CunningLinguist,
The law, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), prohibits discrimination against federal employees or job applicants on the basis of off-duty conduct that does not affect job performance. There is no explicit reference to sexual orientation in the statute.
http://www.mspb.gov/mspb_laws.html#...S.C.%20§%202302
Elaine Kaplan interpreted the law to include sexual orientation. She served a five year term as the Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, nominated by President Clinton.
Scott J. Bloch was nominated to serve as Special Counsel by President Bush on June 26, 2003, and was confirmed by the Senate. He has taken a strict reading of the statute.
What is the problem here? It happens to be the case that there is no reference to sexual orientation in the legislation. Both counsels were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of them interpreted the legislation to include sexual orientation, and one did not. Take a look at the legislation. Take the time to actually read what it says. Not what it should say, but what it does say.
Think about this for a moment: do you want your rulers to implement what the laws of the land say, or do you want them to implement only those bits that they feel like doing? Do you want them to interpret the laws as they are written or as they feel like?