WATCH: Jim Obergefell Challenges Republican Candidates on Marriage Equality
Ahead of tonight’s debate, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court marriage equality case notes the lack of support in the GOP presidential field.
Trudy Ring
Through Your Lens: 10 Rainbows From Around The World To Bring A Smile To Your Week
The WorldPost’s “Through Your Lens” series brings you mesmerizing photos taken by social media users in different countries around the world every week.
Rainbows have long evoked a sense of mystery and wonder in popular culture. An Irish legend holds that the rainbow’s end is where leprechauns hide their pot of gold. In Armenian mythology, it is considered the belt of the god Tir. The rainbow has also been the symbol of hope and social change — both the LGBT movement and post-apartheid democratic South Africa use rainbow flags.
And, after seeing these gorgeous photos, we can see why. From Switzerland to Myanmar to Costa Rica, anyone and everyone can enjoy nature’s gift of color, no matter what climate or hemisphere they may be in.
Nafplio, Greece
Maligne Lake, Jasper, Alberta, Canada
Mittelberg, Austria
Mansfield, Victoria, Australia
St. Moritz, Switzerland
Yangon, Myanmar
Moteverde, Costa Rica
Njivice, Montenegro
Russia
Belfast, Ireland
Check out the WorldPost on Instagram for more vibrant photography and tag your Twitter and Instagram photos with #WorldPostGram so we can feature them in our next post.
Related on HuffPost:
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Transparent star Jeffrey Tambor meets Caitlyn Jenner and finds her ‘amazing and gorgeous’
Jeffrey Tambor’s on-screen alter ego on TV’s Transparent has much in common with Caitlyn Jenner.
Both transitioned from male to female late in life and both are the father of several adult children which makes for a lot of drama.
Tambor says he recently met Jenner when the former Olympian had dinner with some cast members from the show.
‘I’m a cisgender male and I’ve been honored with playing this role so I’m humbled when I meet Caitlyn and talk with her – she was fabulous and she is really, really well-versed, and she’s committed,’ Tambor said during at appearance on The Late Late Show With James Corden on Wednesday (5 August).
He also described Jenner as ‘amazing, and gorgeous and very dedicated.’
Tambor is up for a best actor Emmy next month for his performance as Maura Pfefferman and has spoken out on transgender issues since taking on the role.
‘The bottom line about all of this is this is serious business – it’s about safety and lives are at stake,’ he said.
The post Transparent star Jeffrey Tambor meets Caitlyn Jenner and finds her ‘amazing and gorgeous’ appeared first on Gay Star News.
Greg Hernandez
GOP Candidates on Marriage Equality
www.hrc.org/blog/entry/gop-candidates-on-marriage-equality?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed
“Bro-Jobs” Author Talks Straight Man-On-Man Sex And “Repressed Homosexual Desire”
“Sometimes straight men touch each other’s dicks or touch each other’s anuses,” Jane Ward (pictured) tells Queerty in an exclusive interview, “and they do it for a number of reasons that they don’t perceive as sexual.”
The provocative Ward is an associate professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies at University of California Riverside, where she teaches courses in feminist, queer, and heterosexuality studies.
She is also the author of the best-selling Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, which is currently lighting up the blogosphere.
In an exclusive interview, Ward spoke to Queerty about the reasons so many straight-identifying men hookup with each other and the mysterious origins of the word “bro-job.”
Queerty: First, I believe a congratulations is in order. You’re book is currently #1 on Amazon’s Gay & Lesbian Nonfiction list.
Jane Ward: I have to say I’m delighted, but I’m also surprised. I was not expecting so many people to be interested. I think it’s triggering for a lot of people. Gay men have an investment in it. I’ve also gotten a lot of feedback from bi-identified people. And of all these people — I’d say, 95 percent — have not actually read the book yet, so that’s interesting. And then this word “bro-job” got thrown into the mix which, interestingly, I don’t even use in the book. But now that’s sort of taken on a life of it’s own.
Did you coin the term “bro-job” or did it emerge from comment boards on the internet?
I wish I had coined that term, but I did not. I do describe in the book what could arguably be called “bro-jobs,” but I never once use that word. So later, it’s sort of like a game of telephone, four blogs down the line I’m reading stuff that says “Jane Ward has written an entire book about ‘bro-jobs’.” I just had to laugh. But also I worried for the gay men who would be like “Oh, of course I’m going to buy that!” and think it’s going to be something more pornographic than it is. So hopefully they won’t be disappointed. There are some hot photos in the book, for sure!
