Opinions
Hate once again rears its ugly head in D.C.
Combating the troubling signs of anti-Semitism


(Washington Blade file photo by Aram Vartian)
Too often in the District of Columbia today we are seeing hate rear its ugly head. I am not sure if what is happening here and around the nation can all be laid at the feet of Donald Trump. There clearly is more to it.
In D.C. it was reported āhate crimes motivated by hatred of a religion increased last year, withĀ a rise in the number ofĀ crimes targeting Jews and Muslims. Of the incidents spurred by hatred of a particular religion, anti-Semitism was again the leading cause, motivating about 55 percent of those episodes, followed by anti-Muslim sentiment, which spurred about 25 percent. The number of hate crimes targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people also went up last year.ā
I have lived in the District for 40 years having moved here from New York City. It was evident to me then the District was more segregated than I had been used to in New York. I was born in Harlem and my grandparents owned a hardware/housewares store there. I taught school in Harlem and grew up in a home where diversity was valued. My parents who immigrated to the United States to escape the Nazis wanted me to understand different races, cultures and religions. We moved to Washington Heights when I was five but my parents had me travel to a non-denominational nursery school at the Riverside Church.
When I came to the District it seemed to be very segregated and communities came together less than they did in New York. It was all about east and west of the Anacostia River. I was smart enough to understand racism existed then and still does today and is unhealthy for everyone. We continue to have structural racism in the District and we must work every day to change that. We must fight it and speak out against it. We can never let racist comments go unchallenged and must stand up to hate.
As a Jew and a gay man I still benefit from what we understand to be āwhite privilege.ā Nevertheless, I would expect everyone to also speak out and fight anti-Semitism and homophobia whenever they occur. Today that seems not to be happening as often as it should in D.C.
The District now has a population of 700,000 and we have not abolished hate.
We must find a way to live together and respect each other if we are to become the great city we all want us to be. We need to provide a great education for all our children and job opportunities for all our residents. We need to fight for real equality and that includes economic equality.
So this recent incident of anti-Semitism takes us away from moving toward the better city we want for all. When Council member Trayon White first made his comments about āthe Rothschilds controlling the weatherā I was offended but passed it off as a lack of education and was willing to see him educated about how what he said impacted Jewish people. I heard him make an apology and was willing to accept it. I was even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he gave $500 to Farrakhanās Saviors Day, though not a pass that he gave it from his constituent service fund, that he may not have realized how anti-Semitic Farrakhan is.
But then I read comments from Jonetta Rose Barras, a well-known reporter and writer, make an excuse for Whiteās anti-Semitism and conflate the Jewish people with the policies of the State of Israel (something thatās happening all too often these days). Then Josh Lopez trying to lead what he called a āunity rally,ā not sure why he thought he is the person to do this and what impact he thought he could have, and allow Abdul Khadir Muhammad, a mid-Atlantic representative for Farrakhan to have his megaphone to spew his hateful anti-Semitism and not take back the megaphone and immediately speak out against it publicly. Why were the other speakers silent on this? Why did it take a reprimand from the mayor to get Lopez to apologize? Why has Trayon White yet to speak out and separate himself from the comments of Muhammad?
All of this is both frightening and a blot on the reputation of the District. Clearly we need to educate our children in every part of the city on why hate is wrong. We need to teach that racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-Semitism are wrong and destructive. The question is how we move forward from here. How do we move beyond the attacks on a Jewish member of the Council?
One way is for the Council of the District of Columbia to pass a sense of the Council resolution against anti-Semitism. They could include in that sense of the Council that we will also not accept racism, sexism and homophobia in our city. The mayor should ask the Council to do that and endorse the resolution once it is passed. It would also behoove Josh Lopez to resign from his public post on the Housing Authority as a way to demonstrate he has a real understanding of the situation he exacerbated even if his initial intent was to do some good. There are always repercussions for our actions.
