by Nomad
While Rand Paul claims to be against all forms of discrimination when it comes to discrimination against gays in the workplace, Paul is willing to look the other way.
In Iowa on Wednesday, Presidential candidate Rand Paul exposed himself.
Not literally.
Today MSNBC reports noted that during his 3-day tour in Iowa, Paul was asked whether there was a need for hiring. He didn't think discrimination against gay and lesbians was a matter for the courts. He came out against any employment protections for LGBT citizens, saying:
"I think society is rapidly changing and that if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you."
Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation by employers was something that all gay and Lesbian Americans should just put up with. They had no right to expect any protection under the law.
Paul said that designating the LGBT community as a protected class, like race, gender, and ethnicity, would create a new group "who can now sue."
Demanding equality is not, and has never been, seeking to become a "protected class."
And the same argument used by Pand could be applied to every other group presently covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin.
Once you open the doors for discrimination in labor practices, it can easily spread to other areas, like the public sphere.
Indeed, Rand Paul's reply could have been used for anti-discrimination laws in the past. The owners of "whites-only' restaurants or swimming pools could easily have made the same arguments. "There are other restaurants for blacks to eat at. Other swimming pools that black children can swim in. If they don't like sitting at the back of the bus, then let them walk."
If you think that comparison is an exaggeration, it's just not true.
Five years ago, that very question was brought up and Paul stumbled and fumbled for an answer.
Maddow and Paul
Five years ago, that very question was brought up and Paul stumbled and fumbled for an answer.
Maddow and Paul
In 2010, Rachel Maddow asked him point-blank whether he thought private business owners had a right to discriminate against minority customers, he claimed it was an issue of... free speech.
During the interview, he simply refused to absolutely commit himself on the issue. The best he could do was something along the lines of "discrimination is wrong... but..."
It was only after a later conference with his handlers that Paul realized his blunder and reversed himself. A spokesman for the candidate said that Paul did, in fact, believe that the Federal government should have the power to ban private businesses from discriminating based on race.
To anybody who watched the Maddow show, there was no doubt that Paul stated exactly the opposite.
Yesterday, Paul's true character surfaced again. According to the Book of Paul, when it comes to sexual orientation, labor protections afforded all other Americans, are not necessary.
To anybody who watched the Maddow show, there was no doubt that Paul stated exactly the opposite.
Yesterday, Paul's true character surfaced again. According to the Book of Paul, when it comes to sexual orientation, labor protections afforded all other Americans, are not necessary.
While he claims to be against "all forms of discrimination," he has no problem with discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens by the employers.
Golden Rule Litmus Test
Clearly, candidate Paul is comfortable with discrimination as long as it is the majority who is doing it,
But let's consider the Gold Rule for a moment. What if gay employers were able to fire straight employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, without fear of a lawsuit, would Paul feel the same way? It's an unlikely scenario I grant you. Still that's the litmus test for discrimination. How would you feel? In this hypothetical situation, would Paul say that heterosexuals shouldn't need special protections? That they too should look for other places to work?
Lost in his own failed logic, Paul apparently could not stop himself from digging his political grave a tad deeper.
"So what happens is it sets up a whole industry of people who want to sue...
Paul is a master of casually throwing out the loaded phrase without clearly explaining what he means and this is a prime example. An industry? He seems to be suggesting that discrimination suits initiated by an LGBT citizen are aimed at profit-making.
He continued:
"So if you happen to be gay, you get fired—now you have a reason you can fire [sue?] them. But it's almost impossible sometimes—you know, people don't put up a sign, 'I'm firing you because you're gay.' It's something that's very much disputed. And so I don't know that we need to keep adding to different classifications to say the government needs to be involved in the hiring and firing."
Because something is "much disputed" courts shouldn't get involved? The bottom line is that, in this day and age, no American should be legally fired for who they are or who they love.
According to Paul, if gay and lesbians do not like employers discriminating against them, then they ought not to have advertised themselves and their "lifestyle choices."
"I think, really, the things you do in your house, just leave those in your house and they wouldn't have to be a part of the workplace, to tell you the truth."
And yet during the Kim Davis controversy, the libertarian-leaning Paul had no problem defending a person who demanded special treatment for her religious beliefs.
He told CNN that he thought it was "absurd to put anybody in jail for exercising their religious liberty." He called that a "real mistake."
However, many Americans felt that Davis should have left her private life and personal belief outside of her workplace too. Even that analogy doesn't quite fit because nobody was persecuting her for being Christian- despite what she claimed- they simply asked her to do her job.
Apparently Paul has no problem adding Christian beliefs as a special classification needing protections. Aren't there other places for Christians to work?
Acceptance and Intolerance
This wouldn't be the first time Rand Paul has been accused of bigotry. Throughout his political career, the allegation that Paul- like his father-is a bigot has sprung up again and again. He may talk the talk but when it comes to a careful analysis of what he is actually saying, the facade falls apart.
And with yesterday's remarks simply back up that perception. In this case, it might just be the final straw for his already miserable run for president.
His blunder was picked up by younger members of the audience immediately. Said on college student:
"I heard a lot of students speaking afterwards, and they said they were with them until he said that. Our generation is becoming more and more accepting."
That's ironic too since only last year, Paul told the ultra liberal crowd at UC Berkeley, that demographically the GOP must “evolve, adapt or die.”
For young voters, Candidate Paul's notion that it is fine for the boss to impose his personal ideas on who is the perfect employee is one that seems about as old-fashioned and repellent as a rotary dial phone.