OK, so if it’s not “an entire book about ‘bro-jobs’,” what is it about?
Well, there’s been a lot of interest in the past 10 or 15 years in the broader culture on the subject of sexual fluidity, but the attention has focused almost exclusively on women. You know, girls who hookup or make out with girls at parties or at the club or whatever for the attention of straight male onlookers. Or it has focused on mostly Black but also Latino men on the down-low. And so the book emerged, in part, out of the question: Who’s left out of this conversation about sexual fluidity? Well, it’s straight white men. But do they not also have a more complex sexuality than we have imagined, and, if they do, then why are we not talking about it? This book is about shining the spotlight on what straight white men are up to with one another.
So what are they up to with one another?
A lot! When writing the book, I did not do any interviews with straight-identified men themselves. I looked at historical documents, military documents, a lot of photographic evidence, news reports, and personal ads placed by people claiming to be straight-identified men. I looked at the Hells Angels biker gang. I looked at research on the history of straight-identified men having sex with men in public bathrooms. I looked at examples in popular culture.
A lot of people have conducted research on sex between straight-identified men, but often they are looking at one particular context. Like prisons, for instance. Often what those researchers conclude is: These are straight-identified men who are engaging in temporary homosexual sex acts under very unique circumstances. In prison, no women are sexually available and so straight men are doing this out of deprivation.
What I argue in the book is that straight men actually manufacture opportunities to have sexual contact with one another all the time in pretty much any environment, whether it’s constrained or not, whether women are available or not.
What makes a straight-identifying man who has sex with men different from a bisexual man?
In the book, I ask the question: Might it be productive to allow people to choose their own sexual orientation? To let them pick the label?
When straight-identified people engage in homosexual sex and they have no interest whatsoever in bi identification or gay identification, they want nothing to do with queer subculture, they’re deeply invested in heteronormativity, they feel very comfortable with straightness, they want to be understood as straight, then it’s actually most useful to say these people are straight.
If we’re thinking of bisexuality or homosexuality as purely technical descriptions of sex acts and not sexuality identities, then yes, whenever somebody is engaged in homosexual sex we could say that it’s homosexual. But that doesn’t tell us anything about the identity of the person involved or the cultural context in which that sex is occurring.
Homosexual sex and desire is basically part of the human condition. It’s what all humans do. The difference among us is how we understand those sex practices, and straight people understand what they’re doing very differently than bi or gay people.
How exactly do they understand it?
Often the people I write about in the book don’t think what they’re doing is sexual at all. I mean, if you’re a gay man and you put your finger in another man’s anus, there’s a really good chance you think that’s a sexual act. But the straight men I write about who engage in the exact same act don’t think so. They call it a joke, they call it hazing, they call it humiliation, they say “I was drunk,” and it flies under the radar of sexuality because the person engaged in it truly doesn’t have any meaningful attachment to that sex act.
A lot of people would probably argue, “No, that’s not true. They are gay. They’re just expressing repressed homosexual desires.”
I would say this kind of contact between straight people is so common that if the way that we’re going to make sense of it is to say they’re just closeted and repressed and gay then everyone is closeted and repressed and gay, and that does not seem very useful. The vast majority of those people are going to have hetero weddings and they’re going to have kids and they’re going to live out their straight lives and they’re never going to look back on that time they put their finger in another dude’s butt while they were in a fraternity and be like, “I was secretly gay.” That’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is that sometimes straight men touch each other’s dicks or touch each other’s anuses and they do it for a number of reasons that they don’t perceive as sexual.
So what are some of the reasons?
One of the primary reasons they do it, ironically, is as a way of strengthening their heterosexuality and expressing their homophobia. It’s like, “If I can stick my finger in another dude’s butt and I can make a big show of how gross I think it is, and when I’m done I can stand up, still a straight dude, totally unbroken, not a fag, then I’m all the more heterosexual.”
That makes sense when it comes to hazing or drunken debauchery, but what about the guys you mentioned who are placing personal ads looking for other straight men to hookup with? How is that strengthening their heterosexuality?
