A serious question for those who support the decision in the New Haven case

First, let me preface this with the fact I support both Sotomayor and the decision in the New Haven case. I do wish that the decision was longer than a paragraph but that is a quibble not a problem with the decision itself. I also think that her point about having a Latina point of view on the bench is well taken. That said,

What is the difference between stating a test has to be thrown out if the results are that no African Americans pass it and the point more than a few gay posters here made that a cabinet selection process that resulted in no gays appointed to the cabinet was unacceptable? I would seriously like some principled reason why those are different. Both groups have been woefully underrepresented in the jobs they were seeking. Both groups have been historically discriminated against. It is just different isn't an answer.

The more obvious reason is that GLBT as an under-represented class hasn't yet risen to the level of "a legitimate group" in the eyes of those in power that racial and gender based classes have.

Secondly, I think the presumption in such cases as New Haven is that hiring guidelines for civil service jobs need to proactively prevent under-representation, and that the process for cabinet picks is less stringently proactive, that the expectation and objectives of such choices is less about representing the spectrum than it is about politics, etc.

These are not my personal views, just my observations on why the difference.

I do realize that there are some real life differences currently but my point is one of principle. The fact is gay posters have been totally savaged for advocating the very same policies that have been advocated in my OP. I do agree that until being gay is considered immutable that we won't see our civil rights as viewed on par with those of racial minorities.

...than racially or gender based rights.

You hit the nail on the head, of course, that "being gay" needs to be accepted as immutable (by a significant proportion of people) before we can realistically expect to see parity.

And, clearly, there are those who still see women and minorities as less than equal, but their numbers are low enough to have less impact on legislation.

A black person cannot hide the color of his/her skin. Nor can a woman or a man successfully mask their gender. But a gay person may not choose to go public with their sexual orientation, for whatever reason. I am certain that we have had many gay Cabinet members over our country's history.

But we can and should have the view that because diversity is a good thing, we need the perspective of gay men and women at all levels of government. I am convinced of this and I fully support any effort to ensure that they are not, whether purposely or not, left out of consideration for these jobs. In fact, there should be an affirmatve effort to hire them, just as we would do any group that had been discriminated against.

process. You can't sue the president for his choices of executive appointments. They are not subject to civil service rules. The promotion of fire fighters is a civil service matter that is subject to equal opportunity rules.

but repeatedly gay posters here were accused of promoting the notion that unqualifed people should be appointed to the cabinet when we made the exact, precise arguments that have been used to decide to throw out test results such as the ones in the New Haven case. We also were cricised for making the argument that there should be someone with a gay perspective in Obama's cabinet citing the very same reasoning Sotomayor cited when stating that there should be a Latina prespective.

in New Haven was not to "throw out . . . the results" of the test but to find that the action of the city was legal when the city decided to throw out the test.

It may seem like a small difference but in the upcoming smear campaign against her it will be a critical distinction that I don't think the far right has yet absorbed:

1) She was apart of a 3 judge panel that ruled unanimously and the ruling did not quote any of the judges individually

2) The panel did not rule on the strength of the fire fighters arguing their case as being essentially fair or unfair, simply that the city had the legal right to not accept any of the test results and try and come up with a test that is a fairer test. This shows that Judge Sotomayor decisions were on well established legal precedent.

I was sloppy in my recitation of the case.