If there's one thing the Republican Party likes to do, it's make asinine comparisons concerning the LGBT community. Some have compared it to: Polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, alcoholism, drug addiction, and the list continues.
Just recently, North Carolina House Republican Robert Pittenger decided to make an addition to that ever growing list of nonsense, as he said the following at a town hall near Charlotte with regard to his belief that companies should have the right to fire or refuse to hire someone because they're gay:
"You need to respect the autonomy of somebody running their business. It's like smoking bans. Do you ban smoking or do people have the right to private property? I think people have the right to private property. In public spaces, absolutely, we can have smoking bans. But we don't want to micromanage people's lives and businesses. If you have a business, do you want the government to come in and tell you you need to hire somebody? Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?"
It should also be noted that despite the fact North Carolina is one of 29 states where it's legal to fire a person due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, Pittenger ignorantly stated, "I believe people are already protected."
So, not only does Pittenger appear to be confused about laws in North Carolina, but he also appears to be perplexed on how to make a reasonable comparison.
Smoking is not an innate trait of a person. It's a harmful act or habit. Homosexuality, meanwhile, is an innate trait, much like gender or race. Also, while smoking in a work environment around others can do significant damage to others' health, a homosexual going about his or her work won't carry with it those same risks to other employees. So, Mr. Pittenger's argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. I also find it highly ironic that he finished his poor excuse for a tangent with, "...Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?" Due to the surrounding context of his quote, what Pittenger is really saying is, "Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy by denying the freedoms of others?"
Due to his logic (or lack there of), expect Robert Pittenger to make the following similar comparisons in the future:
Comparison #1
"If bosses don't want to hire them black people or Mexicans, then so be it. It's like if these very companies wanted to allow their employees to do several shots of whiskey while at work, then that's their choice, you know? Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?"
Comparison #2
"If a guy doesn't want to hire a woman for whatever reason, he should be allowed to do so. It's like, if this boss allowed for people to bring in guns and shoot around the room during their lunch break, that's cool too. Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?"
Yeah, rumor has it Robert Pittenger once told his wife, "Honey, I love you. I love everything about you. I love who you are, you know? I love you so much, if you came in for a job interview, I'd probably reject you for who you are, because no government of mine is going to impose on my freedom to deny you your freedom!"
He's so sweet...
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/09/08/3564205/pittenger-fire-gay-people-smoking/
Just recently, North Carolina House Republican Robert Pittenger decided to make an addition to that ever growing list of nonsense, as he said the following at a town hall near Charlotte with regard to his belief that companies should have the right to fire or refuse to hire someone because they're gay:
"You need to respect the autonomy of somebody running their business. It's like smoking bans. Do you ban smoking or do people have the right to private property? I think people have the right to private property. In public spaces, absolutely, we can have smoking bans. But we don't want to micromanage people's lives and businesses. If you have a business, do you want the government to come in and tell you you need to hire somebody? Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?"
It should also be noted that despite the fact North Carolina is one of 29 states where it's legal to fire a person due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, Pittenger ignorantly stated, "I believe people are already protected."
So, not only does Pittenger appear to be confused about laws in North Carolina, but he also appears to be perplexed on how to make a reasonable comparison.
Smoking is not an innate trait of a person. It's a harmful act or habit. Homosexuality, meanwhile, is an innate trait, much like gender or race. Also, while smoking in a work environment around others can do significant damage to others' health, a homosexual going about his or her work won't carry with it those same risks to other employees. So, Mr. Pittenger's argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. I also find it highly ironic that he finished his poor excuse for a tangent with, "...Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?" Due to the surrounding context of his quote, what Pittenger is really saying is, "Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy by denying the freedoms of others?"
Due to his logic (or lack there of), expect Robert Pittenger to make the following similar comparisons in the future:
Comparison #1
"If bosses don't want to hire them black people or Mexicans, then so be it. It's like if these very companies wanted to allow their employees to do several shots of whiskey while at work, then that's their choice, you know? Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?"
Comparison #2
"If a guy doesn't want to hire a woman for whatever reason, he should be allowed to do so. It's like, if this boss allowed for people to bring in guns and shoot around the room during their lunch break, that's cool too. Why should government be there to impose on the freedoms we enjoy?"
Yeah, rumor has it Robert Pittenger once told his wife, "Honey, I love you. I love everything about you. I love who you are, you know? I love you so much, if you came in for a job interview, I'd probably reject you for who you are, because no government of mine is going to impose on my freedom to deny you your freedom!"
He's so sweet...
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/09/08/3564205/pittenger-fire-gay-people-smoking/
Comments
Post a Comment