You have to look at the function of the sex act. Obviously, one function is to get off. But sex acts also have a lot of cultural meaning. When we have sex it helps to build our identity or reinforce something about our identity. When you’re straight and you’re having homosexual sex, you set that sex up in a way that it reinforces your heterosexuality.
If you look at the casual encounters ads on Craigslist, for instance, a lot of the men say they want to watch straight porn together. They want to talk about women and women’s bodies. Some of them want to talk about gang rape of women. Some of them want to talk about sexual conquests in college. There’s a lot of homophobia in the ads with people saying “I don’t want to do any fag shit,” “This is just going to be a hand job,” or whatever.
But those are just anonymous personal ads posted on Craigslist. Anyone could be writing them.
Of course, this is the internet. I did not interview these men. It could be anyone writing these ads. We don’t really know. But certainly what we do know from these ads is that they’re crafted in a way that’s expressing a desire for a kind of sex that would happen between straight men, that would be totally heteroerotic, not homoerotic. They want to drink beer, watch sports, watch straight porn, talk about pussy.
I could be wrong, but I’m queer and I’ve been friends with gay men for 20 years, and this kind of fantasy of talking about vaginas while giving each other hand jobs is not something I’ve seen in gay subculture. Have you?
I can’t say that I have. I also can’t say that I’ve ever met a gay man who has expressed the need to fool around with a woman to affirm or reaffirm his homosexuality.
We live in a heteronormative culture. Straight men, especially in junior high and high school, but even later on, live constantly under threat of someone thinking they might be a fag. So they’re kind of obsessed with constantly performing their heterosexuality.
One way they manage that is by being homophobic, by constantly talking about how other men are fags, because if you can make other men fags, then you’re not a fag. Another way is through these sort of chicken acts of playacting at being gay.
The story is different for gay men. Most people, in the process of coming out, go through the process of dis-identifying with straightness or heterosexual culture. After that, once one is marked as queer, there’s far less work that needs to be done to sustain their queer identity.
OK. Sort of like how once you’ve been made an outcast, you live and think like an outcast.
Right. Because once you’re in that category then the expectations are far lower. Thank god. You’re liberated.
Why do you think gay men are so fascinated by the subject of straight-identifying men having sex with other men?
Well, anecdotally, I think many gay men find it really hot! And I think many gay men have had sex with straight-identified men or are familiar with this dynamic.
From an academic perspective, I think there are a few important reasons. One is that the boundary between straight and gay, or straight and bi, is such a significant part of our daily existence and our claims to nondiscrimination. One of the most expedient gay political arguments is that we are all “born this way” — with the idea being that straight people must accept us if we have no other choice than to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. But this argument leaves very little room for sexual fluidity. It also raises confusion for people about how someone who appears to have been “born straight,” let’s say, could engage in homosexual sex.
I think another reason gay men are so interested in this topic is that many straight men can be such homophobic assholes, that there’s some pleasure in knowing that even straight dudes engage in some of the very same behaviors that they shame gay men for participating in. And I think a lot queer people — not just gay men — have an impulse, for better or for worse, to want to swell our ranks, to feel like our tribe is growing, and so we walk around like little gay detectors looking for other people we can claim as one of us.
Related: Five Reasons Every Straight Man Should Go Gay At Least Once Or Five Times
Graham Gremore
Watch This Model Try on 100 Years of Men’s Swimwear in 3 Minutes: VIDEO
From the same team that recapped 100 years of men’s fashion in 3 minutes comes this mesmerizing video showcasing the evolution in men’s swimwear over the past century.
From striped one-piece suits to board shorts, men have been stripping down and showing off their beach bodies in a variety of ways over the years.
Dive into the video below and let us know what your favorite era was in the comments section.
The post Watch This Model Try on 100 Years of Men’s Swimwear in 3 Minutes: VIDEO appeared first on Towleroad.
Kyler Geoffroy
Watch This Model Try on 100 Years of Men’s Swimwear in 3 Minutes: VIDEO
Catholic Boy Scout Troop Rejects Gay Leader
Greg Bourke’s ‘heart is broken’ after learning he would not be allowed to rejoin the Kentucky troop.
