Congressman Maintains It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay, Attacks ThinkProgress

[cal04]

Congressman Maintains It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay, Attacks ThinkProgress

During an interview last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he doesn’t believe that LGBT people should be protected from being fired because of their sexual orientation.

But yesterday, Lankford went on Oklahoma local television to say that we misrepresented his comments. According to Lankford, he wasn’t saying employers should be allowed to fire someone for being gay — just that being gay is a choice and LGBT people should not be protected from workplace discrimination.

Did you notice the distinction? Neither did we.

According to the station, Oklahoma News 6, Lankford reaffirmed that being gay is a choice and shouldn’t be protected while simultaneously denying that he thinks it should be legal to fire someone for it:


Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/15/484656/lankford-legal-to-fire-gay-people/

[SoutherDem]

1. Choice?

So, he is saying if it isn't a choice then it should be?

So he remembers the day he "chose" to be straight. One day he sat down and weighed the pros and cons and made a conscious choice to be straight.

I am gay. I didn't make a choice. I fought it tooth and toenail.

I have never met even one homosexual who "chose" to be gay.

If it were a choice then why do so many teen chose to take their own life instead of changing their mind and chose to be straight.

This is utter right wing conservative Christian bullshit.

[SouthernLiberal]

2. So then a gay employer....

could fire an employee for being straight, right?

[Politicalboi]

3. Hey, You're right

I don't see why not. And most gay employees don't need birth control, or need to leave because of the kids for any reason, not much maternity leave to worry about either. Just think of the money saved. Actually, it sounds like a better run ship.

[arbusto_baboso]

4. By that logic, an employer should be able to fire someone for their religious affiliation.

After all, that's a choice, far more than one's orientation. And religion being a choice is something that NO ONE rational could possibly dispute.

Check and mate, congressman.