Because firing should be arbitrary and acceptable for any non-genetic circumstance
Rep. Lankford (R-OK) thinks it's perfectly acceptable for an employer to fire someone for their sexual orientation, because it's a "choice."
I won't argue what most biologists seem to agree upon — that homosexual orientation is not a choice — because, more fundamentally, who gives a damn? Because if an employer should be able to fire someone because that someone has made a lifestyle "choice" that they dislike, then certainly it should be okay for them to fire them for their religion.
After all, religion is a "choice." It's not genetic or congenital. Sure, it's often passed on within families — but there are plenty of people who have chosen another religion upon adulthood (or none at all, or gained one where they'd had none). It's all about choice, in fact.
So why should an employer not be able to discriminate based on religion? Or political affiliation? Or sports team preference? Or for being married? Or being single? Or pretty much any other "choice" where said choice has nothing to do with the ability to meet the needs of the job?
"But religion is _special!_" I hear some cry. More special than who you find yourself in love with?
Heck, take it a step further. I presume that most gay people who are out (and therefore eligible for being fired by Rep. Lankford's measure) have considered the moral implications of their orientation and action, and have determined that it is acceptable.
So to fire someone for being gay — for having decided that being gay is a morally acceptable lifestyle (whether or not it is a "choice" or not) is, in fact, discriminating against someone's else's considered moral judgment. Which is the foundation of religion. So if you can discriminate based on that, then certainly you can discriminate against Jews, or Muslims, or Catholics, or Mormons, or Christians, or …
Yeah, I suspect Rep. Lankford would object to that line of reasoning.
Embedded Link
GOP Rep. Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay: ‘It’s A Choice Issue’
Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress last week that he believes someone should be able to be fired for his or her sexual orientation. In a conversation on Capitol Hill, Lankford expressed his…
Google+: View post on Google+
He's Fired then. For wearing that.
That tie with his hair color? That was a choice. Maybe not the hair color. But the tie was a choice.
So he would agree that it's OK to fire someone for being Christian? Or is that hard-wired?
Well, that's kind of my point. Though I'm sure he would say that being a Christian — though clearly a choice amongst the Born Again, is also divinely mandated, and so not really a choice in the same way that being an icky gay is a choice.
But you can choose to not be a Christian… Why do I feel like a computer that Jim Kirk is destroying through the use of logic/illogic?
As long as Spock and Harry Mudd aren't involved, you should be fine.