GOP Presidential Hopeful & Former Associate Pastor Herman Cain Says He Would Hire "Openly Gay" Person in Administration

GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain's response to a blogger asking about hiring homosexuals who openly proclaim their sexuality has sparked outrage among evangelicals. Cain said he would have "no problem" appointing an openly gay person to a position in his administration. He would have no problem hiring an openly gay man or woman, but would have an issue appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet saying, “there is a creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” Just talking points or a plain hypocrite, right?

“I just want people who – I want qualified. I want them to basically believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, so, yep, I don’t have a problem with appointing an openly gay person.” Source: Christian Post

For once I agree with something Cain said. Why would I care about one's sexuality? I care more about what that person would bring to the table in helping the American people. Besides, to all the evangelicals who have an issue with homosexuals, couldn't the same argument be made about Herman Cain hiring many blacks in his administration or women?

UPDATE#1: Why did I even entertain the thought that Herman Cain could be reasonable to the LGBT community?

In an interview Wednesday with CBS News, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain described homosexuality as “a sin” and “a choice.” Appearing on the CBS News web program Washington Unplugged, Cain told CBSNews.com senior political reporter Brian Montopoli “I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” he said. “But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice.”Montopoli followed up, asking Cain if he thought gays and lesbians were making “a choice” to be homosexual: Cain was asked: “So you believe it’s a choice?”“I believe it is a choice....”

Er, newsflash -- the Bible is of an oral tradition and it was compiled by people who had a specific agenda. How else can you explain the missing books? First he said he didn't trust Muslims and wouldn't appoint one to his cabinet, followed with "blacks were too poor to be in the Tea Party," then he said he was "open to appointing an openly gay person to his Cabinet" (a cabinet that will never materialize thanks to Republican Party infighting) and now he says "being a homosexual is a choice." Wow. What a flip-flopper and a holy-than-thou hypocrite!