In December 2018, Harrison’s legal team further sued the Air Force and the Justice Department on behalf of two airmen who received notifications discharging them from service because their HIV statuses prevented their potential deployment to the Middle East.
The policy, codified in a February 2018 memorandum and dubbed “Deploy or Get Out,” outraged the HIV community by forcing some HIV-positive service members out of the military, not previously a common practice, if they faced potential deployment.
Harrison said he keeps in touch with the two other plaintiffs, as well as a collection of fellow HIV-positive members of the military. “We’re looking forward to the opportunity to go forward with our lives and to continue to serve the military in the best way possible,” he said.
His lawyers have also sued the Navy and the Air Force on behalf of a pair of cadets who were blocked from commissioning in the military after their military academy graduations because they had HIV. The case, Deese and Doe v. Austin, which is pending in U.S. District Court for Maryland, is in the discovery phase after the court denied the Pentagon’s request for dismissal.
Amid several bills introduced in Tennessee that have attracted national attention this year, none has sparked as much alarm among both Republicans and Democrats as a proposal that would create a new marriage contract specifically designed to exclude same-sex couples.
Supporters argue the measure is needed to give religious officials, couples and others opposed to gay marriage an option that wouldn’t conflict with their beliefs.
Critics say it’s a deliberate effort to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage and could lead to costly legal battles. Many have noted that the bill initially failed to include a minimum age — an omission that has opened the door to widespread mockery. Some worry the move helped reinforce stereotypes regarding Tennessee as backward.
The bill’s Republican sponsors have downplayed concerns that the age omission would result in a wave of child marriages, but they’ve since introduced an amendment that would incorporate an age requirement of 18 years old or older.
Who would be eligible for common law marriage contract?
If enacted, the legislation would allow opposite-sex couples to fill out marriage “contracts” based on common law marriage principles. Typically, common law marriage refers to the legal protections of marriage given to couples who live together as a married couple, but who haven’t gotten a state marriage license.
Just eight states allow common law marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and Tennessee isn’t one of them. It’s a practice that in America has dated back to Colonial times when it was sometimes difficult to find a preacher to solemnize a marriage.
The Tennessee bill, however, specifically states the contract would only apply to “one man and one woman,” thereby banning same-sex couples from pursuing the option. Opposite-sex couples wouldn’t have to file the contract with the state, meaning county clerks wouldn’t have to recognize the contracts like they do with marriage licenses.
“This legislation has kept me up at night,” Republican Rep. Johnny Garrett told lawmakers earlier this week.
Garrett, who is an attorney, said the lack of state recognition would mean couples would likely be unable to claim benefits and be denied rights typically given to married couples. He also pointed out that there’s nothing prohibiting individuals from entering into multiple contracts.
“We’re going to legalize polygamy in this state,” he warned.
Republican Rep. Tom Leatherwood countered that people could commit fraud using marriage licenses and added that he believed courts would recognize the contracts so that individuals could receive spousal benefits.
“All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” Leatherwood said during a legislative hearing in March.
Would the bill allow child marriage?
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
When the bill was first introduced in the House, Democratic Rep. Mike Stewart quickly pointed out that the proposed common law marriage contract did not include an age minimum.
Currently, there is no federal minimum age requirement to be married. Instead, that decision is left to the states. For Tennessee, the minimum age to obtain a marriage license is 18, but 17-year-olds can still be married as long as they have parental consent. It is illegal for minors ages 11-17 to be married under a 2018 state law.
The proposed common law marriage bill wouldn’t automatically legalize child marriages. But the omission of an age requirement sparked widespread criticism that it would create a loophole allowing children to marry.
After downplaying child marriage accusations, the sponsors have since tweaked the bill to say it would apply to opposite-sex couples who “both have attained the age of majority,” which is 18 years old in Tennessee.
But that hasn’t stopped the skepticism from Democrats and Republicans who worry the bill is setting up the state for a costly lawsuit.