Daniel Reynolds
www.advocate.com/boy-scouts-america/2015/08/06/catholic-boy-scout-troop-rejects-gay-leader
Why I Oppose a General Pardon for Historical Convictions for Homosexual Offences
Justin Bengry
UK Labour Party leadership contender Andy Burnham recently proposed automatic pardons for all men convicted of historical homosexual offences that are no longer crimes. This has been an ongoing conversation in the UK, which in 2013 granted WWII Enigma codebreaker Alan Turing a posthumous royal pardon. The issue reappeared in the lead up to this year’s May 7 general election, when Labour’s then-leader Ed Miliband came out in favour of case-by-case pardons for living individuals and also posthumous cases. David Cameron and the Conservatives soon followed suit, likewise promising that if were they to form the next government, men convicted of historical offences would be pardoned. Burnham’s announcement has reinvigorated this question of whether all men should have similar convictions deemed spent, pardoned or erased.
A well-publicised petition supported by Turing’s family, activists like Peter Tatchell and celebrities like Benedict Cumberbatch and Stephen Fry demands that a royal pardon be extended to all men convicted under ‘anti-gay’ laws. More than 600,000 people have signed the petition demanding the state ‘Pardon all of the estimated 49,000 men who, like Alan Turing, were convicted of consenting same-sex relations under the British “gross indecency” law (only repealed in 2003), and also all the other men convicted under other UK anti-gay laws’. As a historian of Britain’s LGBTQ past I cannot sign this petition nor support anything more than pardons for living individuals.
Historians of the ‘queer’ past have expressed deep concerns about the state issuing royal pardons for convictions under outdated and antiquated laws against homosexual sex. As Matt Houlbrook has pointed out, ‘Pardoning Alan Turing might be good politics, but it’s certainly bad history’. The same is even more true of a general pardon that includes further posthumous pardons. I believe it offers too great an opportunity for the state to strategically forget and erase history rather than atone for the damage it has wrought on the lives of queer men.
Bad History
Why is a general pardon bad history? The call for a royal pardon is incredibly ambiguous. It fails to take into account the full scope of same-sex sexual acts and behaviors that were criminalized, and therefore inevitably underestimates significantly the number of men impacted by various laws. By underestimating the number of men affected, a general pardon not only fails to bring justice to victims, but directly implies that state oppression was neither so extensive nor as violent as history shows that it in fact was.
In contrast to the oft-cited 49,000 men convicted for homosexual offenses, the Peter Tatchell Foundation estimates that some ‘50,000-100,000 men were convicted under Britain’s anti-gay laws during the twentieth century’. These figures presumably comprise men, like Turing, who were convicted under Section 11, the infamous Labouchére Amendment, of the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Act criminalized ‘gross indecency’ — any same-sex act short of buggery — committed in public or in private and made it punishable by up to two years imprisonment with or without hard labour. In addition to ‘gross indecency,’ many men were also convicted of ‘importuning’ or ‘soliciting’ other men to have sex. From 1861, consensual anal sex was punishable with life imprisonment. Before that it was a capital offence, with the last executions only in 1835. It was still a felony from 1956. Many men were convicted under these statutes until the 1967 Sexual Offences Act partially decriminalised male homosexual acts. And even then, various homosexual offenses remained on the statute books until the 2003 Sexual Offenses Act came into effect the following year.
Given the state’s history of violently punishing same-sex acts, why should a pardon be restricted only to those, including the dead, convicted of crimes in the twentieth century? Why should men fined or imprisoned in 1935 be worthy of pardons whilst men killed by the state in 1835 should not? There is surely no logical or humane way to fairly dispense justice to men convicted of these historical crimes. Buggery, after all, has been a crime in England since 1533. And if the Peter Tatchell Foundation estimates the need for some 50,000 — 100,000 pardons in the twentieth-century alone, how many should we expect from the previous five centuries?
How are we to determine which specific historical cases would not be crimes today? Not all queer sex is consensual, after all, and cases would inevitably include examples of forced sexual encounters. And what are we to do with cases in which men were convicted of sexual offences with young men and boys? Others have already, sensationally and perhaps strategically, raised the specter of pardoning paedophiles in a general pardon, but there is a reasonable concern given the limits of what we can expect from the historical record. We may have relatively reliable information about the ages of participants in more recent cases, but what of the more distant past? This kind of detail is unlikely to have been preserved. And the legal age of consent is itself historical, having changed over time. Will we judge cases on today’s age of consent, the law at the time of the conviction or using some other metric to apportion guilt and innocence? To answer these questions with any authority assumes a transparent and centuries-long historical record, with documents intact despite age, war and deliberate destruction. It also raises thorny questions about projecting our own sexual values upon the past.
