Ashcroft and discrimination against gays

[susan bandes]

There was an exchange a week or so ago on the topic of whether John Ashcroft
has engaged in discrimination against gays. The New York Times today
reported ("Ashcroft Gives Judiciary Panel His Written Replies to Hundreds of
Questions") that in his written answer to a question about why he opposed
James Hormel's appointment to be ambassador to Luxembourg, he wrote that Mr.
Hormel, who is openly gay, could not effectively represent the United States
in Luxembourg, a nation that Mr. Ashcroft said was Europe's "most Roman
Catholic country." That sounds like an unambiguous statement admitting
discrimination to me. It seems as if (despite his earlier denial that he had
opposed Hormel based on sexual orientation) Ashcroft is now claiming that
the discrimination was justified. Certainly discrimination based on race
would not be justified based on the fear that others may share it. Is the
argument now that since gays are not a protected class, heterosexuality is
some sort of legitimate BFOQ (or some sort of effort to protect Luxembourg's
free exercise of its religious beliefs) when dealing with Roman Catholic
audiences? Or will those who earlier supported Ashcroft based on his denial
of discrmination now change their positions?

Susan Bandes