Still reeling from a June massacre that left 49 club-goers dead at a gay dance hall in Orlando, LGBT Americans were thrust into a peculiar position: They were suddenly being courted by Republicans and Democrats alike, and held up as the kind of Americans who need the protection of lawmakers. Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats were quick to call the attack, the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States, a hate crime against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Donald Trump joined other members of the GOP in calling the attack an act of terror prompted by the alleged affinity of the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, for the radical Islamic State group. Then, weeks later at the GOP convention in Cleveland, Trump invoked “LGBTQ citizens” during a speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination. “As president, I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” Trump said to rousing applause. “And, I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said.” Politicos and pundits could hardly believe it. Never before has a presidential nominee from the GOP made an overture to LGBT Americans during the party’s convention. Yet it is Clinton who has been endorsed by virtually every LGBT organization that has taken a stance on the candidates. As secretary of state in 2011, she declared “gay rights are human rights.” Some have called her the most pro-LGBT presidential candidate the United States has ever seen. “No single elected official has done more for LGBT civil rights than Secretary Clinton —and that’s competing with President Obama,” said Rick Zbur, the executive director of Equality California, the country’s largest statewide LGBT group. The Log Cabin Republicans, the country’s largest organization for conservative LGBT citizens, have refrained from endorsing a presidential candidate. Although Trump, as many suspect, may be accepting of LGBT Americans, the Log Cabin Republicans have described the 2016 Republican Party platform as “the most anti-LGBT Platform in the party’s 162-year history.” “The choice between the Democrat and Republican ticket could not be more stark in terms of its impact on the LGBT community,” said Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. Same-sex marriage: Clinton, who until 2013 favored civil unions instead of marriage for same-sex couples, has said her view on the matter evolved over time. Today, she supports preserving same-sex couples’ right to marry — and has vowed to nominate Supreme Court justices who would do the same. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that samesex couples had the right to marry, Clinton responded with a one-word tweet: Proud. Clinton has also promised to “end discriminatory treatment of LGBT families in adoptions.” Trump’s positions on samesex marriage have also evolved. Before the Supreme Court ruling, Trump had supported domestic partnerships and civil unions over same-sex marriage. In 2015, he said though he disagreed with the court’s ruling, he would not support a constitutional amendment allowing states to re-ban same-sex marriage. But over the course of his campaign, Trump’s rhetoric has sharpened. He told Fox News in January that he would “strongly consider” appointing justices to overturn the court’s marriage decision. His running mate, Mike Pence, has been fighting samesex marriage for more than a decade. In 2003, then-congressman Pence co-sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would have asserted that marriage in the U.S. “shall consist only of the union of a man and woman” and that no state or federal law could change or extend those benefits to samesex couples. In 2011, he voted to reaffirm the Defense of Marriage Act. LGBT discrimination: Clinton, who as a U.S. senator supported a federal antidiscrimination law to prevent workplaces from treating LGBT workers unfairly, has pledged her support to the Equality Act — a sweeping piece of federal legislation that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to extend the list of protected classes to include sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to those it already protects (race, color, sex, religion and national origin). Doing so would render discrimination of LGBT people illegal in credit, education, employment, federal financial aid, housing, jury selection and public accommodations. Before he was the Republican candidate for president, Trump had supported a similar change. He had said protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation “would be simple.” But as a candidate, he has aligned himself with the party’s push for increased “religious freedom” laws that would allow individuals, businesses and public servants to refuse service to LGBT people because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. As governor, Pence signed into law one such measure in Indiana. Transgender rights: When North Carolina lawmakers approved a law that banned transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice, Trump opposed the measure. He said that Caitlyn Jenner, perhaps the most famous transgender celebrity, would be welcome to use any bathroom she pleased at Trump Tower. But later, Trump reversed his position and said he supported North Carolina’s so-called bathroom bill. Clinton, meanwhile, has taken an unambiguous stance against such bills. She has vowed to address the disproportionate violence transgender people are subject to and supports increased “law enforcement training focused on fair and impartial policing, including interactions with LGBT people.” When she was secretary of state, Clinton issued a policy that made it easier for transgender Americans to change their gender marker on U.S. passports. She has said she would support expanding that kind of provision to include other forms of ID. Conversion therapy: Clinton opposes so-called conversion therapy, controversial practices meant to cure LGBT people of being gay. Trump has not taken a clear stance, though the GOP platform alludes to its support of such practices by noting that parents should be allowed to make medical decisions about their children without interference from state legislators.