Then in an effort to move beyond this I would hope some of our religious leaders across the District would join together and speak out on these issues. We must find a way to move on and a big part of that is the recognition we must educate our residents and especially our children that as our mayor has said, āHate is wrong and wonāt be tolerated in the District of Columbia.ā
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBT rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
Opinions
Navigating employer-sponsored health insurance, care
One in four trans patients denied coverage for gender-affirming care

Even though 86% of transgender Americans have health insurance, one in four reported being denied coverage for gender-affirming care in the 2015 and 2022 U.S. Transgender surveys. These denials can occur when an insurance plan contains a categorical exclusion of gender-affirming care. It is important to note that transgender employees who receive insurance coverage through their employers are entitled to legal protections.Ā
Employers are responsible for ensuring that the insurance plans they provide do not violate any laws, including anti-discrimination laws. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are legally required to provide employees with equal pay and benefits, including health insurance. This protection now extends to transgender employees after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which clarified that sex discrimination under Title VII includes gender identity discrimination.
Since Bostock, several transgender employees have successfully sued their employers for discrimination because they were denied coverage of gender-affirming care by their employersā insurance. While employers can be held liable under Title VII, it remains unclear whether insurance companies will be held liable under Section 1557, the antidiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in the future.
Mostāif not allācourts have ruled that employers can be held liable for choosing insurance plans with categorical exclusions of gender-affirming care. A categorical exclusion is when an insurance plan has a blanket ban of coverage for certain services. Although discrimination cases generally require proof of intent to discriminate, it is not required of transgender employees because categorical exclusions of gender-affirming care are facially discriminatory (i.e. the policy is explicitly and obviously discriminatory in nature).
In Kadel v. Folwell (2024), the Fourth Circuit court considered the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IX, and ACA claims in a consolidated case considering two state health plans: the State of North Carolinaās insurance plans for teachers and West Virginiaās Medicaid program. The Fourth Circuit court held that it is impossible to ban coverage of gender-affirming care without discriminating against transgender people because (1) gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical diagnosis which requires medically necessary treatment; and (2) the services provided under gender-affirming care are also provided to cisgender patients for other medical diagnoses. In short, there is sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent because categorical exclusions of gender-affirming care are facially discriminatory. Under Kadel, the Fourth Circuit also ruled that a policy does not have to explicitly exclude transgender patients. āRewording the policies to use a proxy,ā like sex changes or sex modification, is still facially discriminatory.
Along a similar vein, in Lange v. Houston County (2024), the Eleventh Circuit court found that the Sheriffās Officeās categorical exclusion of gender-affirming care was a violation of Title VII. Agreeing with the reasoning in Kadel, the court cited a 1991 Supreme Court Case which ruled that proof of intent to discriminate is not needed for facially discriminatory policies. The court also held Anthem Blue Cross liable because third-party administrators in the Eleventh Circuit (i.e., Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) can be held liable as an employer if they make employment decisions as the authorized agent of an employer. However, this decision is unique to the said jurisdictions, and the liability of third-party administrators/insurance providers remains generally unclear. Moreover, the decision is not final because the court granted an en banc appeal, and a panel of all twelve judges re-heard the case in February 2025. The decision after re-hearing remains to be seen.
Recently, Executive Order 14168 and the EEOCās motion to dismiss its lawsuit against Harmony Hospitality on behalf of a transgender worker prompted concerns over transgender employeesā ability to bring federal discrimination claims. While such concerns are understandable, there has yet been any mandate prohibiting the EEOC from issuing right to sue to transgender individuals. In other words, even if the EEOC may not investigate and file lawsuits on behalf of transgender individuals, it does not bar private parties from doing so. Ultimately, the executive branch alone does not have the power to make changes to the Constitution or any federal statutes. It is up to the legislatures to amend laws and the Constitution, and courts to interpret and rule on constitutionality.
Protections Against Discrimination by Insurers Under Section 1557 Remain Unclear
While employers can be held liable for categorical exclusions of gender-affirming care, employees may be less likely to find relief for legal claims against insurers regarding discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Since Bostock, courts have found insurers liable for denying coverage of gender affirming care under Section 1557 of the ACA, extending sex discrimination to include gender identity. Recent litigation surrounding Section 1557 and the new presidential administration may precede a change in this trend.
