Discrimination Hub

Gay Couple Ejected From Montréal Bar For Kissing


A bar in the Latin Quarter of Montréal has come under allegations of homophobia after kicking out a gay couple because a security guard spotted them kissing. As CTV News reports, Universite de Montréal student Gabriel Dion says that while many heterosexual couples were seen making out in the bar, he and his companion were singled out because they are gay:

Bar"We started making out, and hugging each other and that's it," he told CTV Montreal.

Dion said he and the man moved into a stairway for privacy.

"We definitely know some people are not comfortable with that, especially in a straight bar, so we tried to be as discreet as possible. But then a security guard came in and just told us to leave," he said.

The bouncer wouldn't let him and the other man their get their bags before leaving, so they had to ask friends to bring the bags outside, he said.

"I definitely felt disrespected. I felt that there was a lot of prejudice, basically," he said.

However, bar owner Maurice Bourassa insists he did not kick Dion and his partner out because they were gay but rather because they “were in a staircase that's used as a fire escape and therefore must be kept clear at all times” and, according to Bourassa, “the men were conducting themselves inappropriately, with one man lying on top of the other. Their behaviour, he says, was more appropriate for a bedroom than a public place.” 

You can watch a news report from CTV on the incident HERE.

Gay Chicago Couple Kicked Out Of Taxi For Kissing Files New Lawsuit: VIDEO


Last June, Chicago couple Steven White and Matt McCrea were kicked out of a taxi for sharing a closed-mouth second-long kiss. In October, Lambda Legal stepped in to file a complaint on behalf of the couple with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Christopher Clark, Senior Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal, then commented, "A taxi-cab company, like any other business in Illinois that offers services to the public, is bound by the Illinois Human Rights Act to not discriminate based on sexual orientation, among other protected categories." However, as NBC 5 Chicago reports, that complaint was rejected "because the department said it had no jurisdiction over corporate entities." The couple has now filed a lawsuit against the taxi cab company: 

"It's ludicrous to suggest that a cab company is not responsible for the discrimination enacted by its drivers," the couple's lawyer, Christopher Clark, said. "They should be liable under the law for the conduct of their agents."

The suit claims the driver, who is not named in the suit, complained the men were "making sex" in the cab in May 2013. McCrea and White, who were heading into the city from O'Hare, say the driver began flashing the interior lights of the vehicle and then swerved on to the shoulder of the Kennedy Expressway and demanded they get out miles before their intended destination.

Meanwhile, the driver was issued several violations and fined close to $2,000 because of the incident. 

Watch a news report on the couple's latest legal action, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "Gay Chicago Couple Kicked Out Of Taxi For Kissing Files New Lawsuit: VIDEO" »

California Man Sues Little Caesars for Denying Health Benefits to Husband

A former Little Caesars employee has filed a lawsuit accusing the Detroit-based pizza chain of denying employees health insurance benefits for legally married same-sex couples, Reuters reports

Caesars-logoThe lawsuit was brought in state Superior Court in Orange County, regional headquarters for the nation's third-largest pizza chain, by Frank Bernard, 47, who said he quit his job after Little Caesars refused to extend coverage to his husband of six years.

"I didn't want anything special, I just wanted the same benefits package as heterosexual couples," Bernard said at a news conference in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit names Little Caesars Enterprises and its parent company, Ilitch Holdings, as defendants, accusing them of discriminating against Bernard on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of California law.

It cites a letter Little Caesars presented Bernard explaining a benefits policy that defined "spouse" as "the one person to whom you are legally married under the laws of the state in which you reside, including common law spouse, and who is the opposite gender from you."

Same-sex marriage remains illegal in Michigan, although the voter-approved ban is currently awaiting ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state also has no protection against discrimination in the workplace for LGBT individuals. 

Gloria Allred is representing Bernard. 

Tempe is First Arizona City to Ban Discrimination Against LGBT City Workers in Charter

The citizens of Tempe, Arizona voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve Proposition 475, a change to the city charter that would ban discrimination against LGBT city workers, the Arizona Republic reports:

TempeThe public vote came in the wake of the City Council voting unanimously to approve an ordinance on Feb. 27 that bans discrimination against the LGBT community in areas of housing, employment and public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels. The ordinance, which did not provide protections for Tempe municipal workers, includes exceptions for religious organizations and social clubs.

Businesses or individuals who discriminate in Tempe on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation, U.S. military veteran status, race, color, gender, religion, national origin, familial status, age or disability now face a civil sanction with a fine up to $2,500. The penalty mirrors fines in Phoenix under a similar ordinance.

The ballot measure read:

A proposed amendment to the Tempe City Charter by the City Council.


DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Shall the Tempe City Charter be amended to prohibit discrimination or favor for city positions on the basis of race, color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, familial status, age, political affiliation, disability or United States military veteran status, except as such favor may be authorized by law?

A "YES" vote shall have the effect of amending the Tempe City Charter by including additional categories to be protected from discrimination or favor with respect to city positions.

A "NO" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current charter language.

Advocates hope that the successful passage of Proposition 475 will prompt more Arizona cities to add LGBT protections to existing statues.

Tempe, Arizona Votes Today On Proposition Protecting LGBT People From Employment Discrimination

TakeiThe city of Tempe, Arizona will today vote on Proposition 475, a measure that would protect workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, AZ Central reports. While Tempe's city council earlier this year unanimously approved an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance that banned anti-LGBT "discrimination in housing, employment and accommodations at restaurants and hotels, but includes exceptions for religious organizations and social clubs," this latest proposition would go a step further, mandating workplace rights for LGBT people: 

"It's a very important step for the community to signal publicly that all of its citizens are welcomed, and all of its residents will enjoy the same rights and response as others when it comes to issues of non-discrimination," said former Tempe Mayor Neil Giuliano, who was among the nation's first openly gay mayors and is CEO of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. 

If Proposition 475 is successful, Tempe would become the first Arizona city to include sexual orientation, gender identity and U.S. military veteran status in a city charter as protected classes from employment discrimination. To abolish the rights, any future council would have to take the issue back to the voters…

Tempe's gay workers now are protected against discrimination under a hodgepodge of city personnel rules.

Tempe leaders and Equality Arizona, a LGBT-rights group backing the measure, want those civil rights enshrined in the city charter...

The city ordinance bans discrimination in housing, employment and accommodations at restaurants and hotels, but includes exceptions for religious organizations and social clubs.

You can read the entire proposition for yourself, AFTER THE JUMP...

(Photo via Facebook)

Continue reading "Tempe, Arizona Votes Today On Proposition Protecting LGBT People From Employment Discrimination" »

World Net Daily Founder Joseph Farah Argues That Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Protected 'Sexual Orientation'

FarahIn a WorldNetDaily column yesterday, founder and editor-in-chief Joseph Farah attempted to argue that opposing same-sex marriage can be considered its own form of "sexual orientation" and should therefore be protected under non-discrimination laws.

Citing this month's story of the anti-gay New York wedding venue that was ordered to pay a $13,000 fine after refusing service to a same-sex couple, Farah argues that the owners, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, were simply following their own Biblical-based "sexual orientation" 

Writes Farah

Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman?

The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others.

Farah then proceeds to wrap up his nutty column by logically tying the gay rights movement with Islamic radicals:

When “non-discrimination” becomes victimization of those with different religious and moral convictions, we literally have the establishment of a state religion and, effectively, the repeal of the First Amendment. [...]

I only see that kind of coercion demanded among two groups of people today – those who believe in the unlimited power of the state as their “god” and others who believe their god wants them to kill or subjugate all “infidels.”

[via Right Wing Watch]


Towleroad - Blogged