Lawyers debate LGBT discrimination

At issue is the wording of the preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct:

North Carolina's attorneys are arguing again over whether to encourage colleagues to keep personal prejudice out of their work by endorsing language designed to protect gays, and most recently, transgender people.

Lawyers opposing the change said they already treat clients with respect but believe it would be the first step toward forcing them to take cases about issues they disagree with on moral grounds.

I've got an even better debate: is the phrase "morally conscious lawyer" ripe for classification as an oxymoron?

Deeper into silliness we go:

They say they could be prevented from refusing to represent a same-sex couple who want to adopt a child or gay person seeking other redress that could run counter to their own views on homosexuality, for fear that they may be subject to punishment by the Bar.

If your views are that "some people" don't deserve legal representation/protection, then maybe the Bar should take a closer look at you.

"My question is why do we need this. Why is it even necessary?" Neier asked in an interview, referring to the entire provision. "It's a springboard for the gay agenda."

You answered your own question, but you're too dense to see it.