In May 2024, the Biden administration issued a final rule implementing Section 1557.It reversed the rule put forth by the Trump administration four years prior, which had revised the Obama administrationās interpretation of the statute. The Biden administrationās final rule defined sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Additionally, under the new rule, a wider swath of insurers and third-party administrators that receive federal financial assistance would be subject to Section 1557.
However, in July 2024, a Mississippi District judge granted a nationwide injunction preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing the final ruleās prohibition of sex discrimination with respect to gender identity. Additionally, executive orders during the early days of the Trump administration, and guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services that followed, rescinded wide swaths of Biden-era guidance extending sex discrimination protections to include discrimination based on gender identity. It is not yet clear how the new administrationās position on Section 1557 will impact courtsā decision-making regarding insurer liability and the extent of sex discrimination provisions in relation to gender identity going forward.
As the recent history of Section 1557 demonstrates, executive actions may influence the implementation of statutory antidiscrimination provisions, but do not change the law itself. While employers continue to face liability for discrimination towards employees seeking insurance coverage of gender-affirming care under Title VII, some protections remain on less certain ground as the United States enters a new presidential administration.
Ting Cheung, Luke Lamberti, and Neha Sharma are with Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight.
Commentary
A conversation about queers and class
As a barback, I see our communityās elitism up close

In the bar, on the way to its now-Instafamous bathrooms, thereās a sign that reads, āqueer & trans liberation means economic justice for all.ā
I remember seeing that sign the first week the bar opened, and ever since I often find myself reflecting on that message. I stand fully in agreement. Thatās why laws protecting queers in the workplace are essential, for far too often we are targeted otherwise. It’s also why I love working at the bar, since it provides opportunities for queers from all over the spectrum to earn a living. At a time when I gave myself space to pursue art, it was the bar that enabled me to do so.
Itās one thing to support the LGBTQ community in spirit, but that spirit means jack in a capitalist society if viable economic opportunities donāt exist. Speaking of jack, thereās a fellow barback named Jack who I fangirl over often. Jack is a decade younger than me, but damn I wish I had his sex appeal at his age (or any age, for that matter). He also has a mustache that easily puts mine to shame.
Jack not only agrees but took things one step further. āEconomic inequality IS a queer issue,ā he told me, āespecially as we move into the most uncertain period of American politics I have ever lived through, it is apparent our identity is now a fireable offense.ā
Uncertain is right. Weāre fresh off the heels of a trade bonanza, one caused for literally no reason by our current commander in chief. Yet there emerged a strange division when discussing the trade warās āunintendedā consequences. For working class comrades like Jack and myself, weāre stressed about increasing prices in an already tough economy. But the wealthier echelons of our country had something else on their mind: the spiraling stock market. This alone highlights the story of our economic divide, where the same event produces two separate concerns for two distinct classes.
This is not to say the stock market is not important, but sometimes the media forget many Americans donāt own stock at all, including a vast majority of people between 18 and 29. In fact, according to Axios, the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own 93 percent of the entire stock market, with the richest 1 percent holding $25 trillion ā thatās right, trillion with a ātā ā in market value. So, when the president reversed course on trade, it was less about high prices hurting everyday Americans and more about the dent created in the wealth of the wealthiest. And Iāll admit: that bothers me a lot.
If there is any takeaway from Trumpās trade war, it should be this: Economic inequality is the highest it has been in decades and, if left unchecked, will destroy the fabric of our country. We are steadily moving toward oligarchy statusāif weāre not there already, that isāand it seems to grow worse with each passing year and administration. But in a city of D.C. gays who often skew corporate, I wonder: Are we all on the same page here?
After becoming a barback, I have my doubts. From questions about what else I do, to comments encouraging me to work hard so that I can be a bartender one day, I quickly learned the gay world is not too fond of barbacking. Barebacking, sure, but not barbacking. And hey, I get itāweāre not the alcohol hookup at the bar. Still, we are part of the service industry, and while some people are incredibly kind, youād be surprised at how many turn up their noses at us, too.
