Tag Archives: discrimination

Reply from Congressman Lankford – Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

This is Congressman James Lankford’s response to my letter asking about discriminatory hiring practices in regards to religion. I wrote him the letter after an interview with Think Progress where he says that members of the LGBT community should not have legal protections from discriminatory hiring practices.

Summary: Lankford did not address my question at all. He seems to have one automated response he sends to anyone e-mailing him about discrimination in the past 24 hours or so because of the massive influx of mail he is receiving, which is at least partially understandable. At least, it is for e-mails about the LGBT rights and sexual identity. Mine was not in that same pool, so my question went unanswered. Immediately, I wrote him back, which is at the end of this page.

Full Text:

May 16, 2012

Dear Mr. Hansen,

Thank you for contacting me about discrimination in the workplace.  As this is an important issue, I would like to take a moment to explain my thoughts on employee’s rights and my support for the traditional institution of marriage.

As you know, Think Progress, the internet blog run by Center for American Progress Action Fund, recently posted about a comment I made as one of their video surrogates caught me outside the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington.  Misconceptions are being wildly spun regarding what I actually said and meant in the Think Progress video clip.  At no point in the video, nor anywhere else, have I ever stated that employers should be able to fire an employee based on outside-the-office sexual behavior.  I emphatically believe that employment decisions should be based solely on performance in the workplace.  An employee’s personal sexual preference has no place in that conversation.  I did state that I believe the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, and I do firmly believe in the traditional view of marriage between one man and one woman.

After the President and Vice President’s recently-made statements supporting same-sex marriage, the fight for traditional marriage has come under attack nationwide. For some time, the Administration has continued to ignore Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act—the current law of the land. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton after being passed in both chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan majorities.  Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and to date, more than half of the nation’s state governments have codified their Constitutions to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  My background and convictions also support the traditional institution of marriage as stated in the law.

Recent actions by the Administration have led to a unilateral decision of President Obama and the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a slap in the face to our constitutional framework.  No president gets to pick and choose different laws to enforce or not to enforce. The personal views of the President do not override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.  President Obama does not have the right to abandon the defense of this law.

As the President attempts to bring about “change” in our nation, he is redefining key terms along the way—marriage being a prime example.  The outcry expressed over my conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman is telling of the state of our culture. Misrepresenting my position on workplace hiring to advance the President’s attempt to redefine marriage is disingenuous and an affront to my right to free speech.

I appreciate hearing your concerns, and I want to take this last opportunity to communicate clearly to you. I fully support workplace equality; I believe wholeheartedly in strictly performance-based employment decisions; and I will unequivocally defend the traditional view of marriage between one man and one woman.

As the 112 th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your comments with me.  Please, contact me via email for a faster response.  To keep up with my work in Congress, I encourage you to visit my website at  www.lankford.house.gov .

     In God We Trust,

James Lankford
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

My Response

Dear Congressman Lankford,

Thank you for responding to my letter so quickly. I understand correspondence is difficult for you now given this controversy, so I would like to assure you feel free to take your time in this response. I just watched your interview with the local CBS affiliate and I now have another question. In the interview, you said that employees should only be fired or punished based on work performance. While this may be true, and it may be what you would do as an employer, do you understand that not all employers think or act in such a way? As you said, they should judge an employee based off of his or her performance, but some simply don’t work that way. That is why we have legal protections for discrimination and wrongful termination, to make those employers that would judge an employee in such an inappropriate way in violation of the law. Do you believe that a gay or lesbian employee that (within reasonable suspicion thereof) is fired because of his or her sexual preference is entitled to a wrongful termination suit and due process? You seemed to be in support of discrimination laws regarding race and other factors that are immediately noticeable, but what about those regarding religion, as I asked in my original letter?

Also, as much as you may tire of seeing these statistics in the past couple of days I must ask, you are aware that nearly all accredited medical and psychological organizations in America agree that there is little to no choice in one’s sexual identity? How do you justify, and what credentials do you have, to refute such a clear majority of certified medical and scientific professionals?

Thank you for your time. I will try to condense my letters as much as possible in this correspondence with you.

- Jay Hansen

Lankford Choosing Not to be Gay

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

Looks like everyone’s favorite tool has put on the big-boy pants and shown his ignorance on the national stage, proving once again just how massively entrenched in the culture of ignorance he is. In an interview with Think Progress, Congressman James Lankford stated that he believes it’s okay for members of the LGBT community to be discriminated against by employers because “it’s a choice issue.” His primary comparison is that of race; we are born a certain race, but Lankford does not believe that people are inherently gay.

