First we would echo the sentiments of Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown who last week called upon the Maryland General Assembly to strengthen state employment law that protects individuals from workplace discrimination. A gaping hole has suddenly appeared that would seem to have potentially greenlighted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. “We must not allow any gaps in our laws that could leave Marylanders vulnerable to discriminatory practices in the workplace,” Brown said in a written statement released on Tuesday, Aug. 15. “Every Marylander, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, deserves respect and protection on the job. It’s a promise we must keep.”

Shouldn’t such views have been obvious by now, especially in the Free State? Sadly, a legislative remedy has proven necessary because one day earlier, the Maryland Supreme Court — its “Supreme” title approved just last November by voters when “Court of Appeals” proved insufficiently grand — issued an opinion that existing state law did not cover this circumstance. One imagines there was a collective, “Huh?,” arising from the populace given that Maryland has long been considered as progressive on LGBTQ+ issues as one of the first states to recognize same-sex marriage — under a law approved by voters more than a decade ago. Yet the robe-draped in Annapolis, on a 4-3 vote, concluded that the various statutes, including the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, may cover sex and gender identity but fall short on sexual orientation.

The decision came in the context of the John Doe v. Catholic Relief Services lawsuit brought by an employee who just wanted to have his husband covered by the health insurance policy provided employees by the Baltimore-based CRS. The matter is still under review at the federal court level where, thankfully, legal protections for such circumstances appear to remain in place — at least for individuals who are engaged in nonreligious work like the unnamed worker in the lawsuit. Indeed, why is orientation even the business of an employer in a free society? Clergy are one thing, secular employees from accountants and secretaries to janitors and social workers are something else altogether. And what an odd contradiction to the core mission of Catholic Relief Services to fight disease and poverty. Shouldn’t all of us get adequate medical care?

We will leave it to legal scholars to judge where the Maryland Supreme Court has gone rogue but the ruling surely stands in odd contrast to the recent 2-1 decision of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing a Montgomery County case over the public school system’s guidelines on transgender students. Some parents had filed suit objecting to how gender identity was treated in schools. This follows a mounting trend of right-wing organizations claiming their rights have been trampled because teachers have accepted the use of a student’s preferred name, gender, locker room, etc. While it involves a very small number of students (perhaps 0.6% of the population, according to some estimates), supportive practices whether in the classrooms, hallways, cafeterias or aforementioned locker rooms, can be crucial for helping transgender youngsters navigate a truly challenging time in their lives.

On this matter, we would echo the view offered by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., a 2018 Donald Trump appointee to the 4th Circuit, who pointed out in the majority opinion that the parents did not have legal standing to claim damages (none was the parent of a transgender student) and ought to instead take their beef to the ballot box and elect school board members who share their conservative outlook. That’s unlikely to happen in left-of-center Montgomery County, of course, but it’s not always clear whether reality matters to those who bring such legal actions. At some point, social conservatives just want to fuel outrage over a “woke” society. Lawsuits and failed candidacies are just tools of the trade. Unreasoning hate (and fealty to their cause) is what they seek.

All of which merely underscores the need for vigilance, for fair laws, and for protections to the most vulnerable in our society. People remain free to follow their religious beliefs. But they should not be allowed to impose them on the rest of us, including secular employees and their spouses. Whatever unexpected vulnerability in state law now exists should be corrected when state lawmakers reconvene in Annapolis next January.