Recently, Iāve come to realize my class defines me as much as my orientation does, if not more. Naturally, when you come from a rough neck of the woods like I do, itās easy to feel out of place in a flashy city like D.C., which Jack noticed, too. āAnyone from a working class background could testify to that,ā he said. āI donāt really know anyone from true upper class backgrounds, but Iād imagine their experience is one that leans into assimilation.ā
Assimilation is a key word here, for admittedly gays love to play with the elite. Often, we donāt have children, meaning more money for the finer things in life, but that also means we may not think about future generations much, either. Iāve written before that our insecurity growing up has us ready to show the world just how powerful gays can beāpower that comes in trips to Coachella and Puerto Vallarta, or basking in the lavish houses and toys we own. Thereās already a joke that gays run the government, and corporate gays kick ass at their jobs as well. So, given the choice between fighting inequality and keeping a high-paying job, I must admit I have a hard time seeing where D.C. gays stand.
Admittedly, it worked out in our favor before, given that many corporations catered to our economic prowess over the years. But look at whatās happening now: Many corporations have kicked us to the curb. Protections are being stripped from queers, particularly for our trans brothers and sisters. Law firms are bowing down to Trump, offering hundreds of millions in legal fees just for their bottom line. All of this will hurt both queers and the working class in the long run, so again I ask: Corporate gays, where do you stand? Because if you remain complicit, thatās bad news for us all.
I donāt want to sound accusatory, and I hate being a doomsday type, so allow me to end this on a better note. Strength is not about celebrating when times are good. Arguably, true strength emerges when times get tough. These are tough times, my friends, but that also makes now the perfect opportunity to show the world just how strong we are.
At a time when the world is pressuring us to turn our backs on each other, we must defy them to show up when it counts. Corporate gaysānow more than ever, at a time when the economy is turning its back on queers, we need you. We need you to stand up for the queer community. We need you to make sure no one gets left behind. We need you to show up for us, so that we can show up for you, too.
Ten years ago, the economy didnāt turn queer out of nowhere. The economy turned queer because we made it turn queer.
And if we did it once, surely we can do it again.
Jake Stewart is a D.C.-based writer and barback.
Opinions
On Pope Francis, Opus Dei and ongoing religious intolerance
Argentine-born pontiff died on Monday

āGood Fridayā set the stage for Saturdayās anti-Trump/MAGA āHands Offā protests serving as a timely lead-in to binge-watching Alex Gibneyās two-part HBO political documentary, āThe Dark Money Gameā on Easter Sunday. In āWealth of the Wicked,ā nefarious Opus Dei āSvengali Leonard Leo strategically seduces politically disappointed Catholic Federalist Society billionaires into subsidizing a scheme to ‘pipeline’ malleable conservative judges to take over the Supreme Court and overturn reproductive rights.
A key victory for āOperation Higher Courtā came in 2010 when SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v Federal ElecĀtion CommisĀsion, that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment free political speech rights as individuals ā as long as their unlimited cash donations go to 501 c(4)’s or Super PAC slush funds and not directly to candidates. Twelve years later, in 2022, they got their payoff with the overturning of Roe v Wade by Leo-promoted Catholic justices.
But Leoās political conniving is not the only exploitation of moral corruption. The documentary exposes conservative Christians too.
Gibneyās anti-hero is a former rabid anti-abortion lobbyist named Rev. Robert Schenck. He tells of turning to a fellow conservative in Cleveland, Ohio after Trump won the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 and asking: āAre we really going to do this? Weāre going to choose this man whoās inimical to everything we believe?ā The other evangelical replied: āI donāt care how bad he is. Heās going to get us the court we need.āā
Schenck explains the unholy alliance between Christian conservatives and Big Business. āWhenever you talked about government regulation, the argument was eventually ā āthese same characters who control my business are going to start trying to control your church. So, itās in your best interests that we defang this monsterā ā and that brought a lot of religious conservatives over.ā
And thereās this: āWe have a little aphorism built on a Bible verse: āThe wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous.ā So, yeah, letās baptize the billionairesā money. We can do that ā and it eventually brought together this alliance.ā
Schenck later reveals an intense epiphany that resulted in regret for how much harm he caused. Not so for Leo.
