Showing posts with label Gay Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Discrimination. Show all posts

August 20, 2018

San Francisco Gay Police Officer Sues City for Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

                                                                            
                                                                           


                               







A San Francisco police officer was harassed because of his sexual orientation in a yearlong bullying campaign by superiors that only got worse when he reported the behavior, according to a lawsuit filed this week against the city.
Brendan Mannix, 28, accused members of the Police Department of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination based on his sexual orientation, and retaliating against a whistle-blower. Mannix’s attorneys filed the suit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court.
Mannix said two sergeants at Central Station frequently made comments about his sexual orientation, including calling him a “queen,” “too dramatic” and insulting his masculinity, attorney Lawrence Organ wrote. When he tried to report the behavior, Mannix allegedly faced retaliation, and he said the department didn’t do anything to stop the harassment. 
The Police Department said it could not comment on the lawsuit but takes “allegations of discrimination and officer misconduct seriously and will thoroughly investigate all complaints.”
“The San Francisco Police Department is committed to diversity, tolerance and respect for the public and all of our members,” said David Stevenson, a police spokesman. “Department members are sworn to hold each other accountable and required to act swiftly to report any misconduct.”
The San Francisco city attorney’s office said it has not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment on it.
“The city of San Francisco, including the Police Department, has been a leader on LGBT rights for decades and remains committed to providing a safe and respectful work environment for all,” said John Coté, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office.
Mannix — who is still employed as a San Francisco police officer — graduated from the police academy in May 2015 and was assigned to the Richmond Station, where he completed his field training over a probationary period.
In the fall of 2016, he transferred to the Central Station, where officers are assigned to patrol the Financial District, the Embarcadero, Chinatown and North Beach.
That’s when the trouble started, Organ said.
“Mr. Mannix quickly noticed the ‘Old Boys’ Club’ atmosphere of the station: Anyone who did not fit a precise mold — broadly speaking, straight, cisgender, white and male — was targeted for mistreatment; those who complained about it were treated even worse,” Organ wrote.
The bulk of Mannix’s accusations focus on two sergeants. One suggested Mannix was in a sexual relationship with the other gay officer at the station, and when Mannix did or said something the sergeant believed was stereotypically gay, he would say “ugh, you gays!” or “God, you gays!” Organ said.
The sergeant, Organ said, would also mock Mannix’s hair style and physical appearance, making comments like, “Is that hair big enough?!” and “How much do you weigh? One hundred pounds soaking wet?”
In one instance, when they discovered a dead body in the water at night, the sergeant told him, “don’t be such a queen,” when Mannix said he was cold, Organ said.
Mannix later confronted the two sergeants in a station conference room, asking them to stop the harassment, Organ said. The second sergeant, he said, got in Mannix’s face and told him, “if you think I am a bully, file a f—ing complaint.” In another instance, a sergeant “talked positively about how ‘back in the day,’ the police would ‘round up’ all of the ‘trannies’ ” who were prostitutes, which Mannix found offensive and concerning, his attorney said.
Mannix claims the sergeants then began retaliating against him. In April 2017, he chased a robbery suspect down Market Street and radioed for backup. No one from his station immediately showed up to help and Mannix apprehended the suspect himself, Organ said. Officers from a neighboring station eventually arrived on the scene to assist, he said.
The alleged harassment began to take a toll, Organ said, prompting Mannix to take a three-month leave beginning May 1, 2017, to “maintain his mental health.”
When he returned in August, Mannix filed a formal complaint, but the sergeant who took the report was “dismissive” and omitted many of the incidents he reported, Organ said. The complaint was later closed.
In September, Mannix and his partner responded to a domestic violence call and the suspect shot at them, forcing them to retreat. Backup later arrived and shot the man. Mannix complained that he had to accompany the suspect to the hospital, where he waited through the night, spending more than 12 hours on shift.
Mannix said he was later given unfavorable assignments at the station.
He was later summoned into a meeting with a lieutenant to discuss the harassment complaints with his sergeant. The sergeant “told him that he had inappropriately addressed her and violated policy by discussing an active Internal Affairs investigation,” Organ said.

