It is more important that it was only RUMORED.

It is unacceptable that an employment decision was based upon sexual orientation. It is unconscionable, however, that an adverse employment decision was made at one of the highest levels of government based upon a RUMOR. A RUMOR.

Can we each appreciate how easy is it that this could happen to any one of us? We are not talking about inner-office, pointless, water cooler gossip.

We are talking about an adverse employment decision being made based upon a RUMOR.

I do not care what administration it is. I do not care who the employer is. I do not care what the rumor is. I am shaken to my very core that anyone, particularly with a JD, made and allowed an adverse employment decision based upon a mere RUMOR (and a stupid one at that).

I have seen what you’re talking about many, many times and it isn’t right. I don’t think we’ll agree on this part but I see the cheney-bush bunch as prime examples of what you’ve pointed out. They have consistently fired competent people and put political loyalists with low to no competence in their place. But this does seem to happen everywhere. I can’t blame lawyers because they are just as likely to represent the wrongfully dismissed as the rightfully so.

Jill

It’s also harder to fire people because they’re black, female or gay too. So I suppose it’s a trade off you aren’t willing to accept. In any event, rest your head on your pillow tonight knowing we lawyers at first gave you laissez-faire employment practices and then made you more humane despite all the kicking and screaming.

I just saw my neighbor briefly this morning. He is a flaming heterosexual. As I hadn’t seen him in a while I enquired what he’d been doing to which he replied, “I’ve been engaged in the usual debauchery.” Knowing my neighbor, I understood this to be the truth and said, “Well, carry on!” He’s the staunchest Repulican I know. Religionists would boot him out in no time if they could (he’s a big donor!). I bring all this up becuase sexual orientation doesn’t necessarily overlap with conservative or liberal values. Sometimes the correspondence is there, many times it just isn’t. People frequently identify with groups that are detrimental to some aspect, often a very important aspect, of who they are. Class certainly comes to mind here. And it is true that their is prejudice against LGBT people in both the major parties.

Don’t we all long for the day when people are just people and labels belong only on soup cans.

Words fail in trying to reconcile how a person can juggle and justify those two opposing states of being.”

Or as Michael Kinsley once described Log Cabin Republicans: “people who really, REALLY want a capital gains tax cut.”

Jill

It’s the ‘push’ version of the Socratic method.

There was a particularly subtle nuance of “christians” with a small ‘c.’ It has inspired an idea for an article. Brililant and very funny!

Incredibly, I have represented the State Repub Party Leadership in a case here. I have heard that sentiment too, but they are rarely so candid about their views when they meet en masse.

Words fail in trying to reconcile how a person can juggle and justify those two opposing states of being. Can a person be sooo wedded to fiscal conservatism (the erstwhile linchpin of the GOP prior to being hijacked by the religious right) that you’re willing to hang out with, work for and represent the views of people who hate you, have condemned you to their religion’s nether world and who actively work to make your personal life difficult? Amazing!