Seniors who do not have supportive family connections are frequently referred to as “orphan seniors.” Many of us who are LGBT have never had children and we may be alienated from other family members. While there are many supportive services provided by government and non-profit agencies, they cannot fulfill all the needs that can arise when a health-related crisis occurs.
Our past efforts to create non-traditional family ties are more difficult now as our peers develop their own age-related challenges. Many of us also lost many friends during the AIDS pandemic and now we are losing friends to age-related causes. Even if we are partnered, we may be isolated as a couple and there may come a time when one of us will be alone. So whom can we call upon for practical and emotional support when a crisis happens?
First of all, I think we have to be prepared for the unexpected. We might make a list of things that need regular attention in the event we are unable to carry out those tasks. Is there a pet that would need care? Are there bills that would need to be paid? Is there a garden that would need regular watering?
Secondly, we might begin to think about who might fulfill those responsibilities. This involves some creative brainstorming as we don’t want to burden just one person. Think about neighbors, acquaintances, and connections made through shared activities such as clubs, meet-ups and walking groups.
Thirdly, we will want to make it easy for people to help us. That means getting over our attachment to independence and learning the value of interdependence. We need to feel as comfortable asking for help as well as we do offering it. We also need to make our requests clear and definite and to offer options. When someone asks “How can I help?” and we feel it is sincere, we can offer a list of concrete possibilities from something simple such as picking up an item at the store or providing a periodic phone check-in to something more involved such as a home visit or going with us to a medical appointment.
Conversely when we are called upon to support another, it is important to know our strengths and to set boundaries. For example, some us are much better at practical support than we are at emotional support. We need to contribute in ways that allow us to be both comfortable and effective.
Buz Hermes is co-facilitator of the Sonoma Valley LGBT Seniors Group and a former staff member of Spectrum’s Senior Outreach Program. He is currently a consultant on LGBT aging and can be reached at GaryDHermes@comcast.net or (707) 227-6935.
According to the Public Affairs Council, strong majorities of Americans are concerned about all forms of discrimination — whether it’s based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender, disability, religion, or age. A new survey shows that the problem of racial discrimination is considered the most serious discrimination challenge the country faces, followed by gender identity (transgender) discrimination.
Attitudes about discrimination vary sharply based on political party, age, gender and other factors.
The results come from the 2016 Public Affairs Pulse survey, a telephone poll of 1,000 Americans conducted Sept. 12–17 by Public Opinion Strategies and sponsored by the Public Affairs Council.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans believe racial discrimination is at least a serious problem and 37 percent say it is a very serious problem. Similar percentages call gender identity discrimination at least serious (67%) or very serious (37%).
Differences Between Political Parties
Republicans, on balance, are less likely than Democrats and Independents to see discrimination across these seven areas as serious problems. The largest differences between Republicans and Democrats show up in attitudes about gender identity discrimination (46 percent of Republicans versus 84 percent of Democrats view the matter to be serious) and sexual orientation (45 percent of Republicans versus 79 percent of Democrats say this is a serious problem). The smallest difference in attitudes relates to religious discrimination (52 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Democrats call this issue serious).
Many Business Anti-Discrimination Efforts Go Unnoticed
Major companies receive little credit for their efforts to reduce discrimination. One in three Americans (34%) think corporations have played a positive role in reducing discrimination of people with disabilities, and slightly lower percentages recognize business efforts to reduce discrimination by gender (28%), race (27%) and sexual orientation (26%). For discrimination by gender identity, religion and age, more Americans feel companies have played a negative role than positive role.
If major companies were to take steps to prevent discrimination based on any of these factors, most Americans say they would view these efforts favorably.
For full survey results and methodology, visit pac.org/pulse.
Various off putting and discriminatory terms have been used in employment interviews to indicate management disapproval of a candidate. For example, a young professional woman may be asked if her husband would allow her to take business travel with male colleagues.
Of course, there is always the pregnancy question of a professional woman and that can lead in several discriminatory directions. Are you planning to have a family? Would you want to continue to work after having a child? And so it goes.
For openly out LGBT employment seekers, discriminatory questions tend to go toward health issues, especially mental health and HIV status. Employers are, of course, not allowed to ask health questions and are required by federal and state laws to accommodate health conditions designated or defined as a disability.
Still. When it comes to openly out LGBT job seekers, especially those seeking high paid professional jobs that require high levels of responsibility, veteran employers have subtle ways of asking “Are you mentally stable?”