Evan Sernoffsky is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: esernoffsky@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @EvanSernoffsky 
Evan Sernoffsky is a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle specializing in criminal justice, crime and breaking news. He’s covered some of the biggest Bay Area news stories in recent memory, including wildfires, mass shootings and criminal justice reform efforts in San Francisco. He has given a voice to victims in some of the region’s biggest tragedies, carefully putting himself in challenging situations to make sure their stories are told. He works out of San Francisco’s Hall of Justice where he keeps watch on the city’s courts and hits the streets to expose the darker side of a city undergoing rapid change. He moved to the Bay Area from Oregon where he grew up and worked as a journalist for several years.

August 17, 2018

Man’s application rejected as authorities say he did not walk, dress or act like he was gay


 Refugees, mostly from Syria and Afghanistan, at the Westbahnhof train station in Vienna in September 2015. Photograph:   Christoph Schlessmann/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Refugees, mostly from Syria and Afghanistan, at the Westbahnhof train station in Vienna in September 2015. Photograph: Christoph Schlessmann/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
This story appeared on the Irish Times and written Derek Scally 
An Afghan man seeking asylum in Austria because he is homosexual has had his application rejected because he didn’t appear sufficiently gay for the migration authorities.
The 18-year-old man sought refugee status in 2016 because he said he faced persecution in Afghanistan. The application was refused because, in the words of the official, “neither your walk, your affectations nor your clothes give even the slightest indication that you could be homosexual”.
The asylum case-worker noted that the man, who was living in a hostel with other underage migrants, had been involved in fights, indicating “a potential for aggression . . . that would not be expected from a homosexual”.
Other reports from the hostel suggested the young man preferred small groups or his own company, prompting the official to ask: “Are homosexuals not more the sociable type?” A gay loner, the report adds, is not behaviour that “fits with an alleged homosexual”.
The official goes on to dismiss as “completely unthinkable” his claims that non-homosexual youths could have kissed him. “If you had really done that with a non-homosexual youth, then you would have received a terrible beating.” 
Finally, the official dismissed a claim the Afghan asylum applicant felt drawn to his own sex from the age of 12.
“In an under-sexualised society like Afghanistan, in which there are no public sexual allurements through fashion and advertising, it is not very likely to have been ‘sexualised’ so young.”
The final ruling of the official: “You are not homosexual and, on your return to Afghanistan, have nothing to fear.”

Taboo

Homosexuality in Afghanistan is largely taboo and often linked with prostitution and paedophilia. After their takeover, the Taliban criminalised all non-heterosexual relationships outside marriage and executed in public men and women accused of adultery and same-sex acts. 
After the American invasion in 2001, a handbook for US marines noted that “homosexual behaviour is relatively common, but taboo, in rural Afghanistan, because there are no other outlets for normal sexual energies”. European and Austrian courts have ruled that homosexuality can be a legitimate reason for asylum if returning a gay man or lesbian to their homeland meant they faced likely persecution.
Even Austria’s migration authority admits in its 118-page report that bisexuals, homosexuals and transsexuals in Afghanistan face “brutal rejection” by mainstream society.
NGOs, the report continues, report of gay men being detained, robbed, raped and even killed. But the migration authority ends its report by telling the young man: “you are not homosexual, you just want to trick the authority.”
Determining homosexuality as grounds for asylum has proven one of the trickiest issues for authorities in Germany and Austria on the front lines of the 2015-2016 migrant surge. But a leading Austrian gay group said on Wednesday that the report, leaked to Vienna’s Falter magazine, was “so filled with prejudice, stereotype and cliche” that it disqualified itself.
The 18-year-old Afghan man has appealed the decision. The asylum authority is standing firm, saying that “viewed objectively, one cannot assume that the person in question is, in fact, homosexual”.

July 31, 2018

Alaska Airlines Bumped Gay Couple To Make Room For Straight One to Seat Together









Image: David Cooley



 “I have never been so discriminated against while traveling before,” Cooley, owner of iconic Los Angeles gay bar The Abbey, wrote in a public Facebook post. He said he and his travel companion were “removed” from their flight “to give preferential treatment to a straight couple.”
“After my traveling companion and I had been seated in our assigned seats for a while, we were approached by the flight attendant and my companion was asked to move from his premium seat to coach, so a couple could sit together,” Cooley wrote. “I explained that we were a couple and wanted to sit together. He was given a choice to either give up the premium seat and move to coach or get off the plane.”
Cooley and his travel companion decided they “could not bear the feeling of humiliation for an entire cross-country flight,” and so they deplaned. 


