SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: E who wrote (9204)11/19/1999 3:23:00 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Personally, I would not discriminate against anyone based upon race, religion, ethnicity, sex, etc. However, I can see where in the world of "realpolitik", if one of these factors would diminish the effectiveness of the ambassador in a way which would negatively affect US diplomacy and hence national security, then I would have to consider it. There may be "qualified" (speaking of comical concepts given the patronage involved in such selections) persons who I might view askance given these real concerns or who I might select in any event if I thought that factor would be overidden by others. That is my view. As hypothetical President, I would decide these matters on a case by case basis but I would also have to consider such factors in doing my duty. JLA



To: E who wrote (9204)11/19/1999 3:35:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
>>Do you think that the entire American Foreign Service should take as automatic
disqualifications for service in particular countries race, gender, religion, and sexual
orientation?<<

Please show me in our Constitution where sexual "orientation" (practices) confers protected status to individuals. How about polygamists? S & M adherents? Proponents of inter-family "marriages"? What about the guy who wants to "marry" his dog? Where does this list of sexual orientation protected class begin and end?

bp