Variations on “Are you mentally stable?” include “Are you well adjusted?” Translation: Are you sexually stable?
Another variation: “With regard to your sexuality, are you at peace with that?” Translation: “Are you sexually confused and/or mentally stable?”
Another variation: “Your family is supportive of your sexuality and at peace with that?” Translations: “Do you come from a stable home with a stable upbringing and are you mentally stable?”
Another variation, “Are you in control of your sexuality?” Translation: “At the firm, we can’t have displays of sexuality that might disrupt the work and offend our staff.”
Another translation: “Are you mentally stable?”
Employers have a variety of subtle ways to ask these questions, whether verbally or through a set of in-house questionnaires developed by staff to discriminate against LGBT employment seekers. Since the questionnaire is company property, the LGBT jobseeker will not have access to them as proof of employment discrimination. For this reason the LGBT jobseeker should take an iPhone image of the questionnaire and insist on completing the questionnaire in private.
If the interview is all verbal, an iPhone recorder in a jacket pocket might be used to record the interview. Recorders can be activated by accident if any questions arise about the recording. The job applicant can also ask to go to bathroom to check and adjust, if necessary, the quality of the recording.
In a July 1972 Dear Abby column a writer identified as Happy Heterosexual wrote, “There is no such thing as a well-adjusted homosexual; the two terms are antonymous. Homosexuality, male female, is a form of sexual deviation which is symptomatic of personality disorder.”
I am editing Abby’s response to “Dear Happy” with, “Much of the maladjustment seen in homosexuals is due to the rejection, persecution, and guilt imposed upon them by intolerant and ignorant contemporaries.”
Abby, Abigail Van Buren whose real name was Pauline Phillips, died in 2013, was an LGBT ally and spokesperson to the masses long before anyone else. Her daughter Jeanne continues her mother’s work to change minds today.
LGBT employment discrimination continues to cause suffering in our community due to “intolerant and ignorant employers,” outdated business and personnel policies, and outright bigotry. We all have to do our part to help bring the employment and other changes we want to see to support ourselves and our families. That takes work, action and the technology we all have in our pockets.
James Patterson is a Washington DC based writer and speaker who nearly lost his job as a diplomatic post due to long political interference from U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms. Patterson’s work appears in The Washington Post, The Foreign Service Journal, TheHill.com, The Advocate.com, San Francisco Chronicle, and many others. JEPCapitolHill@gmail.com
Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a new video ad featuring Hillary Clinton’s historic commitment to fighting for full LGBTQ equality.
“Time and again Hillary Clinton has demonstrated through her words and actions that she is committed to fighting for full LGBTQ equality,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “All of the progress we’ve achieved is at stake in this election. While Donald Trump continues his hate-filled campaign and threatens to drag us backwards, Hillary Clinton will fight to break down the walls of discrimination that still hold us back. It’s crucially important that pro-equality Americans turn out and vote for Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.”
In the video, Hillary Clinton says, “We need to build an America where no one has to worry that they can get married on Saturday and be fired on Monday; where kids aren’t bullied just because of who they are; and where every American has the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential, no matter who they are or who they love.”
Watch the video above.
In addition to her long record as a champion for LGBTQ rights both in the U.S. and around the globe, Hillary Clinton has proposed the most robust pro-LGBTQ equality agenda of any presidential candidate in history. She has called the Equality Act her “highest priority,” and her detailed LGBTQ policy platform specifically calls for outlawing dangerous “conversion therapy” for minors, ending the epidemic of transgender violence, and supporting HIV prevention and affordable treatment, among other proposals that would advance equality and support the LGBTQ community. Find out more at www.hrc.org/hrc
The new video is part of HRC’s unprecedented digital campaign in a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at more than 2 million potential pro-equality voters nationwide.
Gay and bisexual men convicted of now-abolished sexual offences in England and Wales are to receive posthumous pardons, the government has announced.
Thousands of living men convicted over consensual same-sex relationships will also be eligible for the pardon.
Lib Dem peer Lord Sharkey, who proposed the amendment to the Policing and Crimes Bill, said it was “momentous”.
It follows the pardoning of World War Two code-breaker Alan Turing for gross indecency in 2013.
Under the amendment – dubbed “Turing law” – deceased people who were convicted of sexual acts that are no longer deemed criminal will receive an automatic pardon.
Anyone living who has been convicted of such offences could already apply through the Home Office to have the offence wiped from their criminal records.