“I cannot believe that an airline in this day and age would give a straight couple preferential treatment over a gay couple and go so far as to ask us to leave,” he added.
At the end of his Facebook post, Cooley called on LGBTQ people to boycott Alaska Airlines.
“Thank you to Delta Air Lines for getting us home safe,” Cooley wrote. “If you are an #LGBT person, please spend your travel dollars with an LGBT friendly airline like Delta.”
A spokesperson for Alaska Airlines told NBC News the incident is currently being investigated, claiming the situation arose after “a couple was mistakenly assigned the same seats as another couple in Premium Class.” 
“We are deeply sorry for the situation, and are investigating the details while communicating directly with the guests involved to try and make this right,” the spokesperson said. “Alaska Airlines has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination of any kind, and our employees value inclusion for our guests and each other.”
The claims against Alaska Airlines are not new to the industry. Over the past several years, passengers flying Southwest AirlinesAmerican AirlinesEmirates and others have claimed to have experienced anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
by Tim Fitzsimons
NBC News

June 16, 2018

Men Can Not Give Blood in America{ There is no Medical Reason Only Political



This page by Josh and Levi is in THENIB. I thought it is a simple page yet powerful enough and it should be spread on a day like yesterday (and everyday) which we have set aside to bring attention about the discrimination about blood and Gay men. Yes blood which at one time it used to scared doctors and All other medical peronnel is no longer scary, I hope. We went from using blood which is always been a life saver to use it as an instrument of division and discrimnation. Blood still blood. It still saves lives. Gay men should not be set aside as not capable, not good enough to save our borthers and sisters lives with or blood. This is one more brick on the wall of discrimination and like all other walls not grounded on truth it will have to fall.🦊Adam Gonzalez



It’s 2018, and Gay Men Still Can’t Give Blood in America

Posted Today 

June 4, 2018

67%of The US Approves of Gay Marriage But There Are Other Discriminations People Are not as Aware

(CNN)      

A majority of adults in the US approve of same-sex marriage in the eyes of the law. In fact, according to a Gallup poll taken in May, the largest majority ever (67%) say marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized.
Does that mean LGBTQ+ rights are done? Everyone is equal now? Not necessarily.
The 2015 US Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples can marry nationwide was an important milestone for the community. But while about 25 out of the 61 usable questions asked on LGBTQ+ issues in 32 polls from 2015 to today have been about marriage, polling demonstrates there are more hurdles to come.
In 2015, Suffolk/USAToday conducted a poll on the levels of discrimination against gays and lesbians. A plurality of adults -- 44% -- say gays and lesbians face "some discrimination," while 28% say they face a great deal, 15% only a little and 9% none at all. 
Among the issues LGBTQ+ people may face, job and housing discrimination have often been asked about in polling. In an early 2018 Public Religion Research Institute poll, 70% said they were in favor of laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in jobs, public accommodations and housing. 
These numbers have remained steady throughout surveys in the last few years, with a 2016 CNN/ORC pollreporting 75% supported laws that guarantee equal protection for transgender people in jobs, housing and public accommodations, and 80% supported laws protecting gays and lesbians. 
Most people oppose allowing small businesses or companies to refuse service to same-sex couples, with the March 2018 PRRI poll showing 57% opposing allowing store owners to refuse service and 37% favoring it. 
Quinnipiac had asked the same question in 2015, finding that 30% said business should be allowed to refuse services. Respondents were then prompted with "what if the business says homosexuality violates its owners' religious beliefs?" When that was the case, 42% said they should be allowed to refuse service. 
In 2016, Mississippi and North Carolina sparked controversy by passing legislation that restricted transgender access to restrooms. Since then, surveys show relatively stable results of mild support for allowing people to use the restrooms that match their gender identities, as opposed to their biological sexes at birth.
February 2017 PRRI poll found that 50% opposed a law that would require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sexes at birth, and 38% were in favor. In one of the first polls to ask after the issue was raised in 2016, CNN found almost the same numbers, with 57% opposing and 38% favoring. 
North Carolina repealed its law a year after it passed.
Debates continue today as to whether transgender people should be allowed to serve in the US military, but polling shows considerable support. A Quinnipiac poll in July 2017 had 68% in support and 27% in opposition.
In December 2010, Congress repealed the law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. A month before, a McClatchy-Marist poll had asked whether the current Congress should repeal the policy and respondents were split, with 47% saying it should repeal and 48% saying Congress should not.
By Grace Sparks, CNN