For centuries, lives were destroyed, figuratively and literally; men were executed by the state for homosexual offences. This history should be preserved actively, publicly and loudly. It should not be employed to distract us from the continued struggles of LGBTQ citizens nor from injustices in the present.
Good Politics?
But let’s say for the sake of argument that the current government can make good on its election promise and resolve these issues, or simply choose to disregard them.
David Cameron’s Conservative government is no friend of the UK’s LGBTQ citizens, particularly the weakest and most vulnerable among them. This may be the government that oversaw the introduction of marriage equality, even if it was introduced by Lib Dem coalition partners (and fails to provide for inheritance equality and discriminates against trans people), but equality is hardly a consistent goal for the Conservatives. Many Conservative MPs, in fact, voted against marriage equality, including 43 percent of MPs promoted by David Cameron in a July 2014 reshuffle, and we can only assume that going forward power in the Conservative party will be inflected further in this direction. We see it already.
The current government’s austerity agenda has significant effects on LGBTQ citizens that range across employment, housing and virtually every other service and benefit. Chancellor George Osborne recently announced further cuts, including to housing support for citizens under the age of 25. Ideologically driven, this cut nonetheless disproportionately harms LGBTQ young people who make up 25 percent of urban homeless youth, many of whom have been driven from unwelcoming and even physically dangerous homes. In the same 2015 budget, the Conservative government also ushered in further cuts to mental health provision, another area that should be of particular concern to LGBTQ citizens, who, because of continued persecution, often require recourse to these services in higher proportions than others. Some 48 percent of young trans people, for example, have attempted suicide.
Just as we must not forget the state-sponsored violence against queer men in the past, we cannot be blind to continued injustices directed disproportionately at LGBTQ Britons today. By focussing our attention on the government’s apparent benevolence with regard to the past, a general pardon for past homosexual offences serves to obscure and white-wash the government’s record on LGBTQ issues in the present.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows men convicted of homosexual offenses to apply to have a conviction declared ‘spent,’ meaning that while it still exists, it can be effectively ignored. While for some this option might satisfy the moral responsibility of the state, it admittedly does little to ameliorate the emotional and historical wounds of the past. It also requires men to petition the state for any redress. I sympathise with activists’ position that the onus of responsibility for addressing past injustices should not be placed on the shoulders of its victims. Still, while I would unambiguously agree that any living individual who today still suffers the indignity of having been convicted of past homosexual offenses should have recourse to have that conviction erased, be pardoned or receive some form of restitution, I cannot endorse an uncritical and disengaged general pardon. Yet, something further is needed.
Public historian Claire Hayward has noted that Britain is one of numerous countries with no public memorial to its persecution of its own LGBTQ citizens. Unlike a public memorial, a pardon makes no attempt ‘to understand the past,’ as she rightly points out. A monument to the victims of state-sponsored LGBTQ persecution instead offers the opportunity to engage with the past, with the nature of persecution and with ongoing questions of sexuality and gender. Such a monument would highlight the state’s acknowledgement of its own role in perpetrating past injustices and also signal its support for the need to celebrate diversity in the present.
I am a gay man but I’m also a historian, and I’m deeply invested in the life stories, defeats and celebrations of the past. I’m profoundly concerned that the state not be permitted to overshadow the injustices it meted out in the past with strategic (if, for some, well-intentioned) gestures in the present. Neither the British state nor its citizens should ever be permitted to forget or to sweep aside its role in the destruction of queer lives. The state must therefore be held publicly accountable. Far better to write these injustices indelibly in stone, than to erase the past with a pardon that exonerates the state as much if not more than the victims to which it purports to bring justice.
Justin Bengry is an Honorary Research Fellow at Birkbeck, University of London and lead researcher on the Historic England LGBTQ heritage and mapping project Pride of Place. Justin’s research focuses on the intersection of homosexuality and consumer capitalism in twentieth-century Britain, and he is currently revising a book manuscript titled The Pink Pound: Queer Profits in Twentieth-Century Britain. He tweets from @justinbengry
This post originally appeared on Notches: (re)marks on the history of sexuality, a blog devoted to promoting critical conversations about the history of sex and sexuality across theme, period and region. Learn more about the history of sexuality at Notchesblog.com
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Shocking video reveals what happens when job seeker reveals the fact he’s gay at interview
Two Swedish filmmakers have gone viral in their home country with a video that threatens to dent the country’s image as a haven of tolerance towards LGBTI people.
