Mitt Romney is no supporter of LGBT equality. Throughout his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, he has rarely passed up an opportunity to boast about his opposition to marriage equality. In February, he proudly proclaimed that by resurrecting an obscure 1913 law intended to limit interracial marriage, he stopped same-same couples from other states from getting married in Massachusetts, saying he “prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.” And while he once promised to co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he now believes that states should be free to allow employment discrimination.

But the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA)policy of prohibiting LGBT Scouts and leaders is apparently too anti-LGBT for even an anti-LGBT activist like Romney. This weekend, his campaign announced that Romney stands by a 1994 comment he made that the BSA should stop discriminating.

The Associated Press reported Saturday:

Back in 1994, during a political debate in Massachusetts, Romney said this: “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”

A Romney spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in an e-mail that this remains Romney’s position today.

At the time of his initial comments, Romney served on the group’s national executive board and earned their ire for publicly criticizing the organization, in violation of board rules. The fact that corporate CEOs who serve on the national board, Eagle Scouts, and now even Romney are standing up against this discriminatory policy show just how out-of-step the ban is from mainstream American values.

WASHINGTON, DC — Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), best known as the “boring” choice atop Mitt Romney’s vice presidential list, told ThinkProgress today that he doesn’t believe it should be illegal to fire someone for being gay because doing so would make businesses less “comfortable.”

In an interview at the Faith & Freedom Conference, Portman explained why he opposes the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban firing someone because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. “What I’m concerned about in Paycheck Fairness and other legislation like that is the fact that it will spawn a lot of litigation the way the legislation is written,” the Ohio Senator said. He worried that the legislation “would make it more difficult for employers to feel comfortable.”

KEYES: The Senate’s going to be taking up the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. Do you think that it ought to be illegal to fire someone for being gay in the United States?

PORTMAN: I don’t believe in discrimination…

KEYES: But whether or not it should be legal.

PORTMAN: What I’m concerned about in Paycheck Fairness and other legislation like that is the fact that it will spawn a lot of litigation the way the legislation is written. So you don’t want it to be a boon to lawyers, you want it to actually help people. But no one should discriminate.

KEYES: So you’re worried that people might actually take up claims that they were discriminated against?

PORTMAN: [...] A lot of them would create a lot of legal rights of action that would make it more difficult for employers to feel comfortable, to be able to hire, and to keep this economy moving. So you have to be careful how you do it.

Watch it:

Portman’s principal objection to making it illegal to fire someone for being gay, in other words, is that people who are discriminated against might have the gall to take legal action.

Portman was correct about one thing: if Congress were to finally make it illegal to fire someone because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, a lot of lawsuits could ensue. That’s only a bad thing if one wants to preserve businesses’ ability to discriminate. Lawsuits are the sole mechanism by which most laws are enforced in this country. Without lawsuits, the South would still be segregated, ten year-olds would still work in mines, and there would be no minimum wage. Research shows that 42 percent of LGB workers and 90 percent of transgender workers have experienced workplace discrimination. Unless people can take action in court, Portman’s feel-good belief that “no one should discriminate” is meaningless.

Over 70 percent of Americans support legislation protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination, and 9 in 10 mistakenly believe that a federal law doing so already exists. Unfortunately, the frontrunner to be the Republican vice presidential nominee is not among them.

During an interview last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he doesn’t believe that LGBT people should be protected from being fired because of their sexual orientation.

But yesterday, Lankford went on Oklahoma local television to say that we misrepresented his comments. According to Lankford, he wasn’t saying employers should be allowed to fire someone for being gay — just that being gay is a choice and LGBT people should not be protected from workplace discrimination.

Did you notice the distinction? Neither did we.

According to the station, Oklahoma News 6, Lankford reaffirmed that being gay is a choice and shouldn’t be protected while simultaneously denying that he thinks it should be legal to fire someone for it:

After an impromptu interview with Rep. Lankford, the liberal blog “Think Progress,” reported Lankford said he believes an employer should be able to fire someone for his or her sexual orientation.

Lankford said the blog misrepresented what he said. He said he told the interviewer being gay is a choice and should not be protected from workplace discrimination. He said he believes the distinction lies in a person’s choice to act on their sexual orientation.

Watch it:

For comparison’s sake, here is the main paragraph from our original post:

In a conversation on Capitol Hill, Lankford expressed his strong belief that being gay is a choice, and that LGBT workers should not be protected from workplace discrimination because it’s something they can change. “You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, ‘gay or straight?’”

Lankford also accused ThinkProgress of singling him out for being Christian, a charge so absurd it doesn’t even merit a response.

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), no stranger to controversy, declared on Thursday that gay people are never fired because of their sexual orientation in the United States.

“That don’t happen out here in the United States of America,” West told ThinkProgress during an interview on Capitol Hill.

When we pressed the Florida congressman for clarification, he dismissed the importance of protecting LGBT people from discrimination. “I don’t see that as being a big issue with small businesses,” West said.

KEYES: What about something like a law that say that it’s illegal to hire or fire people because they’re gay?

WEST: That don’t happen out here in the United States of America.

KEYES: You don’t think people get fired because they’re gay?

WEST: Well, I don’t see that as being a big issue with small businesses. I sit on the Small Business Committee. You know what they’re concerned about? They’re concerned about onerous tax policy, regulatory policy, and lack of access to capital because Dodd-Frank is absolutely decimating small community banks.

Watch it:

 

Though West may not like to acknowledge it, workplace discrimination against LGBT people is very real. In 29 states, it is perfectly legal to fire you for being gay. (In 34 states you can be fired for being transgender.) This is not a mere prospect. Between eight and 17 percent of gay and transgender workers have been fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; that rate more than doubles for gay and transgender people who have experienced workplace discrimination.