But now, if the Home Office agrees that the offence is no longer an offence under current law, they will automatically be pardoned.
Justice Minister Sam Gyimah said it was “hugely important that we pardon people convicted of historical sexual offences who would be innocent of any crime today”.
Lord Sharkey said he understood why some people may not want a pardon, or may “feel that it’s wrong”.
But, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “a pardon is probably the best way of acknowledging the real harm done by the unjust and cruel homophobic laws, which thankfully we’ve now repealed. And I do hope that a lot of people will feel exactly the same way”.
He said of the 65,000 men convicted under the laws, 15,000 are still alive.
‘I will not accept a pardon’
George Montague was convicted in 1974 of gross indecency with a man. He says he wants an apology – not a pardon.
“To accept a pardon means you accept that you were guilty. I was not guilty of anything. I was only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” he told BBC Newsnight.
“I think it was wrong to give Alan Turing – one of the heroes of my life – a pardon.
“What was he guilty of? He was guilty of the same as what they called me guilty of – being born only able to fall in love with another man.”
He added: “If I get an apology, I will not need a pardon.”
He added that there “never should have been an offence of gross indecency”.
“It didn’t apply to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals could do what they liked, in the doorways, in passageways, the back of their car.
“It only applied to gay men. That’s not right, surely?”
The Sexual Offences Act decriminalised private homosexual acts between men aged over 21 in England and Wales, in 1967.
The law was not changed in Scotland until 1980, or in Northern Ireland until 1982.
Announcing the new plan, Mr Gyimah said the government would support Lord Sharkey’s amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill – which would apply to England and Wales, but not Scotland and Northern Ireland as the Justice Department does not cover devolved administrations.
The petition gathered almost 640,000 signatories, including the actors Stephen Fry and Benedict Cumberbatch, who played Turing in the film about the enigma code, The Imitation Game.
The charity Stonewall, which campaigns for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said it has begun discussions with the Scottish government to allow similar procedures to be introduced in Scotland.
In Northern Ireland, the Rainbow Project, also a charity and campaign group, met with the justice minister in August to discuss the law around historical convictions.
Cyanide poisoning
Turing, the Bletchley Park code-breaker, was convicted in 1952 of gross indecency with a 19-year-old man.
He was later chemically castrated and died in 1954 after poisoning himself with cyanide.
His pardon, almost 60 years later, followed a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Lord Sharkey.
The Lib Dem peer said it was “a momentous day for thousands of families up and down the UK”.
He said: “It is a wonderful thing that we have been able to build on the pardon granted to Alan Turing during the coalition.”
Turing’s great niece Rachel Barnes said the moment Turing’s family heard he was to receive a pardon was “absolutely tremendous”.
She told the Today programme: “Alan Turing just so, so deserves this. To think that this is the man who cracked the enigma code and saved countless of millions of lives during World War Two and to think of the treatments that he went through at the hands of the government in 1952 is still unbelievable to us.”
She said that the family has always highlighted his achievements rather than the fact he was a gay man.
She added: “Because we shouldn’t be thinking about his sexuality, we should really be focusing on the successes of this incredible man in history who has done so much for the country and for the world”.
Private Member’s Bill
The government has said it will not be supporting a separate Private Member’s Bill on the subject – introduced by SNP MP John Nicolson – which is set to be debated on Friday.
Mr Nicolson, the MP for East Dunbartonshire, has proposed a blanket pardon for those still living, without the need to apply for their criminal records to be cleared by the Home Office.
Mr Gyimah said such a move could see people claiming pardons for acts that are still illegal.
“This would cause an extraordinary and unnecessary amount of distress to victims,” he added.
Paul Twocock from Stonewall welcomed the announcement but said it supported Mr Nicolson’s Private Member’s Bill.
Mr Twocock said the bill “explicitly” excluded pardoning anyone convicted of offences that would still be illegal today, including non-consensual sex and sex with someone under 16.
Happn, the leading global dating app that enables users to discover the people they’ve crossed paths with in real life, has teamed up with the national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, GLAAD, to encourage Happn users to take a stand against LGBTQ bullying.
In support of GLAAD and Spirit DayThursday, Oct. 20, Happn will launch a powerful U.S. campaign grounded in the frightening statistic that nearly three-quarters (74%) of students reported experiencing some type of peer victimization in the past school year. According to research by GLSEN, bullying and harassment remain a significant concern of students, families and schools all across the country. Furthermore, despite legal and cultural changes, LGBTQ students continue to face hostile school climates.
