A small town in eastern Kentucky is making some big news. adopted a fairness ordinance, meaning one that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based upon a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Why is this a big deal? Vicco is now the FIRST town in Kentucky’s Appalachians to pass Fairness protections. Vicco is the FIRST Kentucky city in 10 years to approve an LGBT Fairness law. Vicco is also the FIRST rural Kentucky community to pass LGBT Fairness protections.
With a population of 334 residents, Vicco may very well be the smallest American municipality to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Vicco is situated in the Eastern Kentucky coalfields at the southern tip of Perry County in the Appalachian mountain region. Vicco joins three other cities (Louisville, Lexington and Covington) in the Commonwealth of Kentucky with LGBT Fairness protections in place.
City officials say the decision to ban discrimination was a simple one. “Vicco is a community that believes all folks should be treated fairly,” said Vicco City Attorney Eric Ashley. “We believe everyone deserves the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fairness is a Kentucky value, a Vicco value, and one of our most American values.” took to the streets of Perry County to get opinion on the ordinance’s passage and the responses were simple and powerful. “Everyone should have rights,” one man said. Another said, “We are all humans and we have to live together. We need to treat each other equally.” A woman interviewed shared her feelings that everyone, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, should have the same opportunities as everyone else.
Vicco’s passage of the Fairness law was supported by work of the . The coalition consists of the , , , , and . The group seeks to bring together the various organizations working for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in Kentucky.
ACLU of Kentucky Executive Director Michael Aldridge has been key in the group’s rural organizing efforts that in the work. One message that has been resonating well: Fairness is good for business. One hundred percent of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Kentucky have inclusive non-discrimination policies, as well as the top 25 manufacturers/ and support service firms.These policies keep businesses competitive by ensuring that they hire and retain only the most hardworking, talented individuals, based on skill and experience instead of factors that are irrelevant to their ability to do the job. Just as corporate non-discrimination policies keep these businesses competitive, a local Fairness ordinance would help keep municipalities’ industry competitive.
Vicco’s passage of a Fairness law comes on the heels of several other Kentucky communities’ movements towards anti-discrimination protections. In November 2012, grassroots movements for Fairness began in Bowling Green, Elizabethtown, and Shelbyville, joining those already under way in Berea and Richmond. In the hours since the news broke about Vicco, The ACLU of Kentucky has received inquiries from residents and social justice leaders in more than ten different communities who want to know how they can “be like Vicco.”
This is not surprising since, according to a , 83 percent of Kentuckians support anti-discrimination Fairness protections. In spite of this support, a statewide Fairness law, which has been proposed in the Kentucky General Assembly for more than ten years, has yet to even go before a committee. Lexington Senator Kathy Stein has introduced in the 2013 legislative session. Louisville Representative Mary Lou Marzian will introduce an identical bill in the House along with an anti-bullying/harassment law for Kentucky schools.
The movement is building, and it looks like Vicco might be the tipping point!
Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.