jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (13 posts)

GOP Rep Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For B

  1. Stacie L profile image90
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    GOP Rep Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay: 'It's A Choice Issue'
    Think Progress

    By Annie-Rose Strasser and Scott Keyes on May 14, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress last week that he believes someone should be able to be fired for his or her sexual orientation.

    In a conversation on Capitol Hill, Lankford expressed his strong belief that being gay is a choice, and that LGBT workers should not be protected from workplace discrimination because it’s something they can change

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/1 … ?mobile=nc
    Who are we electing to represent us these days? Do they know they are supposed to abide by the law and not make it up to suit their own biases?

    1. SOBF profile image80
      SOBFposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He should be fired for being a idiot because it is a choice.

      1. SandyMcCollum profile image71
        SandyMcCollumposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        hahaha, good one!

      2. Mighty Mom profile image86
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think it is. I think bigotry is so far ingrained in him he has lost the ability to think. Period.

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He is my representative sad.  I'm embarassed by the bigotry.

    3. shea duane profile image60
      shea duaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Funny, according to his logic I guess we can fire someone for being a Baptist because he can change to Methodist... it's a choice, or a woman for being a mother because it's a choice, she can choose to retain her virginity until she's beyond her child-bearing years... that's a choice...
      the guy is an idiot anyway: biology / genetics determine sexual orientation. i never 'choose' to be heterosexual.

      1. ib radmasters profile image61
        ib radmastersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Where is your proof on genetics.
        And even if it was genetics, it should be treated as other genetic defects are treated.

        1. shea duane profile image60
          shea duaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          defects??? you sound like the nazis who thought brown eyes were a defect.

          Jan. 28, 2005 - The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the "gay gene" debate.

          Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.

          "It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Facts get in the way of my bigotry Shea! :p

        2. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Being gay, bi or lesbian isn't a defect. roll

    4. ib radmasters profile image61
      ib radmastersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      People are fired for all kinds of things, and most of the time it doesn't relate to the real reason.

      A gay person could be fired without cause if the employer uses an At Will Employment Contract. The employed doesn't need to mention any reason, so it will be difficult to prove any discrimination on the part of the employer.

      Empoyers should be able to hire and fire the employees that they like and want to represent their company. This is especially true of small to very small businesses. Only the government should be bound by the discrimination laws.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    It is unfortunate that an elected politician does not see the different between the right to be a bigot (which is inalienable) and the right to discriminate based on demographic variables irrelevant to the duties performed (which is not).

  3. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Just more political stupidity in motion.

 
working