On Spirit Day, a full screen image will pop up when users first fire up Happn. “Words Can Hurt” will appear in the foreground of the first image. The secondary image is a call-to-action that cites the harrowing youth statistic, encourages Happn users to take part in Spirit Day, and directs them to glaad.org/spiritday, where they can:
Go purple. Use GLAAD’s mobile app to turn your Happn profile picture purple.
Join the conversation. Take part in the movement on social media – Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat – by using #SpiritDay.
Make a donation. Provide a contribution that will help GLAAD carry out its work – including Spirit Day – as the organization seeks to accelerate acceptance for LGBTQ people around the world.
“We choose words carefully in portraying ourselves in order to charm others when filling out our dating profiles. If only we could be equally as mindful of the derogatory words used towards the LGBTQ community,” said Didier Rappaport, CEO and co-founder, Happn. “To show our support for the GLAAD youth-driven cause, Happn is leveraging its platform to raise awareness, and challenging its users to rewrite the script for LGBTQ acceptance in America and across the globe.”
In a lawsuit challenging the North Carolina law banning transgender people from using restrooms that correspond to their gender identity, LGBT rights groups yesterday asked a federal appeals court to broaden a preliminary injunction in order to protect all transgender people in the state from discrimination.
In August, a district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the North Carolina university system from enforcing H.B. 2 against the three individual transgender plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Carcaño v. McCrory, which is scheduled for trial in May 2017. The advocates also asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite the appeal and schedule oral argument for January.
“Every day that H.B. 2 singles out transgender North Carolinians — whether at school, at work, or just moving through their daily lives — is another day that the transgender community is told that they are second class,” said Chris Brook, ACLU of North Carolina legal director. “Though the district court recognized the serious harm to three of our clients at UNC as a result of H.B. 2, that recognition unfortunately didn’t extend to the harms that law inflicts on other transgender individuals in public buildings across North Carolina. We hope and expect that the Fourth Circuit will expand this ruling to protect all transgender people.”
The appeal brief filed yesterday argues that H.B. 2 violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it specifically targets transgender people, and that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination. While North Carolina has argued that H.B. 2 advances interests in public safety and privacy, ACLU and Lambda Legal argue that these interests, which can be protected in other ways, do not justify the harms H.B. 2 imposes on transgender people and that to restore the status quo, the court must grant a broader preliminary injunction while the case proceeds to trial.
“H.B. 2 makes transgender North Carolinians pariahs in their own state. Courthouses, airports, libraries, public schools, highway rest stops, police departments, state hospitals, and the very halls of government itself are now unsafe for, and unwelcome to, transgender North Carolinians,” said Jon W. Davidson, national legal director at Lambda Legal. “Such unequal treatment simply cannot be squared with the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equality under the law. The Fourth Circuit should order this broader relief, pending trial.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina, Lambda Legal, and the law firm of Jenner & Block are challenging the law in federal court on behalf of four LGBT North Carolinians in addition to members of the ACLU of North Carolina. The lawsuit was filed days after H.B. 2 was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly and signed by Gov. Pat McCrory. In it, the groups argue that H.B. 2 sends a purposeful message that LGBT people are second-class citizens who are undeserving of the privacy, respect, and protections afforded to others, and that transgender individuals are expelled from public life since they are not allowed to use the restrooms and changing facilities that match who they are.
There have been many fights over transgender rights across the country, but the showdown in Illinois’ District 211 has been particularly ugly. After “Student A” successfully fought the school for access to the same locker room other girls used, a group of anonymous students turned around and sued, claiming that her access caused them “emotional distress.” A federal judge was not impressed by their claims.
On Tuesday, United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert recommended against granting these students a preliminary injunction blocking Student A and other trans students from the facilities. “High school students do not have a fundamental constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs,” he explained.
A magistrate judge’s recommendation must be adopted by a district judge before it has the force of law, so Gilbert’s recommendation must still clear that hurdle.
Throughout the recommendation, Gilbert laid out in detail why these students are not harmed by sharing a space with a transgender classmate. Indeed, they are not even required to share a space with her, as there are alternative restrooms that they may use. If they’re uncomfortable, they can voluntarily use a different facility or make use of a privacy stall without forcing transgender students to be ostracized to other spaces.