“This argument that it is going to set up two separate paths to marriage is blatantly unconstitutional in violation of the Obergefell decision, which is the law of the land,” said attorney Abby Rubenfeld, who in 2013 helped lead the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The suit, which was filed by Rubenfeld, was included in the SCOTUS case that eventually legalized gay marriage in 2015.
“We won that case before the Supreme Court and we also obtained, as you probably know, a substantial award in attorney fees and costs — which Tennessee taxpayers had to pay,” Rubenfeld warned lawmakers. “It can be expensive for our state to adopt unconstitutional laws.”
Who is supporting the proposal?
The fate of the bill remains unknown. Despite having nearly 20 Republican cosponsors, GOP Senate Speaker Randy McNally told reporters this week that he wouldn’t support it due to the lingering constitutional problems. The bill has been scheduled for several weeks to be debated before the full Senate, but has been delayed several times at the request of the sponsor.
Over in the House, the bill was discussed in a committee this week, but lawmakers ran out of time before taking a vote. It’s slated to come up again next Wednesday.
“I don’t know if it has the votes or not,” Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton told reporters recently. “I guess we’ll find out next week.”
Karar Nushi, an Iraqi model well known for his long blond hair and flamboyant clothing, was found dead in Baghdad on July 2, 2017. Nushi was reportedly tortured and stabbed, and his body mutilated. His attackers also cut his hair. Indeed, friends of Nushi believe he was murdered by an armed group because of his long hair.
For lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, who are often pushed to the social margins, hair can be an especially significant form of self-expression. Styling can signal group affiliation, or simply distance from the mainstream. But in repressive settings, hairstyles can also be a liability, visible markers of difference, and even a catalyst for violence. In some contexts in Iraq, hair can trigger egregious acts of cruelty by armed groups, and, in numerous instances, even death.
Nushi’s case is one among many others Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented in a recently published report on Iraqi armed groups’ killings, abductions, torture, and sexual violence against LGBT people. In numerous accounts, the attackers shaved their victims’ hair, or demanded that they sign documents pledging they would cut their hair.
Springing up amid the breakdown of security after the US-led 2003 invasion, armed groups in Iraq feed on poverty when recruiting members, offering unemployed men a job and the prospect of gaining power and influence through violence. Although many armed groups in Iraq have claimed to be enforcers of their interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law), a Human Rights Watch report demonstrated how a 2009 killing campaign of men suspected of same-sex conduct, led by Iraqi armed group members, violated standards in Sharia law for legality, proof, and privacy. Stretching over the last two decades, violence directed against LGBT people in Iraq can be understood in the context of patriarchal social norms, the low social status of women, and a culture of impunity.
In Iraq’s environment of persistent violence, why would armed groups pay such close attention to something as seemingly inconsequential as a hairstyle? As many people told HRW, hairstyles are an important symbol of compliance and conformity with social norms and gender roles.
Policing hair has become a part of a crude enforcement of gender norms among some powerful armed groups in Iraq. When hairstyles publicly signal difference by breaking with rigid gender roles, they symbolise a perceived threat to the social order and an affront to authority.
Last year, an 18-year-old gay man was stopped by an armed group called Hashd al-Atabat in Karbala governorate in central Iraq. He was told it was due to his “shameful appearance,” in this case: having long hair. He said, “after the armed group’s leader came, he told his men to cut my hair and then let me go.”
Of the 54 LGBT people interviewed, 48 said that unconventional hairstyles were regarded by armed groups as a punishable offense. This means that men and transgender women with long hair, or women and transgender men with short hair, were perceived as deviant and hence more likely to be targeted. The consequences of having non-normative hairstyles can range from arrest to torture, rape, and even death.