This is an excerpt from Gareth Goreās comprehensive book Opus, for Rolling Stone Magazine:
āDURING THE DONALD TRUMP YEARS, conservatives ā led by Leonard Leo ā took control of the Supreme Court … At one Federalist Society event, his good friend Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas jokingly referred to Leo as the third most powerful man in the world, presumably behind the pope and the president of the United States.ā
On Monday morning, Pope Francis died. I liked this pope, compared to the others. I covered Creating Change during the AIDS crisis when author Paul Monette delivered his brilliant, scathing denouncement of the Catholic Church, then unexpectedly ripped up a portrait of Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI was just crotchety cruel. But Pope Francis ā named for St. Francis of Assisi ā had that big smile and genuinely seemed to care about migrants, the vulnerable and the marginalized ā like us. He even used the word ‘gay’ instead of ‘homosexual.’
Pope Francisās reply to a question about a Vatican āgay lobbyā on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome made global news. āIf a person is gay and seeks God and has good will,ā he said in 2013. āWho am I to judge? We shouldn’t marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society.”
What did this mean? Welcoming inclusion into a family that officially considers us ‘intrinsically disordered?’
And then there was Pope Francis’s interaction with Juan Carlos CruzĀ ā a whistleblower in Chile’s clerical sex abuse scandal.
“He said, ‘Look Juan Carlos, the pope loves you this way. God made you like this and he loves you,'” Cruz told The Associated Press.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church Catechism affirmed, “this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
Ergo, a behavioral choice.
Therein lies the problem.
LGBTQ people are seen largely as individuals with sinful same sex sexual ‘inclinations.’ So when the pontiff touted ‘the equal dignity of every human being,’ and rebuked Vice President JD Vance with the ‘Good Samaritan’ parable, whereby love ābuilds a fraternity open to all, without exceptionā ā we are still the exception.
Francis was all also human ā having to apologize at one point for using a gay slur. But what of the bigger things like, did he know about the Opus Dei takeover of the U.S. Supreme Court when he chastised Vance about deporting migrants? Did he know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $880 million to 1,353 people last October, who allege they were victims of clergy sexual abuse? With a previous payment of $740 million, the total settlement payout will be more than $1.5 billion dollars. Is Leo chipping in to replenish that?
And itās not over. Earlier this month, Downey Catholic priest Jaime Arriaga, 41, was charged with several counts of child sexual abuse which allegedly happened when he was serving as a transitional deacon at the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church.
Longtime U.K LGBTQ+ activist Peter Tatchell ā whoās campaigned against Catholic homophobia for 58 years ā says Pope Francisā legacy is complicated.
āI extend my condolences to Catholics worldwide on the passing of Pope Francis. While we often disagreed on issues of LGBTQ rights, I acknowledge his more compassionate tone towards sexual minorities. His recent moves to allow blessings for same-sex couples, albeit with limitations, signaled a small but significant shift in Church doctrine,ā Tatchell said in a statement.
āHowever, for millions of LGBT+ people globally, the Catholic Church remains a force for discrimination and suffering. Under his leadership, the Vatican continued to oppose same-sex marriage and trans rights. Catholic bishops lobbied against the decriminalization of homosexuality in many parts of the world. The Vatican still upholds the homophobic edicts of the Catechism, which denounces the sexual expression of same-sex love as a āgrave depravityā and āintrinsically disordered.ā Francisās legacy is, therefore, a mixed one ā offering some progress, but leaving deep-rooted inequalities largely intact.
āThe struggle for LGBT+ equalityĀ against a homophobicĀ church must continue. We urge the next Pope to go further ā to end the churchās support for discrimination, both within the faith and in the widerĀ society.ā
-
Federal Government5 days ago
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth
-
Opinions5 days ago
David Hoggās arrogant, self-indulgent stunt
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. police seek help in identifying suspect in anti-gay threats case
-
Opinions4 days ago
On Pope Francis, Opus Dei and ongoing religious intolerance