Thursday, October 15, 2015

While Rand Paul backtracks from his bigoted boo-boo, anti-gay hate group tries to defend him

Sen Paul backtracks from a bigoted statement while an anti-gay group tries to defend it.

When President Obama won a landslide re-election in 2012, some commentators were quick to jeer at right-wing outrage. Until the time his victory was announced, various folks on the right, including Fox News pundits and people like Karl Rove, were sure that his opponent, Mitt Romney would be the one to have the landslide. They firmly believed this in spite of the fact that polling clearly showed that Obama would win.

The commentators jeering at conservatives blamed a "right-wing bubble" for their embarrassing depart from reality.  A "right-wing bubble" is when conservatives create their own reality because their own stubbornness will not allow them to see the truth. If Rush Limbaugh tells them that they are in the middle of a blizzard even though it's 100 degrees outside, they will bend over backwards, including deliberately lie to themselves, instead doing the right thing and declaring that Limbaugh is full of shit.

It would seem that this bubble includes anti-gay groups. Take the recent controversy with presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul for example

On Wednesday, Paul made an absolutely stupid statement regarding lgbt equality.During a talk with Iowa college students, he said the following about gays being fired for their sexual orientation:

"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,  . . .I think society is rapidly changing and that if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you."

It was an infuriating statement which implied that being an lgbt is all about sexual intercourse and facts such as gays leading families, raising children, and caring for loved ones don't exist.

 Justifiably, he was blasted by many different sources, including  Steven Benen from MSNBC:

Here’s the follow-up question for the senator: should the same standards be applied to everyone? I ask because Rand Paul has mentioned many times that he’s married and has children. He most certainly has not taken the things he’s done in his house and just left them in his house.
In other words, the Kentucky Republican brings elements of his private life – including his sexual orientation – to his workplace all the time. By all appearances, he considers it routine.
Does Paul consider it inappropriate when straight people talk about their spouses and/or kids at work? Should they be subject to dismissal if their employers are offended by their sexual orientation? Or does the Republican presidential candidate think different legal standards should be applied to different Americans?

Today, he has been attempting to put out the fire made by yesterday's comments. According to The New Civil Rights Movement, he went on CNN in an attempt to clarify what he said:

"I don’t think anybody should be fired for being gay," Paul told Wolf Blitzer. "I do also, though, believe that your personal life should be personal and shouldn’t affect anyone firing you. So, I don’t think the decision whether to hire or fire you should be based on things from your personal life."

Paul admitted he "might have been able to word it better," but when asked how he should have worded it, he said, "Exactly how I did."

So this is the reality - Sen. Rand Paul made an ignorant comment which reduced the dignity of lgbt Americans and their families. He was blasted for it and since then has been playing damage control.

But in the right-wing, or in this case, anti-gay group bubble, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins had this to say:
 During a stop at Iowa's Drake University, the Kentucky Republican laid down his first marker on the debate, insisting that movement was an unnecessary attack on employers' rights. "People don't put up a sign that says, 'I'm firing you because you're gay,'" he said. "It's something that's very much disputed. So, I don't know that we need to keep adding to different classifications and say, the government needs to be involved in hiring and firing. I think society is rapidly changing, and if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will probably hire you."
 But Rand didn't stop there. Like a lot of people, myself included, he doesn't want to talk about people's sex lives in the first place. "I think, really, the things you do in your house, we can just leave those in the house, and they wouldn't have to be part of the workplace, to tell you the truth," Paul said. "These are very difficult decisions, on what you decide will be employers' decisions and not. And it really isn't so much about that question as it is about that it sets a classification, or a class of people, who can now sue."

It's one thing to be figuratively late for a party. It's quite another to be a day late. But when you come in not only late but loud, you are simply making a damn fool of yourself.

I think in the case of Rand Paul's recent controversy, that last description fits Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council like a glove


Nancy Green said...

By those standards should I leave my interracial marriage at home? I don't bring it up all the time, but if my employer wanted to fire me for it should they be able to?

BJohnM said...

"Like a lot of people, myself included, he doesn't want to talk about people's sex lives in the first place."

Then good god man, by all means, please stop obsessing about the sex lives of gay people. For someone claiming to not want to talk about it Ms. Perkins, you sure do spend a lot of time doing just that. In fact, you've basically made a lucrative career out of it.

Patrick Fitzgerald said...

(5 stars to the previous comments)
So it’s perfectly fine with me if you get fired JUST for being gay because… RAND PAUL: “if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will probably hire you."

Ergo, since you “probably” can get another job, there is no reason to add ‘your kind’ to the list of those who are already protected under the non-discrimination clause.