DURING THE SELECTION DONALD TRUMP CLAIMED HE WOULD LOOK OUT
FOR THE GAY COMMUNITY SO IT'S A LITTLE UNSURPRISING IF YOU KNOW
HIS STYLE THAT HE'S KIND OF RENEGED ON THAT ISSUE.
IN FACT
HIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOW SAYING THAT GAY EMPLOYEES HAVE NO
PROTECTION IF THEIR EMPLOYERS FIRE THEM SIMPLY FOR BEING GAY.
CASE IN POINT, A CASE INVOLVING A MAN BY THE NAME OF DONALD
ZARDA WHO CLAIMS HE WAS FIRED SIMPLY FOR BEING GAY --
>>HERE IS
ANOTHER TWIST TO THE STORY THAT'S PRETTY AMAZING --
WHILE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS MAKING THIS CASE, THERE IS
ALSO THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION WHICH IS
SUPPORTING ZARDA, THEY ARE ARGUING THAT HE DOES HAVE CIVIL
RIGHTS AND HIS EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIRE HIM SIMPLY
BECAUSE OF HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION --
>>-- THIS IS
AN ARGUMENT BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, BY THE WAY.
>>THAT IS TRUMP'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MAKING THAT CASE.
>>THE NOTION THAT A TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYER HAS
COME IN AND CORRECTLY ASSESSED THAT THE LAST 53 YEARS OF
INTERPRETATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ARE WRONG IS
PREPOSTEROUS.
>>HERE'S WHERE I WILL SHOCK THE WORLD, I'M MORE ON THE
CONSERVATIVE POSITION HERE -- THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, IT'S LANDMARK LEGISLATION, THAT SAYS
YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SEX, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SEXUAL
ORIENTATION.
I THINK IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE TO FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING GAY.
>>WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY MEANT?
>>THAT'S MY POINT, I DON'T THINK THEY MEANT SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
IF THEY WANTED THEY COULD PUT THAT IN THERE, THEY MEANT THEY
CAN'T FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING A WOMAN OR THEORETICALLY FOR BEING
A MAN.
THERE'S A GREAT COUNTERARGUMENT, IT'S A CREATIVE
ONE AND ONE THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, LET ME GIVE YOU THE
FULL CONTEXT, GREG LEVENS FROM LAMDA LEGAL SAYS YOU CAN SAY
SEX IS THE SAME AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION -- IT'S A CREATIVE
LEGAL ARGUMENT BUT THEY DIDN'T SAY SEXUAL ORIENTATION, I DON'T
THINK THEY INTENDED SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
AND I AM IN THE
MINORITY ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE SINCE 2002 COURTS HAVE BEEN
RULING YOU CAN'T BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT.
WHAT'S I'M PRETTY SURE THEY DIDN'T MEAN SEXUAL
ORIENTATION IN 1964, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE CONCEPT OF IT
WOULD APPLY TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND CERTAINLY THE
SPIRIT OF IT, AND CORRECTLY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE ASSESSED THAT WE AREN'T GOING TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE BECAUSE OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
SO JUST BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THEY DIDN'T MEAN IT YOU DECIDE YOU
ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE INTENT OF 53 YEARS OF INTERPRETATION OF
THAT LAW --
>>TO BE FAIR IT'S NOT 53 YEARS, IT'S SINCE 2002, AND SOME COURTS
DISAGREE.
>>BUT NOT THE PRESIDENTS, EVEN THE BUSH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AGREED WITH IT.
>>I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH OF WHAT THE BUSH JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT DID --
>>IT SAYS A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INTERPRETATIONS
UNDER PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS.
>>I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK THERE ARE GOOD ARGUMENTS TO BE
MADE, BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD PASS A LAW THAT YOU CAN'T
DISCRIMINATE FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
>>OR GENDER IDENTITY.
>>DON'T LOSE TRACK OF WHO THE BAD GUYS ARE.
I KNOW YOU AREN'T,
BUT THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PASS THAT LAW UNDER THIS
CONGRESS.
>>THEN THROW THEM OUT OF CONGRESS.
COMMON SENSE
CONSEQUENCES, MAKE REPUBLICANS SAY WE DON'T WANT TO PROTECT GAY
PEOPLE.
