Ashcroft and Gay Rights

[Sanford Levinson]

Is there any serious argument that Mr. Hormel was opposed for the
all-important ambassadorship to Luxemborg for any other reason than his
sexual orientation?  If it were a Title VII suit (and sexual orientation
were a covered classification), would we accept the arguments of the
Republican opponents as sufficient to overcome the prima facie case that
homophobia is the explanation of the violation?  Presumably Ashcroft is
smart enough not to make a smoking-gun "statement."  But, as the saying
goes, actions speak louder than words.

sandy

I challenge Professor Wildenthal or anyone else to point
>to any statements by Mr. Ashcroft which demonstrate that he "favors" denying
>employment to people because they are gay.  To say that as a matter of
>public policy one does not support proscribing individuals from engaging in
>a condemnable activity does not mean one favors it.
>
>Brad Clanton
>