DU lawyers, I'm confused

Apparently back in 1989 Miers favored keeping the sodomy law against gays in Texas but felt that employment discrimination against gays was wrong. (according to a questionaire she filled out). My question is, is there any mainstream legal theory that supports a distinction like this? What legal standard would permit the forbidding of sodomy upon penalty of a felony conviction, but forbid employment discrimination against those who practiced sodomy? Wouldn't this be similar to keeping pot illegal but not letting employers fire those who have been convicted of smoking pot? I am really asking if there is some version of mainstream legal opinion that holds these views.

But it is just another example of the hypocricy the Repugs spout.

I can't think of any coherent legal theory behind it, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

any which way they want.

against heterosexuals as well as gays. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is. It applies.

Laws that discriminate against gays in employment occupy a whole different ground.

but I have been having the same problems with her. I know she's an evangelical (scary). but the evangelicals have been against this nomination.

I don't know what to believe.

I have posted topics and replies on both sides. I don't know what to think about her nomination.

the employment of anyone was covered by some statutes since before the 80s, outlawing discrimination as to sex, race and religion. You have Nixon to thank for some of those.
those were federal laws and statutes.

Texas' prohibition against evil homosexuals enjoying their own company in the privacy of their own home, heck, that's a Texas issue, not some federal law.

This has nothing to do with legal standards. Remember, she was in the midst of being brainwashed and burned again. or something like that.

and the questionaire specificly asked about a potential Dallas law in that regard.

not state and federal.

The sodomy laws are criminal in nature. The employment laws are civil in nature. It is logically inconsistent, but legally consistent. Hope that helps.

against felons? I would think the right wing would blow a boatload of gaskets over this.

I see your conundrum. But really the sodomy laws are virtually never prosecuted. They apply equally to gays and straights. It's akin to prosecuting a person for adultery. This law is still on the books in most jurisdicitons. Also, a person can proclaim they are gay without having gay sex. I presume there are gay folks who abstain from sex (a;lthogh it would seem to take the fun out of being gay). In any event, one can support the sodomy laws on principle, yet also support equal opportunity based on the fact that a person commits sodomy. BTW, is sodomy a felony in your state? In mine it's a misdemeanor. Still makes absolutely no sense.

according to Lawerence. Incidently no state has such a law now thanks to the Lawerence case.

There is no federal law about sodomy but there is one about job discrimination.

the standard is not uniform. Rather these cases are going to be split into two separate issues: employment rights and sexuality. Someone like Miers would see an inviolate right to not allow an employer to fire an employee solely due to the employee's private lifestyle, yet allow private relations between two individuals of the same gender to be criminalized in order to protect society in some delusional grand gesture. The first case is to protect the individual, the second to protect society at large. (Again, I don't endorse this; I only try to explain.)

It was hard especially then, and politically suicidal I would think, to say that you are for overturning sodomy laws. I would imagine that even democrats in Texas wouldn't have answered yes to that question. So i don't think you can tell much from that.

But being against discrimination was an easier position to take, although I'd say it did take some courage - which I think is a positive for her. I would say in '89 to take the position she did, in Texas, would at least make her a moderate.

Of course, this was 15 years ago so maybe her attitudes have changed since then.