The Senate hearing of Amy Coney Barrett is going along predictable lines, with Barrett claiming that she never discriminated against anyone on the basis of “sexual preference” and the use of the term itself is discriminatory — not to mention inaccurate and outmoded.
Saying that you have never discriminated against someone because of their “sexual preference” is a sure fire way for others to know you discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
— Guy Cecil (@guycecil) October 13, 2020
It’s surprising that someone in her position is using a term of art that went the way of the dinosaur some years back. The words sexual preference imply that homosexuality is a choice. It’s a holdover from the conversion therapy years and it’s more than a little shocking that somebody being vetted by the Senate for a lifelong appointment to the Supreme Court would use it. But on the other hand, with the goal of stacking the court with the most ultra-conservative legal talent available, it unfortunately makes a lot of sense. Blow back was swift.
Right: “Sexual preference” the kind of language used by Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that opposes equal rights for LGBTQ people (including basic non-discrimination protections) and supports the criminalization of homosexuality.
It’s frightening to hear Barrett use it. https://t.co/BhMlDm1EAs
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 13, 2020
"I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." This is actually false: Barrett sat on the board of a school that refused to accept the children of same-sex couples. https://t.co/cHP7E92eh9
— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 13, 2020
Barrett is only 47 so for most of her adult life and professional care, it's been established that the use of "sexual preference" is wrong. She must live in a very enclosed – and homophobic – bubble to use the term. Only the hard core haters have to stuck with it
— Joe Sudbay (@JoeSudbay) October 13, 2020
The sham hearing goes on and I’m a little surprised that what is the seminal question has not yet been put to Barrett. If I was on the judiciary committee, all that I would want to know is Barrett’s explanation — legal, moral, whatever — of how vetting a Supreme Court candidate in March of an election year is verboten, but doing the same thing in October of that year is simply swell. I just want to hear what she has to say about that. Because if the Republicans were sticking to their own rule, we wouldn’t be talking about any of the rest of it. That’s why this is a sham hearing.