This is not the first time he has made offensive statements regarding the LGBT community. He called talk of equality and fairness “divisive” and “contrary” to American principles, opposed repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because he reasoned that gay soldiers “can change behavior,” and called LGBT opposition to a speech of his “intolerable.”

It is not uncommon to believe that someone shouldn’t be fired for their sexual orientation — in fact, ninety percent of voters mistakenly say that federal law protects LGBT people employment discrimination.

It turns out that elected officials hold the same misconception — even ones who voted against such measures. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) today told ThinkProgress that he believes non-discrimination protections are in place for gay workers and that no “citizen of the United States should be discriminated against for any reason:”

STRASSER: Do you believe in other protections for gay people outside of marriage, things like hospital visitation or protection from being fired in the workplace?

MARCHANT: I don’t think any citizen of the United States should be discriminated against for any reason.

KEYES: So if there were legislation saying it’d be illegal to discriminate and fire someone for being gay…

MARCHANT: Those laws are already on the books.

KEYES: I don’t think that’s a law right now.

MARCHANT: Well, I’m not going to stand here and argue with you. I believe that those protections are afforded every citizen of the United States. Whether those laws are enforced or not, that’s up to the Justice Department. I believe that those rights are on the books.

Watch it:

Marchant seems to have forgotten about the role he played in blocking legislation that would have enacted the protections he championed today. In 2007, Marchant voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would have protected LGBT people from workplace discrimination.

In actuality, an employer is able to fire someone for being gay in 29 states and for being transgender in 34 states, and a huge number of LGBT workers have acknowledged discrimination at work.

Luckily, Rep. Marchant will get the opportunity to renew his commitment to fight discrimination of LGBT workers. A bipartisan group of senators released a letter today calling on Congress to hold hearings about putting a non-discrimination law in place. The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee will take up the issue on June 12.

In an advisory opinion issued last week, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) said that he believes under the state’s constitution, local governments have no authority to enact non-discrimination ordinances. This opinion came at the request of State Senator Beau McCoy, who had proposed legislation earlier this year to strip localities of that power, arguing that uniform state laws for businesses are better than piecemeal local regulations.

Omaha, the largest city in the state, recently enacted an ordinance protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination in employment and public accommodations. Lincoln, the state’s capital, says it will continue its previous plans to consider a non-discrimination ordinance — a public hearing on the measure is scheduled for this afternoon. Lincoln’s city attorney has taken a different interpretation of the state’s constitution, arguing that the city has the authority to pass the measure.

In their non-binding opinion, Bruning and his assistant attorney general write:

[I]t is our opinion that while political subdivisions may pass ordinances or other laws on the same subject matter which are not inconsistent with the state’s civil rights classifications, political subdivisions are not authorized to expand protected classes beyond the scope of the civil rights provided for in the state statute.

Their reasoning? Nebraska is generally a “Dillon Rule” state. Based on the reasoning of 19th century Iowa Chief Justice John Dillon, several states take the view that localities may only enact laws when given explicit permission from the state government. Other states, known as “Home Rule” states, let localities make any decisions not specifically prohibited by the state government. The opinion argues that, while Nebraska laws give some Home Rule authority to local governments, this falls out of their scope. Only voters, amending their city charters by referendum — or the state legislature — could grant protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This is not the first time localities have been big-footed by their state governments, undermining attempts to protect LGBT constituents. In Virginia, for example, a Republican Attorney General used the same principles to dissuade Fairfax County’s school board from enacting a non-discrimination rule. Last year, Tennessee enacted a law stripping localities of the right to enact non-discrimination protections beyond the state’s protected catagories. And a 1992 Colorado referendum — later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court — sought to nullify all local protections based on sexual orientation.

In Nebraska too, the question may eventually be decided by the judicial system. Omaha’s city attorney has said that Bruning’s ruling will change nothing without a court order, telling the press “If someone sues us, we’ll deal with it in court.”

Just 16 states and the District of Columbia provide legal employment protections for LGBT citizens (another 5 protect based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity or expression). That means that in most U.S. states, someone who is — or even seems to be — to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered may legally be fired or not hired purely on that basis.

In a sense McCoy is right — this is not an issue that should be dealt with by piecemeal regulations. It is time for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ensure that no American is fired just for being LGBT.

Our guest bloggers are Jeff Krehely and Crosby Burns, who work on the LGBT Research and Communications Project at American Progress.

Late yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a comprehensive ruling giving transgender individuals sorely-needed federal protections against discrimination in the workplace. According to the ruling, employers who discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of gender identity can now be found in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically its prohibition of sex discrimination in employment.

This ruling marks the first time that the EEOC has held that transgender people are protected from discrimination by federal law. Chris Geidner broke the story late last night in Metro Weekly:

“The opinion came in a decision delivered on Monday, April 23, to lawyers for Mia Macy, a transgender woman who claims she was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the agency learned of her transition. It also comes on the heels of a growing number of federal appellate and trial courts deciding that gender-identity discrimination constitutes sex discrimination, whether based on Title VII or the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The EEOC decision, issued without objection by the five-member, bipartisan commission, will apply to all EEOC enforcement and litigation activities at the commission and in its 53 field offices throughout the country. It also will be binding on all federal agencies and departments.”

The implications of this ruling are precedent setting. Prior to yesterday’s ruling, only 16 states and the District of Columbia prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity. Going forth, this precedent-setting decision puts in place comprehensive protections for transgender workers that apply to both private and public employees across the entire United States.

Specifically, thanks to the ruling in this case (brought forward by the Transgender Law Center) transgender people are now protected by federal law and have legal recourse if they are denied a job or fired because they are transgender. Should a transgender person file a complaint with the EEOC and should the EEOC determine that case has merit, the EEOC now has the legal standing to sue the employer for discrimination under Title VII.

Read more