Discrimination | News | Oklahoma

GOP Rep. Lankford Tries To Explain Comments About Firing Gay People: VIDEO


Oklahoma Rep. James Lankford appeared on his local news last night to hit back at Think Progress for reprinting his comments that gay people do not deserve workplace protections.

According to Lankford, he said nothing of the sort. Rather, he simply believes homosexuality is a choice is that "private behavior" does not warrant "special protections." The entire encounter with TP, he says, was an example of "ambush journalism" and an extension of President Obama's pro-gay marriage agenda.

Watch Lankford's followup, AFTER THE JUMP….

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I'd like to know who he chooses to f*ck on the side. Perhaps an ambush journalist could investigate...then he'd understand just what ambush journalism was.

    Posted by: Sean in Dallas | May 16, 2012 10:04:22 AM

  2. Maybe he should keep in mind that his ridiculous "religion" is a choice and shouldn't warrant "special protections".

    Posted by: Chaos | May 16, 2012 10:06:39 AM

  3. Since when did "ignorance" become a valid viewpoint? Just because he 'believes' something that goes against all reputable scientific findings and the clear experience of millions of LGBT people doesn't make it true. He might 'believe' he can fly, but that won't repeal gravity. The problem here is not intelligence -- he seems intelligent and well-spoken -- it is willful ignorance. Whether that ignorance stems from lack of exposure to sexual orientation issues or from some quasi-religious sources, it is ignorance just the same. Shame on your ignorance. If you expect the public's trust you need to learn and grow.

    Posted by: Alex Parrish | May 16, 2012 10:06:48 AM

  4. Mr. Lankford clearly makes the choice not to be gay, daily. Actually, to put it more accurately, not identify as gay. But you still, deep inside, are a gay man, James. The pinging is a little too strong to deny that with this one.

    Should have asked him what special protections our community seeks and why the choice of religion is protected in our country and how that differs from sexual orientation. The interviewer gave Mr. Lankford too many softballs.

    Posted by: Francis | May 16, 2012 10:08:48 AM

  5. "Did they single you out because you are a Christian?" What?! Was that a FoxNews affiliate, or a Christian Broadcasting Network?

    I swear this guy must have Phelps blood in him. His features look very much like the Phelps.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | May 16, 2012 10:13:30 AM

  6. Funny how cockroaches like Lankford scramble when they get caught in the daylight.

    Posted by: ichabod | May 16, 2012 10:15:46 AM

  7. I know this is a superficial comment, but why does this guy look like a space alien?

    Posted by: Jack M | May 16, 2012 10:17:39 AM

  8. "... an example of 'ambush journalism' and an extension of President Obama's pro-gay marriage agenda." Or an extension of this rest stop closet queen being an asswipe.

    Posted by: MikeMick | May 16, 2012 10:21:31 AM

  9. why did this news anchor not actually ask this idiot outright....'Should someone be fired for being gay?' - they totally avoided the main issue....

    Posted by: paul | May 16, 2012 10:21:58 AM

  10. He's a complete a-hole

    Posted by: Steve M | May 16, 2012 10:32:43 AM

  11. Why is he talking about marriage? The subject is workplace discrimination. And since when is gay only about gay sex? These socially repressed people can't get beyond our bedroom. Being gay is an identity, not a sexual act. I didn't have sex with my boyfriend this morning, so does that mean today I'm not gay?

    Posted by: Brian | May 16, 2012 10:34:45 AM

  12. So... He didn't say it. He only *said* it. Gotchya.

    Protip - if your "clarification" just ends up being the same thing people thought you said, don't bother making it.

    Posted by: JD | May 16, 2012 10:41:40 AM

  13. A terrible example of journalism, far worse than the so called ambush journalism practiced by Think Progress. Simple question, "if you believe homosexuality is something that does not deserve special protection are you saying that those fired simply for being gay should have no legal recourse?" For the record, that's what "protects gay people from being fired for being gay" means. It has nothing to do with marriage, birth or preferences. It's just about whether employers should have the right to fire someone.

    Posted by: Jonathan | May 16, 2012 10:45:14 AM

  14. This gentleman gives me the creeps. He looks like the product of a Goebbels focus group. Like some type of arian spokesperson.

    I always laugh when I see on TV the groups of people standing behing a republican candidate/speaker. They are all white. No shades of brown in the room.

    And this guy is the epitome of that.

    Posted by: stevenelliot | May 16, 2012 10:50:53 AM

  15. DASTIUS: that channel is an NBC affiliate, actually. It's just journalism in Oklahoma.

    Posted by: YankeeFan | May 16, 2012 11:01:30 AM

  16. poor, poor victim....
    You want to "protect" an employers right to fire the "icky" people who act on their sexuality. How is that living up to the "golden rule"?

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | May 16, 2012 11:05:01 AM

  17. Are sure his last name isn't Palin? "Stop oppressing me by asking me questions then showing my answers unedited!"

    Posted by: Caliban | May 16, 2012 11:26:56 AM

  18. Maybe someone should ask him if it would be okay to fire someone based on their religion. After all, practicing religion is a choice and, using his logic, he clearly doesn't think that there should be special protections for that choice.

    Posted by: John | May 16, 2012 11:33:00 AM

  19. I smell a closet case!

    Posted by: Ben | May 16, 2012 12:08:53 PM

  20. Wow... everything is there: Homosexuality is a choice, a behaviour, a lifestyle; he was targeted by people with a homosexual agenda, babbles without being questioned about it of his belief that a family is one man one woman and children... sigh
    And the only reason why someone who's gay is fired is because of his or her poor record at work. Yes, sure. But he totally supports special protections for Christians, because we all know, you're born Christian.
    And the bias of the "interviewer" is certainly showing. More than 3 minutes of interview and he asks questions like "Did they single you out because you are a Christian?" but he's not able to ask the only question this interview was all about:
    "Do you think employers should be ABLE to fire an employee simply because she or he is gay?"
    In short, 3 minutes of ignorance, bias and anti-gay drivel by a local Oklahoma TV station. Is anyone surprised?

    Posted by: Peter M. | May 16, 2012 12:18:58 PM

  21. Why are Evangelicals always victims when they are asked a question? Do they not like how it sounds when it's repeated to them?

    Posted by: Dale | May 16, 2012 12:23:10 PM

  22. A choice huh? Why would someone choose to be singled out for persecution, hate, etc? Sir I would like to know the moment you CHOSE to be straight. Can you identify that date? Why is it OKLAHOMA that that you get all the hard core crazies from.

    Posted by: Rob | May 16, 2012 12:33:07 PM

  23. Being gay is not "private behavior" you idiot!

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | May 16, 2012 3:19:13 PM

  24. Based on the clip, Lankford is plainly a liar, and got a softball interview.

    Posted by: Randy | May 16, 2012 6:42:02 PM

  25. Based on the clip, Lankford is plainly a liar, and got a softball interview.

    Posted by: Randy | May 16, 2012 6:42:04 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Bristol Claims Threats After Gay Marriage Critique« «