Our partnerships make our work possible. The State LGBT+ Business Climate Index is financially supported by a grant from the Gill Foundation. The Index is based on data graciously shared by the Movement Advancement Project and the Williams Institute. Ropes & Gray is our pro bono legal partner for the CEO Business Briefs globally, and their research informs this Index. FCB partnered with us to conduct original market research into American attitudes toward LGBT+ workplace inclusion, informing the Regional Context section of the State CEO Briefs. America Competes supported the development of the scoring for the Risk Assessments detailed below, particularly for the Future Risk score.

Out Leadership and FCB partnered on original market research into the attitudes of American workers on LGBT+ inclusion, which fielded in March and April 2019. The full results will be launched in the Spring of 2020; we are able to share preliminary regional comparisons in this brief.

LGBT+ workers in the Southeast are the most likely to be out at work (54.4%), but they are also 25% more likely to feel that covering behaviors are important for workplace success. More broadly, non LGBT+ workers in this region preferred for businesses to demonstrate their support for the LGBT+ community using internal initiatives (like hiring more LGBT employees and creating more inclusive HR policies). However, this group was 57% less likely to approve of more public demonstrations of support (like withdrawing sponsorship from sporting events in less inclusive areas). LGBT+ workers in this region are 39% more likely to support inclusive businesses and 17% more likely to consider LGBT+ friendliness in making spending decisions compared to the non-LGBT workers nationwide. However, there is a perception that state leadership speaks about the LGBT+ community in a more negative way (39% more likely than nationwide), which could partially explain why LGBT+ workers in the Southeast are 19% more likely to say that they would be open to moving to a state with better LGBT+ support.

Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons for more or less likely are compared to the National results. Regional results are based off of 1,500 respondents (LGBT+ and Non-LGBT+ responses have been weighted to be age-representative for each audience in each region). National results are based off of 600 respondents representative of each audience (LGBT+ vs Non-LGBT+).

States in the Southeast region included: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Legal status of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community

• – The state does not have nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBT+ people. Many municipalities have passed these protections on the local level, including: Myrtle Beach; Richland County; Columbia (city employees only); Charleston; Latta (city employees only); and Folly Beach (sexual orientation, but not gender identity).
• – There are no statewide non-discrimination policies for state employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
• – There is no statute, regulation, and/or agency policy on discrimination against youth in foster care based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• – South Carolina permits state-licensed child welfare agencies to refuse to place and provide services to children and families, including LGBT+ people and same-sex couples, if doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs.
• – South Carolina’s Religious Freedom Act forbids the state from “substantially burden(ing)” a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a demonstrable state interest. And the state must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest.
• – Knowing exposure to HIV is a felony in South Carolina. Neither actual transmission nor the intent to transmit HIV is necessary for prosecution, and there have been numerous prosecutions under the law.
• – South Carolina does not have hate crimes protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• – South Carolina has no restrictions on conversion therapy.

Legal status of the Transgender Community

• – South Carolina does not have a specific procedure for amending gender markers on birth certificates, but individuals can use general statutes governing corrections to the document. That process requires a court order, which doesn’t require surgery but is ultimately up to a judge’s discretion. The updated certificate is marked as “amended” but doesn’t indicate what was changed.
• – To update a name on a driver’s license, the applicant must submit a name change form and court order, if applicable. Amending gender markers requires medical documentation of a gender change and a legal document demonstrating it, such as an amended birth certificate or a court order.
• – South Carolina Medicaid has no explicit policy regarding transgender health coverage and care.
• – There is no law in South Carolina providing LGBT+-inclusive insurance protections.

Government statements and actions

• – In February 2018, six South Carolina legislators introduced a bill that would prohibit the state from recognizing any “parody marriage”, defined as any form of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman. One cosponsor later dropped out after widespread backlash. The bill remains with the Judiciary Committee.
• – In 2018, the Governor asked for, and got, a waiver from the Trump administration that allowed an adoption agency that receives public funds to continue screening applicants based on religious criteria, a violation of an Obama-era law. In May 2019, a lesbian couple rejected by the agency sued the state and federal governments for discrimination.
• – In 2017, the District of South Carolina held that the state’s refusal to name two women on their twins’ birth certificates (one woman was the biological mother, and the other was her spouse) violated the women’s rights under the U.S. Constitution.
• – South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson was one of 15 Republican attorneys general who signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in August 2019 in support of continuing to exclude LGBT+ people from national employment protections.