Though the plaintiffs — who insistently misgendered Student A throughout their briefs — would disagree, Gilbert agreed that “a transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms. So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly for the constitutional analysis.”
A decision issued just last week from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was instrumental in helping him arrive at that conclusion. Since 1984, there has been a circuit precedent that the term “sex” be defined narrowly according to “tradition” and biology. But last week, in a case about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the appellate court vacated a ruling based on that precedent, opening the door for judges in the circuit to reconsider how narrowly protections should be defined. For Gilbert, this made it easy for him to agree with the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX’s “sex” protections that allowed Student A access to the locker rooms in the first place.
He also made a point that has not come up in other cases about student facility access. Title IX, he explained, permits schools to provide facilities that are divided by gender, but it does not require them to do so. As it stands, District 211’s policy is to segregate the genders and to respect transgender people’s identities; as Gilbert described it, “Cisgender boys use the boys’ restrooms with transgender boys just like cisgender girls use the girls’ restrooms with transgender girls.” But even if the facilities were completely gender-neutral, they wouldn’t violate Title IX’s sex protections.
The student plaintiffs’ claim that a transgender student would violate their sense of privacy and safety was not convincing. “There is absolutely no evidence in this record that allowing transgender high school students to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity increases the risk of sexual assault,” Gilbert pointed out in a footnote. He also highlighted that the military now “allows transgender personnel to serve openly and fully integrated in all military services” and the NCAA “includes transgender student-athletes in collegiate sports consistent with their gender identity.”
“Neither the Restroom Policy nor the Locker Room Agreement shocks the conscience,” he wrote. Given the accommodations available, “put simply, this case does not involve any forced or involuntary exposure of a student’s body to or by a transgender person assigned a different sex at birth.”
Though the case will still proceed, it’s a major loss for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an anti-LGBT legal organization that is pursuing numerous cases across the country to challenge LGBT nondiscrimination protections or actually force discrimination upon transgender people. ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb bemoaned in a statement, “Young students should be not be forced into an intimate setting like a locker room with someone of the opposite sex.”
Meanwhile, the ACLU, which represents Student A and two other rising transgender students at the school, celebrated the outcome. John A. Knight, Director of the ACLU of illinois’ LGBT Project, said in a statement, “Barring Student A and other transgender students from the restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender challenges their basic identity and humanity, suggests that they should be ashamed of who they are, and puts them at serious of long-term emotional and psychological injury. We are pleased that Judge Gilbert rejected specious arguments about privacy and protected the interests of all the students.”
When it comes to letting transgender people simply using the restroom, religious conservatives are quick to warn that any accommodations pose a massive threat to women’s “safety and privacy.” But after newly discovered tapes of the Republican nominee for president bragging about sexually assaulting women were published last week, many of those same conservatives are still standing by their endorsements.
Almost all of the campaigns against transgender equality have been focused on painting transgender women as “male” predators looking to access women’s spaces in order to violate them. The messaging was first used in 2012 to oppose LGBT protections in Anchorage, then again last year to oppose the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, and it has been the defense of North Carolina’s odious HB2. Women who were survivors of sexual assault were even the face of the failed campaign to overturn transgender protections in Washington state, even though there is zero evidence that respecting trans identities makes bathrooms or locker rooms any less safe.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is actually a man who has openly bragged about sexually assaulting women and been accused of such assaults on multiple occasions. He also admitted to walking around backstage at one of the beauty pageants he owns while the female contestants were naked and changing. Here’s a look at people who think someone who likes to “grab them by the pussy” is still a vote-worthy candidate for president, paired with statements the same people have made about whether transgender people should be allowed to pee in peace.
Gov. Mike Pence
On transgender protections: “Policies regarding the security and privacy of students in our schools should be in the hands of Hoosier parents and local schools, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The federal government has no business getting involved in issues of this nature. I am confident that parents, teachers and administrators will continue to resolve these matters without federal mandates and in a manner that reflects the common sense and compassion of our state.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “It’s absolutely false to suggest that at any point in time we considered dropping off this ticket… He said last night very clearly that that was talk, not actions. And I believe him and I think the contrast between that and what the Clintons were involved in 20 years ago — the four women that were present last night — was pretty dramatic.”
