 TITLE: Financial Inclusion and the LGBTQ Community: Challenges Persist CONTENT: A Slow Path to Equality\n-----------------------\nBefore she was seated on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg won a 1971 court case that resulted in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment being applied on the basis of sex. The amendment's equal protection clause that helped secure civil rights victories for Black Americans was now also interpreted to mean that men and women must have equal rights, which helped address gender-based discrimination. Unfortunately, it didn't explicitly offer protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.\nSo up until recently, discrimination against LGBTQ people was often overt and even legal in numerous ways. Eventually, however, courtroom victories led to an expanded interpretation of the 14th Amendment. For instance, a 2015 Supreme Court case interpreted the amendment to mean that same-sex couples could marry in any state, not just states that chose to allow it, solidifying marriage equality nationwide. And in 2020, the Supreme Court decided that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people should also be considered illegal sex discrimination.\nThose decisions were hugely impactful to the livelihoods of the LGBTQ community, but they only apply to those specific areas. The federal Equality Act, a bill in the U.S. Congress, would codify equal rights in all key aspects for LGBTQ people, such as lending, employment, housing and access to public services and federally funded programs. In the meantime, President Biden has issued executive orders reversing discriminatory policies including ones that require the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit LGBTQ health care discrimination and direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development to prohibit LGBTQ discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.\nThese are all significant strides, but discrimination persists. Currently, some states are passing a record number of laws restricting LGBTQ rights, targeting everything from health care to adoption. Advocacy groups are challenging them, but until it's sorted out in courtrooms, the community is at risk of facing further financial discrimination. END