Ahmad Majed al-Mutairi, known as Hammoudi, had been targeted and shot by suspected armed groups in 2018 due to his long hair. Hammoudi was popular on social media for posting pictures highlighting his feminine appearance. He was only 14 when he was murdered. A video of his gruesome murder circulated widely on social media. The attackers can be heard taunting him with homophobic slurs as Hammoudi, bleeding from his abdomen, pleads to see his mother.
These violent attacks are not new. In 2012 HRW documented attacks directed against young people who participated in “emo” subculture, based on a form of alternative rock music, characterized by a distinctive style of dress, and unconventional haircuts. In the wake of systematic and fatal attacks, panicked “emos” scrambled to change their wardrobes and cut their hair.
Gender nonconforming hairstyles are also conflated with homosexuality, which is further construed as inherently anti-Islamic and pro-Western. One of the documented forms of punishments in the attacks on LGBT people is rape—and in particular male attackers sexually assaulting male subjects as a form of punishment for consensual same-sex activity, or gender non-conformity. Anti-sodomy laws which were reintroduced in Iraq in 1919 during the British Mandate, after the Ottoman Empire abolished them in 1858, and are still in use today.
Some police and members of armed groups mete out brutal punishments that leave permanent scarring; those carried out in public are intended as a clear message to others. That message is that difference and freedom of expression outside of stereotypical gender roles will not be tolerated.
No one should be punished for how they style their hair. In addition to protecting LGBT people from violence, the Iraqi government should undertake public campaigns to end stigma against LGBT people and work with ministries, institutions, and civil society to raise awareness about respecting diversity in gender norms, including free expression through hairstyles.
Alabama governor Kay Ivey signs sweeping legislation banning gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth and prohibiting discussions of LGBT+ topics in schools.
The Republican governor signed into law two controversial bills, House Bill 322(HB 322) and Senate Bill 184 (SB 184), just a day after the state legislature approved both measures.
SB 184 makes it a felony for anyone to provide gender-affirming care – including puberty blockers, hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries – to trans youth. Anyone convicted under the proposed legislation face a 10-year prison sentence and a steep $15,000 fine, ABC Newsreported.
The bill also means that Alabama is now the first state in the US to impose felony criminal penalties on medical professionals who offer gender-affirming treatment to trans youth, according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The HRC also warned the bill would also require school personnel to out trans youth to their parents.
HB 322 – which has been dubbed by LGBT+ advocates as a ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ bill – originally started as legislation that would ban trans K-12 students from using multi-person bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.
But then Republican lawmakers amended the bill to also ban classroom discussions on gender identity or sexual orientation from kindergarten through fifth grade or in a “manner that is not age-appropriate”.
The Alabama bill goes further than Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law, which prevents discussions on LGBT+ issues between kindergarten and third grade. Any discussion on LGBT+ topics in older grades in Florida classrooms must be “age appropriate”.
“I believe very strongly that if the good Lord made you a boy, you are a boy and if he made you a girl, you are a girl,” she said. “We should especially protect our children from these radical, life-altering drugs and surgeries when they are at such a vulnerable stage in life.”
She also went on to declare that “men use the men’s room” and “ladies use the ladies’ room” in Alabama. Ivey added that HB 322 would “ensure our elementary school classrooms remain free from any kind of sex talk”.
She then claimed that it is “misleading” to call it a ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ bill because she said it is ensuring that young children are not being taught about sex.
“We are talking about five-year-olds for crying out loud,” she said. “We need to focus on what matters – core instruction like reading and math.”
Carmarion D Anderson-Harvey, Alabama state director for the HRC, condemned Ivey for choosing to “score political points with radical, far-right voters over the welfare” of trans youth and their families in Alabama.
“The governor and her fellow anti-equality legislators in the state capitol have recklessly passed a bill that goes directly against the best advice of the medical community and intrudes on the rights of parents and families to make their own medical decisions,” Anderson-Harvey said.
She added that Republican lawmakers have also “successfully criminalised” life-saving care that trans youth “need desperately” as well as the “incredible” medical professions who help these young people “each and every day”.