Man, where to begin. First, all accredited medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association are in agreement that sexuality and gender identity are not choices.

Taken from the American Psychological Association’s page on sexual orientation:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

This is one of the primary reasons I have such little respect for the Republican Party in today’s America; they have become the anti-science party. Be it Evolution, Global Climate Change, or the science of human sexuality, all they do is bury their heads in the sand, plug their ears, and shout “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” when it comes to anything that causes them even the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance. It’s times like this where I actually start to think the religious wing of the party may have more power than the wealthy wing, because at least the wealthy wing would be smart enough not to deny science and prevent such asinine statements by its members, right? And yet, here I am writing this article.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, even if sexual orientation was a choice, Lankford’s argument is still inherently false. If employers can fire someone because they “choose” their sexual orientation, can they also fire employees based on religion? We choose our religion, after all. If an atheist employer decides to fire all his Christian employees simply because he hates Christians, should he be allowed to? Or how about an Evangelical employer firing all his Protestant employees, simply because he or she disagrees with their beliefs? According to Lankford yes, because religion is a choice – far more of a choice than sexual orientation ever has been.

It’s this exact question I plan to pose to Lankford in an e-mail, because I’m sure he’s being flooded with e-mails right now with the sources of how and why homosexuality isn’t a choice. I decided to take a different approach. See the bottom of this article for the full text of the very short message.

Now, to be as fair as physically possible to Lankford (am I not the most open minded man in Oklahoma?), if he answers yes to the religion question, that employers should be allowed to discriminate based on religion, at least he’s not being a bigoted, disingenuous asshole. Instead, he’s just being a libertarian asshole. I’m not saying all libertarians are assholes, but rather I’m talking about the ones that hold the belief that employers can do no wrong and should the government ever attempt to intervene, regulate, or otherwise tell them what to do they cry bloody murder of “big, intrusive government.”

“But sir, we in the federal government are just saying you can’t whip your employees as a form of discipline.” – Regulator

“Bull$#%&!” – Libertarian asshole

I’ve talked about this level of libertarianism before in previous articles. In a nutshell, I explained that while there’s sometimes merit to libertarian arguments, we live in a society that needs fair and efficient intervention and regulation of the free market to prevent exploitation of consumers, employees, and the citizens of our country in general. We can’t just let each and every employer make their own rules, otherwise entire communities within society could easily be discriminated against en masse, forcing them to forever stagnate in horrible poverty, turning them into a completely new lower class of society. It happened to the black community in the dark days after the Civil War and before discrimination laws were created, so to say it is out of the question or too farfetched that it could happen to the LGBT community simply isn’t true.

Of course, Lankford’s no libertarian. That would take principle. His support of big oil subsidies and earmark spending prove that beyond much of a doubt. Given that, the only real option is the former of the two; Lankford wants to use the issue of discriminatory hiring practices as yet another means to spread, or at least permit and foster an environment for, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals. While this is no real surprise, I think this story may tell us a lot more about Lankford than most of us perceive.

When Rick Perry came out with his horrible campaign ad “Strong,” I wrote this article about the projection of homosexuality. I’d suggest reading the entire article, but again, in a nutshell, I explained that truly straight people don’t have gay thoughts. It’s pretty much that simple. Therefore, if you hear a preacher or politician talking about how people need to “reject the temptation” of homosexuality, what does that tell us about him or her? It means that they, in their personal lives, have experienced this temptation, and assumed it’s normal. If one of these same people see homosexuality as some great plague upon humanity that could bring an end to us all, the only explanation for that is because they assume that everyone would be gay if they weren’t “choosing” not to be, when in reality they’re just suppressing their instinctual urges. Why else would they assume everyone would choose to be gay if it was legalized or otherwise sanctioned? It’s because they feel these urges themselves, and to defend their own psyches from the possibility of the realization that they might be gay themselves, they project the perceived flaw onto everyone else because of their assumption.

One of the primary ways this projection happens now is politicians and other social leaders make the claim that homosexuality is a choice. By touting this claim, despite it not being scientifically or medically true at all, they can convince themselves that they are “choosing” not to be gay even though they themselves feel the urge to be. So for them, it is a “choice,” but only because they’re ignoring and suppressing their instincts and who they are. So, as I said in the aforementioned article, whenever a politician insists that homosexuality is a choice in the face of great scientific opposition to the notion, raise a huge red flag – the person making the claim is very likely gay themselves, or at least bisexual.