Ben Carson
CREDIT: AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
On transgender protections: “How about we have a transgender bathroom? It is not fair for them to make everybody else uncomfortable. It’s one of the things that I don’t particularly like about the movement. I think everybody has equal rights, but I’m not sure that anybody should have extra rights — extra rights when it comes to redefining everything for everybody else and imposing your view on everybody else.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “Those of us who do not want to see America fundamentally devolve into something worse must be wise enough to recognize the scheme that is being played out here. We must demand not only that the issues be discussed but also that we make our decisions based on issues and not on personalities or decade old statements and behavior by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.”
Mike Huckabee
On transgender protections: “Now I wish somebody had told me when I was in high school, that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in P.E. I’m pretty sure I would’ve found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I certainly don’t condone what he said in what he thought was a private moment 11 years ago, but here’s a good reminder that in these times of ubiquitous microphones and cameras, there are no private moments. I can truly hope he’s genuinely contrite and has outgrown it and that he himself is as repulsed by it as are those who view it.”
Gov. Chris Christie
On transgender protections: “Men go to men’s rooms, women go to women’s rooms and there really shouldn’t be a whole lot of confusion about that — public accommodations. And I don’t think we should be making life more confusing for our children… The fact though is that we want our kids not to have to decide which bathroom they get to go in. And not to be subject to peer pressure about which one to go in. And not to be subject to the embarrassment that could come with going in a bathroom where somebody maybe doesn’t agree that they should be in there or not.”
Sen. Ted Cruz
On transgender protections: “You don’t have a right to intrude upon the rights of others because whether or not a man believes he’s a woman, there are a lot of women who would like to be able to use a public restroom in peace without having a man there — and when there are children involved, you don’t have a right to impose your lifestyle on others.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I am supporting the Republican nominee because I think Hillary Clinton is an absolute disaster. Now my differences with Donald, I have articulated at great length during the campaign. And I tried all my might. I got to tell you, it was an amazing journey.”
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “As I have made clear, my support for Donald Trump in the general election was never based upon shared values rather it was built upon shared concerns… At this point in the political process, because of our lack of engagement and involvement as Christians, not just in this election but in the government and culture as a whole, we are left with a choice of voting for the one who will do the least damage to our freedoms.”
Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition
On transgender protections:
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I just don’t think an audiotape of an 11-year-old private conversation with an entertainment talk show host on a tour bus, for which the candidate has apologized profusely, is likely to rank high on the hierarchy of concerns of those faith-based voters.”
James Dobson
On transgender protections: “If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls?”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “The comments Mr. Trump made 11 years ago were deplorable and I condemn them entirely. I also find Hillary Clinton’s support of partial birth abortion criminal and her opinion of evangelicals to be bigoted. There really is only one difference between the two. Mr. Trump promises to support religious liberty and the dignity of the unborn. Mrs. Clinton promises she will not.”
Gary Bauer, American Values
On transgender protections: “This is yet another example of the Obama administration’s bizarre obsession to force women to be unwilling participants in a radical social experiment… Now Obama’s HUD bureaucrats are putting those women at risk for abuse and worse by men claiming to be women.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ The comments are obviously disgusting and unfortunate. But Donald Trump did not run as a evangelical or as somebody who ran the kind of campaign that a Pat Robertson would run. We’ll still support him, still work hard for him. His policies are 100% better than Hillary clinton’s for the country. I don’t see how any values voter that is sensible would take a tape from 11 years ago with totally inappropriate language and says somehow that leads me as a voter to stay home or vote for Hillary Clinton or throw your vote away on a third party candidate.”
Robert Jeffress, First Baptist Church in Dallas
CREDIT: Facebook/Robert Jeffress
On transgender protections: “Gender is an absolute, just like age is an absolute, and just because some hairy-legged man feels confused about his gender, doesn’t mean he gets to come in and shower with my daughter in a shower room.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “It was lewd, obscene, indefensible — but not enough to make me want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I might not choose this man to be a Sunday school teacher at my church, but that’s not what this election is about.”
Michele Bachmann
On transgender protections: “What we have seen happen since this discussion started, are men of varying ages going into women’s bathrooms and trying to videotape women unawares. Now that’s a real problem. And I think we need to be very clear that women, girls, older women are vulnerable and are deserving of protection.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “This is bad boy talk, and of course that’s what [Hillary Clinton] wants everybody to talk about… If anybody understands bad boy talk, Hillary Clinton understands bad boy talk. She engages in a certain amount of it herself I think.”
