1. The court said that the employer was discriminating against the parties because of their choice of sexual partners. Notwithstanding the way the issue has historically been treated, does this seem to be a valid basis for judging an applicant for employment? Explain.
2. Do you agree with the parallels that the parties attempted to draw between race discrimination and discrimination on the basis of affinity orientation? Discuss.

Employee Strailey, a male, was fired by the Happy Times Nursery School after two years as a teacher. He alleged he was fired because he wore a small gold ear-loop to school before the beginning of the school year. DeSantis, Boyle and Simard, all males, claimed that Pacific Telephone & Telegraph (PT&T) impermissibly discriminated against them because they were gay. DeSantis alleged he was not hired when a PT&T supervisor concluded he was gay. Boyle was continually harassed by his coworkers and had to quit to preserve his health after only three months because his supervisor did nothing to alleviate this condition. Finally, Simard was forced to quit under similar conditions after almost four years of employment with PT&T, but he was harassed by his supervisors as well. In addition, his personnel file has been marked as not eligible for rehire, and his applications for employment were rejected by PT&T in 1974 and 1976. All three alleged that PT&T officials have publicly stated that they would not hire gays and lesbians. EEOC rejected all claims for lack of jurisdiction.