I can't have sex -- you can't fire me!

How much more absurd can our government be? A federal appeals court has ruled that the inability to have sex is a disability protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.

Now I ask you, what job could you possibly have (aside from prostitution) that having sex or not would be in any way relevant? I don't recall ever filling out a job application with the question, "Are you able to have sex?"

This all came about because Kathy Adams, who had breast cancer, wants the State Department to hire her as a foreign service worker. The State Department says they won't hire her because the department cannot guarantee access to the required medical follow-up at all overseas assignments. In an attempt to compel them to hire her, Adams says that she cannot have sex as a result of her surgeries, and that the inability to have sex is a disability, and that she should, therefore, be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. And the dumb-butt court agrees with her.

The State Department, by the way, was not even aware she couldn't have sex. Actually, the woman can have sex -- she just doesn't want to anymore. I'm figuring there must be millions of disabled women in that case. But back to the point -- here's the court's brilliant reasoning -- "it makes no difference whether an employer has precise knowledge of an employee's substantial limitation." So how can you discriminate against somebody when you don't even know they have whatever you're supposed to be discriminating against? And if the State Department does hire her, and she gets sent somewhere where there are not adequate medical facilities, and her physical condition worsens, do you think she'll sue? I'd bet my last dollar on it!

You better hire me -- I don't want to have sex, and I'll sue!

"Sexual inabilities ruled a disability." The Dallas Morning News; July 23, 2008; p. 5A.