GOP Rep. Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay

“You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, ‘gay or straight?’” Lankford said.

Apparently Lankford doesn't walk down many streets.

I don't think he has ever had the chance to ask that particular question...people run away when they see him.

the logical follow-up question of, "So when, exactly, did you choose to be straight? If sexual orientation is a chice, please tell us, exactly when you made your choice."

in today's Fixed Noise idea of "fair and balanced," you just report what they say with no follow up questions. Press releases are now news worthy of front page coverage.

would a female member of the media need testicles to ask that question, or would just having a spine, i.e., the courage of her conviction, suffice?

I don't believe I need to clarify this. Things just need to remain implied in order to keep its effect.

While I realize that our lexicon is chock full of sexist/racist terms and phrases, the world would be a far better place is those of us on the left would recognize, then refrain from contributing to the cesspool.

Just saying ...

I don't feel like modifying everything I say because someone, somewhere, might get the wrong idea.

At least here. . .if something can go two ways, I always mean it in the less offensive way. Hence why I said testicles and spines!

On that, I will close this. I accept your rational. I disagree with your logic. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers! Keep posting.

I hope you understand that your:



Is, IMO, another way of saying, "I don't care if what I say is offensive."

If you are okay with that, then ... well ... okay.

Cheers.

Dude (who's actually planning to go to divinity school after graduating) stood up in the crowd and went on and on with his Bible verses and what was "natural", etc. for 5-6 minutes with sadly a lot of nods of agreement from the crowd...Then I hit him with the question (including the zinger "If you really believe it's a choice, then you must have at some time had sex with a man and decided that you prefer women??") and he fumbled and stuttered until he finally spat out that he had a 'natural' attraction to the ladies...

In that time he got him to commit to a big gaffe.

In this case the reporter hit a grand slam homer with a single pitch.

Religion is a choice. You shouldn't fire people for that as long as they can do their jobs.

/I'm not saying it is a choice. All the studies I've seen point towards genetic/environmental factors. I just don't see how choice/genetics makes a difference.

One of my best friend's who's gay is adamant about it being a choice. Sure, he's naturally attracted to men, but he's also all about having free will and making decisions. He has sex with men because he wants to have sex with men. Simply put, someone's sexual interests shouldn't be at issue for anyone apart from their sexual partners. I'm sure there's a lot of straight sex I've had that's very illegal in a number of countries and probably some US states. Trust me, I chose to have all of that awesome straight sex. If I ever decide to, I'd like to be able to have lots of awesome gay sex as well.

those yelling loudest in the "anti-gay crowd" are Rightwing Hijacked Christians ("RHCs") that cite to their interpretation of the Bible ... which through and through indicates that Christianity is a CHOICE.

Their brand of Christianity is not only the reason they hate Gays. It is also the reason they hate atheists, Mormons, Catholics (unless they are Catholic), Jews, Muslims, etc.

As you may have noted in a latter post by me, they tried to burn a cross in front of my grandparents' home because my grandparents were the wrong kind of Christian. Their love is very specific; their hate not so much so.

is by far ... the checkmate response to the (christian) right's objection to any glbt question.

As an old Civil Rights guy, I'm embarassed that I didn't think of it; but plan to use it in EVERY SINGLE future discussion ... and will no doubt go back a start some previous discussions, as well.

Thanks!

excellent, simple and to the point.

Our choices about lots of things in our lives are (supposed to be) protected and, as long as those choices don't negatively affect our job performance or workplace, who gives a care, really? The reason protections are needed for persons whom are LGBT is because there are still plenty of employers whom think nothing of firing somebody for that reason alone and the person fired currently has no legal recourse against such a firing (in a lot of areas).

Agree with you that a person's sexual orientation and/or gender identity are not a matter of choice. IMHO a person's behavior is certainly a "choice", in this case a choice whether or not to engage in same-sex relationships, but how is it fair/right to deny an entire group of people the freedom to choose behavior consistent with their orientation and/or gender identity without the threat of social, legal, financial, etc. repercussions that negatively affect an individual's health, safety, and overall well being?

then an employer can fire an employee for being Baptist if the employer is a Catholic. After all religion is a choice.

Poster before you made the same argument. The problem with this argument is that I would bet a ton of money that if you said this to the Representative in question he would assert that you *should* be allowed to fire people for being of the wrong religion.

And this is not limited to atheists, Muslims and Jews. Do you have any idea how much anti-Catholic bigotry there is in the Bible Belt? They tried to burn a fucking cross in front of my Irish Catholic grandparents' house. They hate Catholics with just as much fervor as they hate everything else.

