Republican Vice Presidential Frontrunner Thinks Businesses Should Be Able To Fire Someone For Being Gay

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:32 PM GMT
    This linked article appeared within another RJ thread, but I thought it deserved attention in its own thread. (Contributed by Ex_Mil8 )

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/500022/rob-portman-fire-gay/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:36 PM GMT


    Now isn't that an interesting kettle of something stinky.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:42 PM GMT
    MEH !!! says the apoligist SoCal and Conservaposse, they'll never get away with doing that to gays. You Dems worry too much !!! VOTE ROMNEY AND END SOCIALISM !!! LOL !!! Isn't their blindness to the direction of their TBag and Christian Fanatic led Repub Party truely amazing, Its 'stupifying'.!!!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:45 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Now isn't that an interesting kettle of something stinky.

    Yeah, interesting if this guy becomes Romney's pick, or someone else who thinks the same way, as many Republican leaders do. Then what will our RJ right-wingers here say? Rationalize and dismiss it, of course, they have no choice, they must follow the Party line.

    But I wonder how many of them will be at risk of being fired for being gay themselves? The rest of us will, it's why we would oppose this policy. But if they don't oppose it, does it mean they aren't at risk for being identified as being gay, so they have nothing to fear? Where does the logic of that lead us, hmmm?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:51 PM GMT
    I see, so you SB think that gays should not be discriminated against, or fired for being gay, but that if they are they should have no right to litigate?
    Care to shoot yourself in your other foot now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:53 PM GMT
    realifedad said MEH !!! says the apoligist SoCal and Conservaposse, they'll never get away with doing that to gays. You Dems worry too much !!! VOTE ROMNEY AND END SOCIALISM !!! LOL !!! Isn't their blindness to the direction of their TBag and Christian Fanatic led Repub Party truely amazing, Its 'stupifying'.!!!

    Let's get the facts correct. It already IS legal to fire gays in many locales, and to evict us from rental properties, they ARE doing it to gays right now. What Portman opposes is a Congressional bill to prohibit it.

    Otherwise the firing of gays continues, and could expand as more Republican legislatures and Governors remove gays from lists of protected minorities in existing anti-discrimnation legislation, as has been actually happening all over the US.


    Add "suspicious" to "stupefying," why gay men would support a Party that opposes legislation that would protect them from being arbitrarily fired just for being gay. Makes yah wonder, doesn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:56 PM GMT


    What's interesting is SB's favourite cry over useless laws with no teeth. Now here one is with teeth, and he's against it because, er, it has teeth. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:06 PM GMT
    I can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:08 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    What's interesting is SB's favourite cry over useless laws with no teeth. Now here one is with teeth, and he's against it because, er, it has teeth. icon_lol.gif

    Oh, is SB in this thread? I have him on Ignore. Can I guess that he's deflecting the issue, misrepresenting the facts, and making ad hominem attacks against me, his usual tactics? I should un-Ignore him for the laughs. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    Larkin saidI can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.



    Basically the Romney group's vice Pres nominee thinks that the law for no discrimination against gays in employment is no good because it permits gays that ARE fired for being gay or discriminated against to litigate against such discrimination, and the vice prez says that will make business feel uncomfortable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Larkin saidI can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.



    Basically the Romney group's vice Pres nominee thinks that the law for no discrimination against gays in employment is no good because it permits gays that ARE fired for being gay or discriminated against to litigate against such discrimination, and the vice prez says that will make business feel uncomfortable.


    I wasn't aware a VP had been chosen.
  • allatonce

    Posts: 904

    Jun 22, 2012 3:14 PM GMT
    Larkin saidI can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.


    I see you've been here a while.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:15 PM GMT


    Here's the link Larkin, an interesting read. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/500022/rob-portman-fire-gay/




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:21 PM GMT
    LOL Yeah Portman isn't the nominee... For the very simple reason that Romney is more media savvy than that. Not a lot more, but still.

    He's not picking a VP that doesn't know to clam up in front of ThinkProgress haha. It'd be like Biden having a conversation with Michelle Malkin or Human Events.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:25 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Larkin saidI can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.

    Basically the Romney group's vice Pres nominee thinks that the law for no discrimination against gays in employment is no good because it permits gays that ARE fired for being gay or discriminated against to litigate against such discrimination, and the vice prez says that will make business feel uncomfortable.

    Nice summary. I note that Portman prioritizes business "comfort" above a gay employee's livelihood, and over basic civil rights which are guaranteed in the US Constitution. If ever there was a prime example of how Republicans view workers as the subserviant vassals of their employers, this would be it. And why unions are anathema to Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:25 PM GMT
    allatonce said
    Larkin saidI can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.


    I see you've been here a while.




    Well keep blocking people you disagree with, thats the best way to open your mind !!!


    No matter which side you block, you only hurt yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:29 PM GMT
    Larkin saidLOL Yeah Portman isn't the nominee... For the very simple reason that Romney is more media savvy than that. Not a lot more, but still.

    He's not picking a VP that doesn't know to clam up in front of ThinkProgress haha. It'd be like Biden having a conversation with Michelle Malkin or Human Events.


    Thanks Larkin; that article inferred he was. Searching that I did inspired by your post done shows otherwise. icon_wink.gif

    Hopefully he won't be chosen. Things are already difficult enough in the US for gays and employment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 4:07 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    allatonce said
    Larkin saidI can't understand the thread. I've blocked too many people in it.


    I see you've been here a while.




    Well keep blocking people you disagree with, thats the best way to open your mind !!!


    No matter which side you block, you only hurt yourself.


    It is the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and humming a tune. You cannot really complain when you are feeling detached.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 7:07 PM GMT
    bollocks to the idea what we´d learn anything from the trolls on this site

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 7:09 PM GMT


    SB you're late and lame as usual. Go post another topic about Justin. icon_lol.gif


  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jun 22, 2012 7:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    Kolonel KooKoo may have started Friday Happy Hour a bit early today....



    True...after all it IS Friday. Earth to the "Light" Colonel Koo-Koo Puffy....there is no "front runner" in the V.P. race. We can't even confirm if Rob Portman is on the short-list. Don't believe everything you read -- ESPECIALLY from Think Progress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 10:05 PM GMT



    I think it bad enough that he's a senator, and I notice that no one conservative is commenting on what he's said about gays being fired for being gay, other than SB, who shot himself in the foot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 10:13 PM GMT
    meninlove said I think it bad enough that he's a senator, and I notice that no one conservative is commenting on what he's said about gays being fired for being gay, other than SB, who shot himself in the foot.

    Portman's argument, if transposed to other areas, would go like this:

    "Innocent people should not be shot dead by gunmen. That proves I'm against murder. But if the innocent are killed, the murderers should not be prosecuted, because that would make them uncomfortable, and burden the legal system."

    It's no wonder conservatives won't touch what Portman is saying, because it's insane. But when it comes to the bill to protect gays from losing their jobs, guess which way they're gonna vote? So they're on the same side of the issue as Portman, even if they're staying low profile about it for now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 10:31 PM GMT
    I think what bothers me about this a topic is the pouncing on a diversion in order to avoid a very glaring civil rights boner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 10:37 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    I think it bad enough that he's a senator, and I notice that no one conservative is commenting on what he's said about gays being fired for being gay, other than SB, who shot himself in the foot.
    I noticed that too!icon_wink.gif