The Tennessee legislature is back in session, and once again, a slew of anti-LGBTQ+ bills are front and center among Republican priorities.

Two of the most extreme bills, addressing marriage equality and employment discrimination, fly in the face of recent Supreme Court precedent.

Related

GOP candidate calls for executing parents & doctors who help trans kids

Critics are calling the collection of discriminatory legislation a “slate of hate.”

“We’re talking about federal law that supersedes state law,” state Rep. Gloria Johnson (D) said of the bills that ignore the Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage equality and employment discrimination. “You can’t just ignore the federal law. So, therein is the problem for those of us who believe in our U.S. Constitution.”

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

Both measures were introduced by Republican state Rep. Gino Bulso in January and would challenge the landmark cases Obergefell v. Hodges and Bostock v. Clayton County.   

Of the decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationally in 2015, Bulso claimed in a committee hearing that the opinion only dictates that public actors have to recognize same-sex marriages, not private citizens, WPLN reports.

Tom Lee, a member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Pride Chamber, countered in his testimony that under Bulso’s interpretation, anyone could discriminate against married LGBTQ+ people in their capacity as private citizens.

“Imagine if under this bill, a private employer said, ‘Well, you can’t take family leave because I, as a private citizen, don’t recognize — using the language of the bill — your purported marriage,’” Lee said. “Or a bank says, ‘You’ll pay the higher rate (for unmarried couples). We’re not bound by the 14th Amendment. You’re not married in our eyes.’”

Bulso took the same approach with legislation that would ignore federal non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.  Bostock v. Clayton County established that discrimination protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Bulso argued that “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not govern all employers. It only governs employers with more than 15 employees.”

His legislation, he said, would only apply to small businesses, leaving them free to discriminate.

The Republican went so far as to title his bill the “Banning Bostock Act.”

Bulso and fellow Republicans may feel emboldened after the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors. The court’s majority opinion said that such bans don’t discriminate on the basis of sex or on the basis of transgender status, but only makes distinctions based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Both of Bulso’s measures advanced through committee along party lines.

Other measures proposed this session expand previous bills targeting LGBTQ+ Tennesseans. A state law already allowing teachers to ignore a student’s preferred pronouns would be broadened to allow all school students and workers to ignore a trans person’s honorifics, like “Mr.” or “Mrs.”

In a rare piece of good news, another measure to expand the number and type of businesses that could be penalized for violating the state’s drag performance ban was sent back to committee on Wednesday. A federal court initially declared the ban unconstitutional, but an appeals court threw out the ruling due to an issue of legal standing.

For Tennessee’s Trans Equality Project director, Chris Sanders, the annual accounting of Republican anti-LGBTQ+ legislation has become a grim ritual. He shared his frustration at a news conference on Tuesday.