October 10, 2017

Child of Same Sex Couple is Refused Passport in Dublin



A UK-based Swordswoman who is in a same-sex marriage has accused the State of discrimination after it refused to issue one of her daughters with an Irish passport.

 Catherine and Hannah with their children

Irish citizen Catherine Brancaleone-Phelan, who is originally from River valley but now living in Brighton, entered into a civil partnership with Hannah, a London-based firefighter, in 2010. The couple was later married in October 2015.
In November 2014, Catherine gave birth to daughter Kathleen after a friend agreed to act as a donor. Hannah also became pregnant through the same donor and a second daughter, Rilee, was born in May 2016.
However, the family’s happiness was shattered when their youngest child was refused an Irish passport because Catherine was named on Rilee’s birth cert as ‘parent’, as opposed to ‘father’ or ‘mother’.
Their eldest daughter was automatically entitled to an Irish passport on the basis that Catherine was named as her mother on the birth certificate. Catherine is now pregnant with twins and the couple faces the prospect of not being able to secure Irish citizenship for one of their four children.
Catherine and Hannah had been hoping to move back to Ireland in the near future. However, the State’s refusal to issue Rilee with a passport due to this anomaly has scuppered their plans, particularly in light of the uncertainty caused by Brexit.
Catherine said: “Despite Ireland being seen around the world as a champion of same-sex marriage, I believe that the State is discriminating against one of our children based on our family status. Our particular scenario should have been provided for when the legislation for marriage equality was being prepared.”
She added: “We have been fighting this for over a year now. I am absolutely sickened at how we have been treated by my country. As far as I am concerned, this ends any thoughts of ever returning home – my home is in the UK now. I am utterly ashamed of Ireland.
“The fact is that the Irish passport office has decided against issuing my second daughter with an Irish passport because my wife Hannah gave birth to her rather than me, but within our marriage. I am her legal parent and named on her birth cert. There are no similar issues with getting my first daughter a British passport, as although I gave birth to her, the UK has the decency and fairness to recognize both her legal parents and their respective nationalities.”
Senator David Norris has raised the couple’s situation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney. 
In a letter to Senator Norris outlining the reason for the refusal of the passport, Minister Coveney said the question must be looked at with reference to Irish law and, in particular, the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956.
He wrote: “Section 7 of the 1956 Act addresses citizenship by descent and provides that a person is an Irish citizen from birth if at the time of his or her birth either parent was an Irish citizen – although an additional requirement of registration is imposed in respect of children born outside the island of Ireland where the Irish citizen parent was also born outside the island of Ireland.
“We note that Rilee’s birth mother is Hannah Branceleone-Phelan who, you advise, is not an Irish citizen. For the purposes of Irish law, and in particular in this case, for the purposes of the 1956 Act, a parent is understood to mean either the ‘mother’ or ‘father’ of the child.
 “Under Irish law, the mother of a child is the person who gives birth to the child or a female adapter of the child. As the birth mother is not an Irish citizen, Rilee cannot be regarded as an Irish citizen.”
However, Catherine has argued that the reference to having an Irish ‘parent’ in the 1956 Act is a non-gender specific way of referring to a mother or father.
“I am Rilee’s legal parent,” she added. “Therefore, by gender definition, I am her mother.”

Story by Tony McCullagh
Dublin People



September 10, 2017

Trump's Justice Dept. Defending Anti Gay Baker in Court~Another Let Down for the LGBT Community



Focus Features’ historical drama about an interracial couple that found themselves at the center of a Supreme Court case, “Loving,” was recently No. 1 at the indie box office.