Pat Robertson
On transgender protections: “We don’t want men going into women’s bathrooms, we don’t want predators going out where little girls are, we don’t want voyeurs having free access to the women’s locker rooms during games when they’re changing clothes.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ “A guy does something 11 years ago, it was a conversation in Hollywood where he’s trying to look like he’s macho. And 11 years after that they surface it from The Washington Post or whatever, bring it out within 30 days or so of the election and this is supposed to be the death blow and everybody writes him off… They think he’s dead, he’s come back. And he came back strong. So, he won that debate.”
Pat McCrory (R), North Carolina governor
On transgender protections: “Does the desire to be politically correct outweigh our children’s privacy and safety? Not on my watch.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I condemn in the strongest possible terms the comments made by Donald Trump regarding women. I find them disgusting.” [But McCrory did not withdraw his endorsement of Trump.]
Dan Patrick, Texas lieutenant governor
On transgender protections: “It is clear that the Obama administration is trying to force an ill-advised, eleventh-hour bathroom edict on Texas and all American schools that ignores both common sense and common decency. Obama’s bathroom policy, which applies to grades K-12, creates a problem where none existed. It will disrupt schools across Texas, creating potentially embarrassing and unsafe situations for girls who would be forced, under his order, to share bathrooms, locker rooms and showers with boys.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks:
hil Robertson, Duck Dynasty
On transgender protections: “Men should use the men’s bathroom and women should use the women’s bathroom. Just because a man may ‘feel’ like a woman doesn’t mean he should be able to share a bathroom with my daughter, or yours. That used to be called common sense. Now it’s called bigoted.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I would say [evangelical leaders] need to lighten up, start going out and preaching the gospel to different people, including Donald Trump, and give him some time to think about spiritual matters, and work with him, and not condemn anybody.”
Alveda King
On transgender protections: “In other words, by turning a blind eye to the dearth of perversion within our communities — the sex traffickers, child molesters, adulterers and fornicators, racists, and so many other sin sick souls — and suggesting that allowing everyone to use the same public bathrooms will solve America’s problems, the current government administration, no matter how well intended or ill advised they are, is headed for disaster.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ While writing, saying and doing much, Mr. Trump is apologizing for his past sins. He’s walking away from supporting abortion, hurling insults and more. Now, America needs to follow suit and apologize for the scourge of legal abortion that has left millions of empty cradles, wombs barren, women’s health damaged, and families broken. As Americans, we all need to follow Mr. Trump’s lead and ask God for forgiveness for the sins of our nation, and yes, for ourselves.”
StartOut, a national non-profit organization that supports, educates and connects LGBTQ entrepreneurs, today announced the launch of its online platform, the StartOut Community. It is designed to address the multifaceted needs of LGBTQ entrepreneurs. The primary goals of this digital portal are to accelerate the ability of LGBTQ founded and run companies to reach sustainable success, showcase the significant contributions StartOut members make to societies all over the world, and help level the economic playing field for LGBTQ entrepreneurs.
StartOut’s inaugural research study, The State of LGBT Entrepreneurship in the U.S., conclusively shows that startups founded by LGBTQ entrepreneurs are at risk for discrimination—affecting where founders choose to locate their businesses, to what extent they can raise capital, and how they build trust with investors. Based on the data and findings from this research study behind us and seven years of “real-life” success accelerating LGBTQ entrepreneurship, StartOut is now taking its programs to the next level with the launch of the StartOut Community. Supported by ROI Genius, the new complementary platform is open to all LGBTQ entrepreneurs, friends, supporters, and allies globally. The platform includes:
Online forums, organized by topic and industry, designed to allow users to take advantage of StartOut members’ deep entrepreneurial and business expertise
Forums to share experiences and advice specific to our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender entrepreneur communities
Invitations to local and national events
Educational content
Inspirational member successes stories
Andres Wydler
“Designed for massive scalability, our new StartOut Community is the first platform of its kind tailored specifically to the LGBTQ entrepreneurial community,” says Executive Director Andres Wydler. “Too many LGBTQ entrepreneurs still lack role models they can relate to and the professional networks to advance their businesses. We are determined to connect our members with the contacts they need to succeed, and provide the visibility, recognition and respect they deserve, no matter where they live.”
Following this initial launch, StartOut will release its premium features, including a searchable directory to connect its members 24/7; a nationwide mentorship program, supported by AT&T; and an investor portal to connect LGBTQ-friendly investors with StartOut premium members.
To support and help fund the ongoing development and program management for this groundbreaking portal, you may become a member at https://startout.org/membership.