“In doing so they have jeopardised the future of these doctors, families and transgender youth who are all considering what their livelihoods will be in Alabama,” Anderson-Harvey said.
She continued: “The legislative package passed yesterday and signed today is the most anti-transgender legislative package ever passed, combining elements of infamous laws like HB 2 in North Carolina, Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law and even Texas’s cruel executive action from earlier this year.
“Shame on Governor Ivey for being such a political coward that she puts children in harm’s way just to serve her own career.”
A bar serving LGBTQ New Yorkers has closed after an arson attack over the weekend, the New York City Police Department confirmed Wednesday.
At approximately 9 p.m. on Sunday, a man walked into the Rash Bar in Brooklyn’s Bushwick neighborhood with a bottle of flammable liquid, poured it on the bar’s floor, lit a match and set the venue ablaze, according to the NYPD. Police said the suspect fled as the bar became engulfed in flames.
Jake Sillen, one of the bar’s owners, told NBC News on Wednesday that they are still in shock.
“It’s so hard to believe and process,” said Sillen, 26, who is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns. “It’s more confusing than anything.”
The Rash Bar in Brooklyn’s Bushwick neighborhood.Rash Bar / via NBC New York
Three people — a bartender, DJ and security guard — were inside when the venue was set on fire. A 25-year-old female was transported to nearby Wyckoff Heights Medical Center with minor burns, while another victim was evaluated on the scene for minor burns to the shoulders, the NYPD said.
Claire Bendiner, a co-owner of Rash, had just stepped outside when the fire broke out.
“Everyone rushed out,” Bendiner told NBC New York. “The side door has a glass front, and I looked over and saw flames to the top of ceiling. It was crazy, it happened so fast.”
The bar was left unrecognizable and torched, NBC New York reported.
Bendiner, who uses they/them pronouns, said the suspect boldly left behind evidence.
“He left the gas canister inside. Kind of calmly placed it on the bar counter. Wasn’t knocked over or anything,” they told NBC New York.
Police are reviewing surveillance footage that shows someone filling up a gas can minutes before the fire.
‘Easy target’
Police are still investigating a motive for the incident, and no arrests have been made. The bar’s owner declined to comment on the suspect’s intentions but noted that serving a large LGBTQ clientele makes the space vulnerable.
“I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, because we don’t know anything about the person that did this,” Sillen said. “It could easily turn out to be a motive that we aren’t expecting.”
“It’s easy to see why our space would be an easy target for someone looking to do harm to the queer community,” they said, adding that in Rash Bar, “people feel safe to be themselves, and it’s a shame that anybody would do anything to threaten this.”
Since the bar opened nearly five months ago, it has become a staple in LGBTQ nightlife and a refuge for queer young adults and performers. It is also known for being packed late into the night, according to NBC New York.
This is not the only reported incidenttargeting bars in or near the Bushwick neighborhood that are popular with the city’s LGBTQ community: In February, someone threw a pepper-bomb spray on the dance floor at a party for the Black queer community at Nowadays, and last summer there was a wave of attacks at Happyfun Hideaway.
“We, definitely in the last year, have seen a rise in anti-LGBT violence,” Sillen said, noting that more people are taking cars to and from parties. “The streets haven’t been as safe as they were three or four years ago.”
As of Wednesday afternoon, the bar owners had raised $52,000 of their $200,000 goal on GoFundMe to help reconstruct the damaged building and care for the injured employees. Sillen said they are thankful for the outpouring of support.
“What we’re doing is important, and no matter what, we will be reopening,” Sillen said. “We’ve never once thought about that not being a possibility.”
Sillen, who is still on edge after the fire, said they have a message for the arsonist.
“Turn yourself in,” Sillen said. “You’ve harmed so many people. Not just physically, but the waves that this is going to create — between the loss of income, wages and just the space for as long as it’s going to be gone. … It’s a lot of loss.”