"A couple walks in a bakery. They are getting married and want something special, they heard this particular bakery is pretty good. The baker takes a look at them, put his order pad down and says "I can not bake you a cake!" The puzzled couple are perplexed and asked him,  why not? 
He looks at them with contempt and says "I don't bake, I don't do work for a biracial couple. It offends me and my beliefs of separation of the races. I followed the book of ________ and it forbids me to do work for some one who has broken their ethnicity and mixed their genes by getting married"

If this were to happen there is no question that the baker might even be arrested depending on what locality. What would be the difference between a biracial couple getting married and a gay couple? 40 Yrs ago in many parts of the South helping a biracial couple in their wedding would be one of the worse things a white baker could do, (He would have his business burnt to the ground).
Not today because the Supreme Court reversed itself and saw it as pure, simple discrimination by using faith or religion to do something that was wrong and illegal.

This is as simple as two same sex partners getting married or joining the service. It was going to be gloom and doom they said (Queen of the South as I call him Sen. Linsey Grahm said it more than once on ending DADT) but it's been years on both occurrences and straights still get married without a thought of how a gay couple's marriage might affect them and in the military gay service members have excelled themselves. Have not rape one single soldier, the same cannot be said of straight Marines and Navy Personnel as cases brought forward by enlisted and commission female soldiers have said in sworn testimony.

You would think the same would be true for refusing a gay couple service in a public, licensed establishment. But these people have not given up. May be it would take them to pass on and be replaced by newer generations and then everybody would ask, two water fountains one for whites and one for blacks or worse yet one saying for whites only and no water fountain for blacks n the vicinity? No cake for a couple getting married?? How low?~~~~~~~

NPR.org:

On the campaign trail last year, after a tragic attack on an Orlando nightclub left 49 people dead, Donald Trump went out of his way to thank the LGBT community, vowing to protect them from violence and tweeting, "I will fight for you."

Years earlier, in an interview with a magazine that reaches a large gay audience, Trump told The Advocate that he supported gay people serving in the military.

If he were in charge, Trump said in 2000, "sexual orientation would be meaningless. I'm looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them."

Advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are pointing to those remarks again this week after the Trump administration filed court papers siding with a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration because he said it would violate his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case this fall.
 
High Court To Hear Case Of Cake Shop That Refused To Bake For Same-Sex Wedding

"The Justice Department has already made its hostility to the rights of LGBT people and so many others crystal clear," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union. "But this brief was shocking, even for this administration. What the Trump administration is advocating for is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate."

To the Justice Department, however, the case known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission turns on its analysis of the First Amendment, and the cake-maker's rights prevail.

"The government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in a protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write," acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall wrote in his court filing.

Public accommodations laws that bar discrimination by many businesses in Colorado and elsewhere serve an important purpose, but they, "like other laws, must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees," according to a statement from Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam. "That includes the freedom not to create an expression for ceremonies that violate one's religious beliefs." 

Top Lawyer For Civil Rights At Justice Department Leaving After Roughly 6 Months
That point of view is backed by more than 80 congressional Republicans, who are filing their own brief with the Supreme Court. One of them, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, appeared at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday with the owner of the Colorado cake shop, Jack Phillips.

But for LGBT advocates, the Justice Department's stance in a dispute where gay rights clash with religious liberty marks the latest in a series of disappointments. 

In July, the president abruptly announced via Twitter that he wanted to bar transgender people from serving in the military, the apparently surprising top brass at the Pentagon. That same month, the Justice Department signed a court brief arguing that current anti-discrimination laws do not protect people on the basis of their sexual orientation in the workplace. In February, his administration revoked Obama-era guidance for schools on bathroom and locker room access for transgender students. 

No One in National government is more homophobic and actively anti gay that vice president Trump elected, Mike Pence

"The brief filed yesterday is just the latest example of how Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and Jeff Sessions have placed a target on the backs of LGBT people in order to score political points with a shrinking base of supporters, and, for Pence and Sessions in particular, to impose their religious views on the rest of the country," McGowan said.




Featured Posts

Behind The Back of The Vice-Cheney Family

The Cheneys at former Vice President Dick Cheney's swearing-in in 2005   EMILY DAVIES People ...