Coincidentally enough, the first relevant 'next subject' I can think of is the hopefully-upcoming Equality Act (tl;dr for anyone still unaware, it's basically going to amend the Civil Rights Act to properly protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination),
Do they not already have this?
Generally seems you would have already been in for a world of hurt, both legally and socially, if you were all
"ew no gays, can't work here/live here/shop here"
"ew no tran nies, can't work here/live here/shop here"
and that has been the case for quite a few years now.
Or is this some kind of federal level clarification?
I read
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/02/10322166/equality-act-biden-lgbtq-protection-details and the PDF there. Seems a few states (I am guessing members of the "does not touch water or Canada" set) are missing things at state level. Oh well, minor clarification for a few places and if playing with federal law (which can be distinct from state) then not the worst thing.
Some of it seems dubious -- charging women more than men at dry cleaners was specifically cited in that. I thought it was generally understood that whatever frilly 50 sections thing many women opt for was harder than a simple shirt you shove on a mannequin and steam (or indeed maybe even a special steam mannequin). That is to say an entirely different service -- want to use my CNC machine to make a part and fair enough here are the keys to the workshop, ask me to manually do things to get it all going on and different service entirely.
Car repair was also cited. Generally car repair places (and car stealerships in general) will try to charge you as much as they think you will pay, usually relative to your skills* and manner of dress/signs of wealth, with all kinds of nice pressure things to boot (there are "honest" ones but it is a rarity and they don't usually last as long as those that can undercut others because they are making it somewhere where). I don't doubt women as a whole will generally come off worse for it (biologically speaking they are less interested in technical things, represent a tiny fraction of trades and STEM, high pressure sales tactics don't work as well when if it went down you would not be a smear on the floor and likely be risky enough to pause before someone throwing the first haymaker) but enforcement of that seems mightily hard to do. This is before the "your brakes are not below the limit but getting there, might want to replace them now" response that for many men is "meh, gotta die sometime" (or on the flip side be more likely to appreciate a "well they are in there anyway" type concept) where women tend to be more risk averse as a population and likely to spring for it.
*personally I do all I can to appear clueless and if they take the bait them flip the script after they have already hung themselves as it were. Little more enjoyable than watching sales morons squirm.
The hairdresser one is an interesting one. There was that interesting case the other month/year with the waxing service as well and I am not sure what the outcome of that really wants to be -- different skill and whatever else.
To that end much of this seems nebulous and unenforceable which is the most dubious kind of law. That or the document is trying to sell things harder and overstating the perks.
Also seeing "nightclubs that do not serve food" in their little PDF. I eagerly await the first lawsuits to come because the bouncers let all the scantily clad ladies inside before others, let said ladies in for free (or for a little flash of underwear as was the case the last couple of times I had the misfortune of being dragged to a nightclub), tried to ensure parity inside or the like and get caught mentioning that on a hidden camera.
Curious to see how the taxi example will play out as well. The ridesharing stuff deliberately incentivise long trips and high demand in high demand locations. Waiting would then be a less a fact of "ew darkies" and more "all these yuppies leaving the nightclub and wanting a lift back to the 'burbs is going to earn me a fortune so I am going there". Couple that with the general "I don't go south of the river" nature of a lot of taxis and personal preference in things there.
Conversion therapy ban is a tricky one. On the one hand yeah never seen any evidence of it reliably working (which is the principle sticking point for me) and demonstrably has some quite negative outcomes but at the same time that would also mean all quasi medical practices of dubious merit also are up for outlawing. While I laugh at faith healing, crystals, chiropody, homeopathy and related concepts to such things I don't necessarily know that I want to disallow people being morons by force of law. I also wonder what the end runs around such things will be as the "drag the bad kids out to the desert and make them stack rocks" things are probably still A-OK and yeah.
Might have to go find the bill proper.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text seems to be an older version but elsewhere it was mentioned as being reintroduced I will roll with it for now.
"“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
Will we have to come back in 5 years to deal with the absolute affront that not including pansexuality in there is? Though more seriously the lack of asexuality could be a fun one in this.
Orientation being bundled in with sex is also linguistically clunky (I mean is it not true that gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation), though probably in a manner that makes it subject to an interpretation.
" Failure to bar peremptory challenges based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual" (think in jury selection, witness questions and the like). I don't necessarily know that I would want to outlaw it as it could pertain to the matter at hand or impartiality, though at the same time blank slate. Hard one there and I also don't know how well it would survive a challenge.
Seems foster care and adoption would also be mandated to not take note of status here. Wonder if it will come before or after the supreme court decision which has a case in the final stages (
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia-pennsylvania/ ) and what might go there.
"(17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people. For example, older women in same-sex couples have twice the poverty rate of older different-sex couples."
While generally a do nothing/feel good statement in this I am going to wonder there. If women generally earn less (usually by choice rather than wages lower because you have tits) and arguably spend more (
https://news.gallup.com/poll/126029/Consumers-Spending-January-Last.aspx ) then I do have to note simple maths in this. A lot of the older gay male couples I know have some of the best toys as well.