So, in the words of Cenk Uygur, I’m not saying anything, I’m just saying, and allow me to be the first to say it.

James Lankford… gay?

Allow me to be immature for a moment. This does make a lot more sense now. I mean, look at the guy.

Tell me this picture and face doesn’t just scream “I’m going to be caught snorting coke off a male prostitute’s ass within ten years.” Does anyone want to start an official poll? It’s something about the lips and mouth, I tell you. Maybe the hair.

Well whatever it is, this story and video of Lankford has really triggered my gay-dar. There’s nothing wrong with being gay of course, but when you’re making a career out of gay-bashing and oppressing them even if just in part is when I clearly begin to take issue with such sell-outs.

At the very least, I’m starting to think my initial branding of Lankford as a tool may have been overly generous. Now that he’s showing direct defiance of science, and falling for his party’s own propaganda and lies, he may turn out to be a fool yet.

Full Text (of message to Congressman Lankford)

Dear Congressman Lankford,

My name is Jay Hansen. I’ve recently come across a conundrum within right-wing ideology, and I’d like to know your position on the issue. I know you support most deregulation to give employers as much freedom as possible in their own businesses and hiring practices, but I must ask, how do you feel about employers that practice discriminatory hiring practices based on people’s religion? Could an atheist employer refuse to hire Christians? Or could an Evangelical employer fire all his Protestant employees simply because they’re Protestant? Do you believe this should be legal and permissible?

Thank you for your time.

- Jay Hansen

UPDATE: Lankford went on an Oklahoma local news station and says that Think Progress is trying to slander him by taking his quote out of context. He clarified in the interview that he does not support legal protections for members of the LGBT community from workplace discrimination. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that not everyone is as open-minded as he claims to be, as he continually assumes the argument that an employer would never fire anyone based on anything other than job performance, which is just extremely ignorant.

So… he wanted to clarify that he does in fact believe it’s okay for employers to discriminate based on sexual identity?

Is Your Right to Vote Worth $200?

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

“If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?” – Samuel Adams

The idea of taxation without representation is one of the core, founding principles that led to the creation of the United States of America. Without fair representation we simply have laws thrust upon us and are told to obey them with no say in the matter, meaning we are not free. Naturally, while not everyone in a representational democracy can be fully represented at all levels of government at all times due to the vast differences in opinion and ideology, particularly in a nation with as much liberty as this one, the system established in America by the constitution is a good one. Despite this, I feel that something more should be added to the historic phrase “taxation without representation.” Just what, exactly, does it mean to be represented?

Obviously there are grievous flaws in our system because of corruption of politicians who are easily swayed by anyone or anything with money, be it a member of the upper class, a corporation, or anything in between, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about today. There are some flaws in our system, particularly on state levels, that are institutionalized in our laws and systems of government that hinder or prevent the fair, adequate representation on which the founding fathers prided themselves and this nation was created. Here in Oklahoma, we experience this all too often because our state is so heavily slanted in favor of one particular party opposition can sometimes be harder to find in smaller areas. This creates a big problem made all the more complicated by our state having closed primaries. If only candidates from one party file, which happens a lot, the entire election will be decided by a closed primary. This means that only Oklahomans who have registered to the party in question (Republican, for our state), will get to actually vote for their representative.

Traditionally, the line “taxation without representation” has come to mean everyone who is taxed should get the right to vote for their representatives, regardless of the level of government. So I have a question for you all to consider, and one to ask of Mr. Adam’s philosophy and that of the founding fathers. Does representation actually count as such if a person does not get to vote for their representative? The person in question still has representation insofar that they have someone in the legislator or other branch of the government standing for their district, but it is essentially a representative appointed to them, and not elected by the general populace, in the rare aberrations of democracy mentioned above. In such a system, we often end up with representatives that don’t actually represent everyone’s interest. Now I know it’s not possible to have one candidate that pleases everyone, but if there are select groups within a community that aren’t even allowed to vote in a particular election there’s not even a chance they have to voice whether or not a candidate represents them, despite the fact that they are tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. All that matters is that this candidate represents the interests of those able to vote.

