Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Alternate Reality

Idaho Republicans Want to Protect Workplace From Gay Men In Tutus

In its unending quest to better society, the Idaho Republican party wants to void all local ordinances that offer LGBT workplace protections. OK, no surprise there. But here’s a new twist. According to one of the proponents of the idea, it would prevent the specter of gay men in tutus showing up on the job.

Cornel Rasor, the chair of the Idaho GOP’s resolutions committee, introduced the measure, which the party dutifully approved. Then he explained to the Spokane Spokesman-Review his laser-like reasoning for the measure.

“I’d hire a gay guy if I thought he was a good worker,” Rasor said. ” But if he comes into work in a tutu … he’s not producing what I want in my office.”

Just to make sure you know it’s not fear of  inappropriate attire that is driving him, Rasor explained that the workplace protections need to go because they would prevent him from firing a gay employee.

“If a guy has a particular predilection and keeps it to himself, that’s fine,” Rasor said. “But if he wants to use my business as a platform for his lifestyle, why should I have to subsidize that? And that’s what these anti-discrimination laws do.”

Needless to say, Rasor found support among his fellow Republicans.  “Personally I don’t know anybody that’s been discriminated against on any of those issues, so I do not feel like a law should have to compel me something that I’m already willing to do,” party chair Barry Peterson said. “You take away from somebody their opportunity to make a choice, to make a decision, to me that’s a serious impact upon liberty and freedom.”

As if getting fired for no good reason is a tribute to liberty and freedom.

Six Idaho cities have workplace protections based on sexual orientation. Apparently, no locale in the state has minimum IQ requirements for GOP leadership.

Photo credit: CornelRasor.com

By:           John Gallagher
On:           Jun 18, 2013
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 10 Comments
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      ” Apparently, no locale in the state has minimum IQ requirements for GOP leadership.”

      That is the main plank for red state Republican/TPods Party. No surprise there. The IQ of room temperature would be a step up!

      Jun 18, 2013 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scribe38
      Scribe38

      Why do I get the feeling that this guy is no stranger to truck stop rest room sex? Someone please come forward and out his little butt.

      Jun 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MickeyP.
      MickeyP.

      Seriously! Where do they come up with this shit? Just when you think it can’t get any more ridiculous….oops, there it is! These kind of people HAD to do a LOT of drugs,in their youth…they are now brain dead! Maybe they just “choose” to be assholes? Or,maybe….GASP,they were BORN that way!

      Jun 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @MickeyP.: #1 qualification to be a Republican/TPod: Be born an asshole w/o a body. Hmmm! That seems to work.

      Jun 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D P
      D P

      I hate these stupid people, but here I have to say that I’m glad he publicly expressed his opinion. Does anyone else see the flaw in his logic that should ultimately lead to this viewpoint being held as discriminatory? If he hires someone on the basis of employment such that a person delivers the service of labor in exchange for compensation, he therefore is *not* subsidizing the employee. So if in his stated reasoning, he feels not to ‘subsidize’ an employee and wishes to terminate employment on that basis – therefore openly targeting a select group – yet admitting that he would ‘subsidize’ an employee _not_of_ that select group, it becomes open discrimination in employment?

      So help me out here, to see if I’m correct in this understanding, okay?

      Doesn’t that manner of discrimination fall into the scope of what is illegal under current labor law, notwithstanding discrimination toward sexual orientation being a recognized discriminatory crime not recognized at the state level? Because since it is discrimination not within the scope of employment due to his stating that he’s thinking of a subsidy, and not compensation, that causes it to be illegal?

      That’s what occurred to me, and I’m wondering if that would hold up? Does anyone else see it that way?

      BTW, my last word for this comment in this topic: these guys can go fcuk themselves.

      Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      I’m sorry but ANYTIME some right winger goes THIS far out of their way to single out gays, they ALWAYS seem to get discovered as being massive closet cases later. He is just another George Reckers, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, etc…

      I have a feeling that this guy is no stranger to last call at the local leather bar, my guess is, he ties himself up to save time.

      Jun 19, 2013 at 10:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Polaro
      Polaro

      Its called a dress code. What an f’ing moron. Some people make me so sour on humanity sometimes.

      Jun 19, 2013 at 10:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Idaho is where Mark Furhman scooted to when his perjury was undone, is a coddling paradise to skinhead groups and home to Larry “Wide Stance” Craig. It can’t surprise me anymore.

      Jun 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rand503
      rand503

      apparently these morons believe that under a non-discrimination law, they cannot ever for any reason fire a person in that protected class. Someone needs to explain to them that they can indeed fire a person for a good reason.

      Jun 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peg
      Peg

      I think we need to organize a massive tutu mailing scheme. Whether you make a tutu or buy one, send it to Mr. Rasor for his new employee dress code.

      Jun 22, 2013 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.