Actors Konrad Ydhage and Olle Öberg runs a YouTube channel called STHLM Panda and film themselves engaging in pranks and self-described ‘social experiments.’
‘We received a message by one of our followers,’ Konrad told Gay Star News.
‘He told us the he got fired from his job in a warehouse when his boss found he was gay.
‘He also told us that they were hiring. We applied for the job. Both got called to interview. We brought hidden cameras with us to find out if this was true.’
The video is below. To watch with English subtitles, press the box ‘subtitles’ next to the settings gearwheel.
Olle entered the interview appearing to be the perfect candidate, saying he had three years of previous warehouse experience and displaying plenty of eagerness for the role.
Konrad, on the other hand, purposefully said he had no experience and shows little enthusiasm. Asked if he has a license to drive trucks, Olle says yes while Konrad says no.
Olle’s interview appears to be going well. Until, that is, he mentions that he has a boyfriend. At this stage, the interviewer – whose identity has been protected – changes his tone. He cuts short the interview, tells Olle that ‘a lot of people have applied for this job’, and even avoids shaking hands with him as he gets up to leave.
Later, Konrad was called and told that he was being offered the job. The interviewer told him, ‘2-3 people applied. You were the best.’ Olle, on the other hand, is informed that he has not been successful.
‘We knew he would be slightly homophobic but we didn’t expect the conversation to take the sharp turn it took,’ Konrad told Gay Star News. ‘Nor did we foresee that he would not shake his hand. To be honest you don’t expect people to be like this 2015.’
‘LGBT is pretty accepted in the open in Sweden. But I believe there’s still much to do about prejudices.’
Swedish paper The Local showed the video clip to Clas Lundstedt, press spokesman for the Swedish Discrimination Ombudsman. He said that he was unable to comment on any specific case that had not been investigated by the Ombudsman, but confirmed, in his view, that it appeared to be ‘a case of discrimination.’
He said that proving cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation could be very difficult but recommended that anyone in a similar situation try to save as much detail as possible to support their case.
‘That could be saving email conversations, speaking to potential witnesses and also try to record as much about the circumstances as you can remember, so that it will emerge in a potential investigation. A video or audio recording can be used as evidence in some cases.’
Konrad said that he and Olle were pleased to have prompted a conversation around LGBT workplace discrimination, and at how the video had been widely viewed – clocking up almost 200,000 views in less than two days.
After posting the video online, Konrad said that Olle today received an email from the boss who featured in the film, in which he expressed remorse, and said that he knew who had tipped them off about his homophobic behavior.
‘I’m starting to realize that that my way of seeing things is very oppressive and degrading. Even if I don’t deliberately reject gay people I’ve seen them negatively,’ he said in the email, translated from Swedish, provided to us by STHLM Panda (included below).
The boss went on to say that the former employee has received an apology and been offered his job back.
‘I deeply regret how I acted, I’m willing to change.
‘I’m very remorseful as I said, but I hope this will lead to me becoming a better manager.’
STLHM Panda were unable to tell us if the former employee had confirmed receiving an apology or a new job offer. Konrad said they had chosen not to reveal the identity of the boss concerned because, ‘We would not gain anything from destroying his life, nor exposing the company. It could also lead to him getting beat up.’
‘He emailed us today, he was really remorseful for his behavior. We believe everybody deserves a second chance.’
Sweden is regarded as one of the most accepting and liberal countries within Europe with regard to LGBT rights. It is illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation, with discrimination described as ‘unjust or offensive treatment that is related to homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality,’ according to LGBT rights organization RSFL. Discrimination according to gender identity is also illegal.
Ulrika Wreterlund, chairperson of RFSL, told GSN that Swedes who believe they may have experienced discrimination, ‘should contact their union and/or the Swedish discrimination ombudsman.’
The email sent to Olle Öberg of STHML Panda
The post Shocking video reveals what happens when job seeker reveals the fact he’s gay at interview appeared first on Gay Star News.
David Hudson
You must be 18 years old or older to chat
