Connect with us

GOP Congressman: It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone Because They Are Gay

Published

on

A GOP Congressman says it should be perfectly legal to fire someone because they are gay. Rep. James Lankford, the Republican U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma, says that he is perfectly fine with firing people for their sexual orientation. Sadly, laws often agree with Rep. Lankford. You can be fired for being gay in 29 states,  and in 34 states, you can be fired for being transgender. This is why we need an inclusive ENDA.

READ: ENDA: One Of The Greatest Jobs Bills Never Passed

Annie-Rose Strasser and Scott Keyes at Think Progress report:

STRASSER: Would you support a law that says you can’t fire someone for their sexual orientation –
KEYES: Similar to protections for people on race or gender?
LANKFORD: Well, you’re now dealing with behavior and I’m trying to figure out exactly what you’re trying to mean by that. Because you’re dealing with — race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently — skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, “Gay or straight?”
KEYES: But you think that even if you can’t see they’re that way, you don’t think someone is born gay necessarily?
LANKFORD: Do I personally? No. I don’t. I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue.

Strasser  and Keyes add:

Being gay is actually not a choice, according to the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and all other accredited medical organizations. A large percentage of LGBT workers have experienced discrimination at work and many have been fired because of their sexual orientation.

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xEvtuVmIwBc%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

Last month, notoriously anti-gay hypocrite GOP Congressman Steve King said gays should lie about their sexuality unless they want to risk being fired for being gay, which the government can’t stop.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CRIME

Trumps Could ‘Turn on One Another’ as Investigations ‘Go Up the Food Chain’: MSNBC Analyst

Published

on

Former president Donald Trump and his family are facing “existential” threats from ongoing criminal investigations in New York and Georgia, according to MSNBC political analyst and Trump biographer Tim O’Brien.

“I think you’re going to start to see this vice squeeze in,” O’Brien said Saturday. “The Trumps will happily throw underlings under the bus as this gets hotter. I think the question is whether or not the family members will turn on one another as it goes up the food chain.”

“The Manhattan DA’s case has existential consequences to it,” O’Brien added. “Donald Trump and perhaps his children could end up in orange jumpsuits if that case goes the full route. That’s not going to be the case with (New York AG) Letitia James’ prosecution, that’s a civil case. I also think the Georgia case has an existential threat. Donald Trump acting like a 19th-century ward heeler, called up the secretary of state and said find me some votes, and there’s proof of that, there’s evidence.”

Watch the full interview below.

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

'TRYING TO OUT-TRUMP TRUMP'

Ron DeSantis Pounded by WaPo Editorial Board for Latest Attempt to ‘Poison Democracy’

Published

on

In a scathing opinion piece on Saturday morning, the editorial board of the Washington Post trashed Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) for his plan to create an “election police squad” that board suggests will be used to disrupt elections and scare voters away.

According to the board, the DeSantis proposal reeks of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn election results at the state level with them labeling the Florida Republican’s efforts a deliberate move to “poison democracy.”

Pointing out that DeSantis wants the Florida legislature to “pony up $6 million to hire 52 people for his election police squad — which, naturally, would be under the governor’s control and would investigate allegations of election crimes submitted by “government officials or any other persons,” the editors then warned, “If Mr. Trump had his way, government investigators would no doubt be impounding Dominion Voting Systems election machines and grilling election officials in Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania based on outlandish allegations about the 2020 vote. Whether Florida’s voting cops would field tips from partisans acting in bad faith or dupes who really believe that fraud is ubiquitous in U.S. elections, it is not hard to foresee them harassing election officials or voting rights groups who are simply trying to help people to vote.”

The editors added, “Mr. DeSantis’s proposal would be similar to an anti-voting law Texas lawmakers passed recently, which would threaten election workers with criminal penalties for transgressions as mild as proactively offering voters mail-in ballot applications. In both cases, the effect is to intimidate people into thinking twice about doing anything they fear state authorities might construe as illegal.”

They then concluded, “Mr. DeSantis, trying to rise from the former president’s shadow, looks as though he is trying to out-Trump Mr. Trump. Both seek to cater to a GOP base among whom fake allegations of fraud are not just believed, but considered a critical national crisis… Proposals such as Mr. DeSantis’s would only work to poison America’s democracy.”

You can read more here.

Continue Reading

'MARGINALLY'

‘Why Is That So Hard to Answer?’: GOP Candidate Squirms as CNN Host Forces Him to Admit Trump Lost

Published

on

A Republican congressional candidate from Alaska finally conceded that former president Donald Trump lost the 2020 election on Friday — but not until after being asked the question no fewer than four times by CNN host Alisyn Camerota.

Camerota was following up on a story about another candidate for Alaska’s only House seat, Greg Brelsford, who recently left the GOP to become an Independent, citing “attacks on democracy.”

On Friday, she interviewed GOP candidate Randy Purham.

“So you heard one of your opponents, who was saying that basically he’s tired of all the re-litigating of Donald Trump’s election loss,” Camerota told Purham. “Are you one of the Republicans he was speaking of who believes Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 presidential election?”

“I’m not going to say that he did not lose, but we realize there are some irregularities with the election,” Purham responded, before Camerota cut him off.

READ MORE: Typo-filled Trump voting machine order likely written by one of his ‘lunatic friends’: legal expert

“Just to be clear, do you think he lost?” the host said.

“Marginally,” Purham responded.

“But you believe that Donald Trump lost the election, and Joe Biden is the rightful president of the United States?”

“To a degree,” Purham said.

“Why is that so hard to answer?” Camerota asked.

“It’s not hard to answer,” Purham responded. “There’s a lot of issues that we’ve seen with the election, and we see how things are turning out right now with this administration, so —”

“But that’s different, Mr. Purham,” Camerota said, again cutting him off. “That’s different if you don’t like certain policies in the administration, it’s different than whether or not you can say definitively that Donald Trump lost and Joe Biden won.”

“I can, and I have,” Durham said, finally appearing to acknowledge Trump’s defeat.

Watch below.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.