If you ask me, such a specific electoral circumstance as this is a form of voter discrimination. If you are a member of the opposition party in a particular area, or if you choose not to associate with either political party for whatever reason (likely because they’re both either too corrupt or you strongly disagree with both), you are punished and have your right to vote taken away in some situations. This first happened to me in 2011, during a special election to find out who would replace Senator Lamb, who at the time had just recently become Lt. Governor. Five whole candidates filed for that office, but all of them filed as Republicans. In doing so, though likely not intentionally (I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any means), they created a system where despite nearly half a dozen people were running for an office, two specific groups within the community would be prevented from voting simply because of the political party to which they belong (or didn’t belong). Ever since that day I’ve felt this was just ethically wrong, and a detrimental crack in the modern democracy through which many voters were slipping. I wrote Senator Treat, the winner of this election, about this a couple of times but never received a response.

When democracy was first brought into this world, only wealthy, white, male, property owners could vote. Over the centuries, that became more defined to white males, then to all males, and eventually to include women as well. This still hasn’t stopped those prejudice few still left in our society from discriminating against voters they simply dislike, or don’t think are worthy of having a voice in our government. The most notable attempts at this, of course, were the infamous Jim Crow laws of the South that prevented African Americans from voting. Today, voter suppression takes the form of Voter ID laws, of which I’ve already written (please see my article on the topic to learn more). Even though our focus on voter discrimination largely lies on these underhanded, indirect means through which it is accomplished, there are still small holes in our overall system that violate a free democracy. This is why I feel it should be made law that if a primary election, regardless of the party, is to determine the outcome of an election it should become open to the entire voting public. Closed primaries would still be protected in a majority of circumstances to prevent attempts at sabotage from opposing parties, but at the same time allow for much more fair representation.

But perhaps even that’s a little too idealistic for this world.

Just this year I was faced with this exact problem. My State Senate district (41) had two Republicans file for office; the incumbent Senate Majority Leader Clark Jolley, and an even further right-wing preacher Paul Blair. They’re set to have a primary against one another in June, and sadly, that will be the end of it. No Democrat or Independent filed for this district, so again, many people in this district will not be allowed to vote for their own representative in the State Senate.

In my life, my family, teachers, and friends have always stressed the importance of voting. The importance of voting has always been an extremely high ethical priority in my mind, even before I was politically active. Not voting isn’t even an option in my mind it’s so ingrained within my very morality. To put it more simply, if you don’t vote, you can’t complain. Well, what if you can’t vote?

I reached this ethical dilemma late last month when I searched the internet and found no Democrat willing to run in this district. I kept telling myself that surely, someone would, but no one did. Filing week came and still no names had come forward. So, in one last-ditch effort to simply do the right thing, I decided to run for the State Senate. I planned on paying the $200 filing fee for the sole purpose of putting my name on the ballot and forcing there to be a general election to help protect other’s right to vote, as well as my own. Unfortunately, because of how filing works in Oklahoma, I would have been forced to run as a Democrat, when really all I wanted was to run as an Independent and stay out of the official party’s hair. The last thing I would ever want to do is somehow tarnish the reputation of the Oklahoma County Democrat’s reputation, or negatively affect their long-term goals. My primary objective was not winning or even just competing so much as it would have been forcing a general election. Finally, when I talked to my family about this, they were not entirely supportive because they feared the damage that could befall them and myself if I were to become a public figure. It is for this reason that I decided, as much as it may violate my personal morals, that I would not file for office. It’s not a decision I made lightly by any stretch of the imagination, as for me it is unquestionably the morally right thing to do, but when the party’s well-being and objectives, and even more importantly the desires of my family, are taken into account the risks simply outweighed the benefits.

I’m not discouraged though. This injustice is one that hopefully I will be better able to fight in the future, when I’ve more experience, education, and most importantly resources at my disposal. Many people were very supportive of my decision, and I am grateful, but it’s just not the right time in my life, though I’m sure someday the day will come where it will.

I also don’t want my readers to feel helpless or discouraged from running themselves. It may be too late here in Oklahoma (filing deadline is tonight at 5:00), but I’m sure there’s other states with closed primaries that could be facing this exact problem. At the very least, it’s something to consider for elections to come. If you see no one has filed for an office, throw your name out there! The odds may not be in your favor of winning, but it’s not possible to win if you don’t try. Plus you’ll at least bring the right to vote to those who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten a say in who represents them in the government. Don’t let laze, fear, ignorance, or worst of all, apathy, stop you. If we all do our parts, no matter how microscopic they are in the greater scheme of this democracy, we can fix these cracks in our electoral system, we can do away with what little taxation without representation tragically still lurks in America, and we can do it one little baby step at a time.