Yeah! And I find it totally reprehensible that we have allowed things to degrade to that level!
Would a sane employer willingly hire an accused thief until or unless that accusation should be
proven false? An accused embezzler? An accused murderer? An accused rapist?
If I'm an employer presented with an applicant who faced such accusations, I'd need to know if
the accusations were
proven false and, if they
were proven false, I'd have no problem
at all hiring him or her. (I'm mindful of the fact that there have been false accusations of rape
levied against people and that the mere accusation of such a grotesque crime is enough to prejudice
people against the accused, but if the accusation was indeed
proven false I for one would
have no issue with such a person.)
Remember---we're talking above about a hypothetical applicant facing accusations of committing a
real crime, which is what sexual misconduct is, not a hypothetical applicant having committed
a mere difference of opinion or having joined the "wrong" interest group or political party or
attended the wrong rally or meeting(s).
Since in the case of Mr. Moore we're talking, in essence, about one state hiring him to be a U.S.
Senator, why should we feel something amiss in rejecting his application, so to say, until or unless
accusations a real crime against him can be shown once and for all false? (Allowing that by now
it could not be resolved in criminal courts but in civil litigation, unless I'm wrong about Alabama's
statute of limitations.) Particularly in light of Capitol Hill lately having been shown as (pardon the
expression) something of a hotbed of sexual misconduct?
I'd rather debate Mr. Moore's suitability for the Senate on political and policy grounds, as would
you, but it seems to be nothing more than plain sense to suggest that until/unless the accusations
against him are
proven false he should not be considered a suitable job applicant especially
if you wish to clean Capitol Hill of its apparent subculture of sexual misbehaviour.