WE WON'T NO.
MAKE THEM VOTE NO.
>>WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE INTERIM?
>>I AM FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE JUDICIALLY, WHICH IS DIFFERENT
THAN POLITICALLY.
IF THEY DIDN'T SAY SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THEY
DIDN'T MEAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION YOU HAVE TO PASS ANOTHER
LAW, AS MUCH AS IT IS TERRIBLE.
>>I DON'T HAVE THE FULL CASE HISTORY HERE, BUT OBVIOUSLY
SINCE MANY OTHER LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT RELATE TO SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, ONE COULD GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THE INTENT NOW
IS TO INCLUDE -- I AGREE WE SHOULD PASS A LAW, CLEAR IT UP.
BUT THE NOTION THAT YOU WILL SAY IT'S NOT IN THERE NOW SO YOU CAN
DISCRIMINATE, THAT IS A STEP BACKWARDS.
>>COULDN'T YOU ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SUPREME
COURT'S RULING IN REGARD TO THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IS
RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?
BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING ISSUE WITH THE
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT RULING WAS THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE LGBT
COMMUNITY, SO IF YOU HAVE THE SUPREME COURT ARGUING IN FAVOR
OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE GAY COMMUNITY, ISN'T THIS A CIVIL
RIGHTS ISSUE AS WELL?
>>THAT'S WHY BRING UP THE CONTEXT, AND IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO
HAVE THIS RANGE OF OPINION WE HAVE LEGALLY -- OF COURSE IT'S
ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE ANY OPINION YOU POLITICALLY -- BUT YOU CAN
MAKE THAT CASE LEGALLY, BUT THE OTHER SIDE WOULD SAY THAT
APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST GAY AMERICANS, WHEREAS PRIVATE CITIZENS, OR PRIVATE
BUSINESSES IN THIS CASE, CAN DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE YOU NEVER
MADE IT ILLEGAL.
>>YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT ON THE LAW BUT NO ONE SHOULD BE ARGUING FOR
THAT.
NO RIGHT THINKING PERSON SHOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, AND
ALL WE SHOULD DO IS TRY TO FIX IT.
SO WHETHER IF YOU WERE ON
THE COURT YOU MIGHT FEEL DUTY BOUND TO VOTE THAT WAY, YOU ARE
NOT.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT IT THE RIGHT WAY AND LET'S FIX IT.
ON
THAT I AGREE, CLEAR IT UP AND FIX IT.
BUT GETTING THAT DONE, I SUSPECT, WOULD BE DIFFICULT.
>>YES.
IF I WAS IN CHARGE OF THE GOVERNMENT WHAT I GO OUT OF MY
WAY TO MAKE SURE GAY PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE RIGHTS?
HELL NO, SO
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, BEN.
>>I WANTED TO QUICKLY POINT OUT THE FACT THAT TRUMP LIED.
HE
DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE GAY COMMUNITY OR THE RIGHTS OR
PROTECTING THEM.
SO FOR CERTAIN GAY INDIVIDUALS WHO LIKE TO RUN
AROUND CALLING FROM DADDY, HOW DO YOU LIKE DADDY NOW?
WHAT'S
THAT LAWYER TO GO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO GAY PEOPLE AND USE
CENK'S LOGIC, WHICH MIGHT BE RIGHT, AND THEN YOU GO YES, I
DON'T CARE.
IF YOU PRIORITIZE THAT I'LL FIRE YOU.
>>THAT IS FAIR.
LET'S SAY I'M PRESIDENT -- GOOD LUCK -- AND
SOMEONE SAYS SHOULD BE USED GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO TRY TO
OVERTURN THE MAJORITY OF THE PRECEDENT SINCE 2002 THAT GAY
PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE DISCRIMINATED ON?
NO, WE WANT TO
SPEND GOVERNMENT MONEY ON THAT.
WHAT I WILL SPEND GOVERNMENT
MONEY ON IS TRYING TO PASS A LAW THAT SAYS YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE I WANT EVERY AMERICAN TO
HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, AND THAT IS WORTHWHILE AND THAT'S
SOMETHING YOU FIGHT FOR.