They have largely called a cease fire on Catholics for now. But you will still hear the words, "Papists who worship the anti-Christ in Rome," far more often than you will hear the word, "Catholic".

that this person, and most of his ilk, would have no problem with firing someone of the "wrong" or no religion ...

I say let's personalize it for him. By asking, if sexuality is a choice and a behavior and religion is a choice and a behavior, why should your position protect your choice, but not others that made a similar choice, we force him into an intellectual box; where he can either: reconsider his position or make a bigger a$$ out of himself.

See the audience is not people that are committed to ignorance; but rather, those that blindly accept his line of "reasoning." Some people are ignorant and just follow what they have been taught ... these people can be reached by pointing out the logical fatal flaw in an argument. Others are stupid and, despite being presented with the logical flaw, choose to live in ignorance ... these people cannot be moved.

It, in my experience, always is about the audience ... Some will be reached; others not.

In another life, I taught in an adult education program with a very difficult population (ex-offenders).

I was constantly challenged. I found that the more one attempts to "convince" the challenger, the less likely the rest of the class (i.e., the real audience) would be able to think through the flaw in the challenger's argument.

his strong family values and conservatism. I had to suffer through his campaign commercials. Unfortunately, that's what flies in Oklahoma.

and then change later and change back and change again and....


fucking medieval cretin

Well, that's just so interesting.... but what you "Think" doesn't mean shit. This is LAW. What do social scientists and biologists KNOW? What is the professional concensus?

It's like this?

No one decides what they like or dislike. They just do or don't. You do not choose to like broccolli. You just do or don't. What you DO decide is whether you are gonna eat broccolli or not. Just like Hetero's decide wheher they are gonna have sex with a redhead or a blond female. They are not deciding whether to have sex with a woman or not....or whether to have sex at all in their lives. Why should gays be forced to only have sex with "blonds" or not at all?

I've worked all my adult life, more than 30 years, and I've never had to perform sexually as a condition of employment. I'm curious to know what sort of work Mr. Lankford does where that is obviously a requirement.

Great response!

thought process then people should have every right to fire some because of their religious orientation - because that is a choice issue. One is not born religious, one chooses to become religious and to join any particular church. One is also not born a Democrat or Republican, that is a choice. That means you have the right to fire someone because of their political affiliation. Lankford is a total idiot and unfortunately I am stuck with him as my Representative.

I have long argued that a simple test for authoritarian leanings can raise red flags about reading comprehension, numeracy, basic logic, bullying in the workplace, and comfort with hypocrisy (and therefore, potentially, criminal behavior).

That is because right-wing authoritarians have poorer than average reading comprehension, numeracy, and critical thinking skills, and greater than average hostility toward social out-groups, and high tolerance for inconsistency when it favors them. They can be motivated to do anything by igniting the fear which smoulders in their little un-empathic hearts.

Furthermore, they are a statistically identifiable 23% of the population, so almost one-quarter of all job applications could be instantly tossed out after the first pass. I would not be surprised to learn that there is decades of precedent allowing for and protecting the practice, too, because that is largely how they have protected their old-boy network all these years.

and, absolutely love reading all the academic studies indicating rightwing/conservative personality defects/character flaws, I am drawn back to the academic studies that would have African-Americans defective.

I cannot buy into either.

Even though our opinions differ slightly, I'll bet we both conclude the same thing: the safe and fair thing to do is to not discriminate in hiring.

But it's nice to have that shiv in the back pocket should it become necessary. If they win and allow such discrimination in hiring, they will instantly become one of the most persecuted minorities in the workplace.

That's because there is money to be made in keeping asshole RWAs out of the workplace. They are among the ones embezzling, playing office politics, lacking initiative, croaking, unable to decide, and screwing up everything they touch.

By his logic, if he 'chose' to be straight, that means that he might actually be...............gay? I hope that keeps him up at night.

its extremely repugnant to do to someone imo.

but rather, "Then it is okay to fire someone for being Christian?" since that is also a choice.

There's all kinds of people working for all kinds of bosses in all kinds of places.

Thank you for saying it.

Here is how I see this....why on gods green earth would someone CHOOSE a lifestyle where you are talked about in a derogatory way, seen as a pariah by friends and family, under the constant threat of violence....you don't choose to be gay...really....what is the attraction or advantage in choosing to be gay? One might argue the sexual aspect, but like all relationships, sex is only about 1/5th of it...there is a reason you are more attracted to a member of the same sex...it is in your make up as a human...it's in your DNA...(whether or not they ever find a specific gene...)

The represenative ought to Know that homosexuals have been on this earth every bit as long as heterosexuals...and have been treated as outsiders since then....it's time for that to change....