Court exempts Texas company from anti-discrimination law
A panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that Texas-based conservative Christian business Braidwood Management can indeed discriminate against LGBTQ+ employees and job applicants — or at least it can't be forced not to by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The ruling said that Braidwood is entitled to exemption from Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

According to Adam Pulver, an attorney for nonprofit group Public Citizen, "The decision certainly narrowed down some of the most troubling aspects of the district court's decision."

Pulver referred to the fact that the court upheld some very specific parts of a previous lower court ruling but dropped others that would have covered other employers.

"However, it still leaves a roadmap for other employers to discriminate," Pulver said.

One of the EEOC's arguments against the suit in the first place was the lack of any indication that Braidwood was forced, or would be forced, to employ an LGBTQ+ person in the first place. It seems the threat of the possibility was enough for the conservative organization America First Legal to take action.

"Without resolution, potential penalties hang over plaintiffs' heads like Damocles' sword," wrote Judge Jerry Smith, who was nominated to the appeals court by former President Ronald Reagan.

"Gender identity is real," judge declares
On Wednesday June 21, US District Judge Robert Hinkle declared that Florida's ban on state Medicaid payments for gender affirming care was invalid. He cited the constitutional right to equal protection under the 14th amendment, as well as the Affordable Care Act's prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex.

It came as no surprise to those watching the issue. Earlier this month, Hinkle partially blocked Florida from enforcing a ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care. Other US district court judges have blocked similar state laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, and Oklahoma.

Of those advocating for such laws, Hinkle said in his ruling that "many people with this view tend to disapprove all things Transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person's Transgender existence."

"The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear," Hinkle said in his ruling.