Ontario Human Rights Commission, ‘Refusal to print stationery containing the words “gay and lesbian” ruled discriminatory’ (20 March 2000) <http://www.ohrc.on.ca/ko/node/9408>.
Cobaw Community Health Services v Christian Youth Camps Ltd & Anor (Anti-Discrimination) [2010] VCAT 1613, [195].
12.
EO Act ss 6(b), (k), (n).
13.
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 5A; Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) s 7(1)(b); Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 49ZG (1); Anti-Discrimination Act 1996 (NT) s 19(1)(c); Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 7(n); Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) s 29(3); Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) s 16(c) and (d); EO Act s 6(g) and (p); Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) s35O(1).
14.
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 5A(1); Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) s7(2); Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 49ZG(2); Anti-Discrimination Act 1996 (NT) s 20(2); Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 8; Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) s 29(3) (c); Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) s 14(2); EO Act s 7(2); Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) s 35O(2).
15.
YoshinoKenji, Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights (Random House, 2007) 19.
NeJaimeDouglas, ‘Marriage Inequality: Same-Sex Relationships, Religious Exemptions, and the Production of Sexual Orientation Discrimination’ (2012) 100California Law Review1169, 1175, 1196.
20.
See, eg, RamachandranGowri, ‘Intersectionality As “Catch 22”: Why Identity Performance Demands Are Neither Harmless Nor Reasonable’ (2005–2006) 69Albany Law Review299; PoirierMarc R, ‘Microperformances of Identity: Visible Same-Sex Couples and the Marriage Controversy’ (2008–2009) 15Washington & Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice3.
21.
For extensive treatment of the role of disgust in the politics of LGBT rights, see NussbaumMartha C., From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation & Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, 2010).
22.
EO Act s 3.
23.
KoppelmanAndrew, Antidiscrimination Law and Social Equality (Yale University, 1996)8.
24.
GreenTristin K, ‘Discomfort at Work Workplace Assimilation Demands and the Contact Hypothesis’ (2007–2008) 86North Carolina Law Review379, 412.
25.
Ibid418–19.
26.
See RichCamille Gear, ‘Performing Racial and Ethnic Identity: Discrimination by Proxy and the Future of Title VII’ (2004) 79New York University Law Review1134, 1139–40.
See, eg, LeiterBrian, Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton University Press, 2012); LimMarvinMellingLouise, ‘Inconvenience or Indignity? Religious Exemptions to Public Accommodations Laws’ (2014) 22Journal of Law & Policy705; AvivNoa Mendelsohn, ‘(When) Can Religious Freedom Justify Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation?: A Canadian Perspective’ (2014) 22Journal of Law & Policy613.