Bob McDonnell's "Rampant" Illogic on Anti-Discrimination Laws

So, Bob McDonnell believes that "Virginia does not need to write protections for gays and lesbians into state statute because he has not seen evidence of discrimination in the state workforce." McDonnell adds that "If you're going to have a law, it needs to actually address a real problem."To illustrate the rampant illogic here, let's apply Bob McDonnell's standard to other areas where the problem isn't "rampant" either. *Anti-black racism in state government is probably not "rampant," but does that mean we shouldn't have anti-discrimination laws for African Americans? *Anti-female discrimination in state government is probably not "rampant" either, but again, does that mean we shouldn't outlaw it? *Arson isn't "rampant," in fact it's very rare, so do we not need laws against it? How about murder? Poaching of bald eagles? Dumping of radioactive materials in the water? Obviously, all of this is absurd, since nobody would ever seriously argue that we shouldn't have laws against racist discrimination or murder or eagle poaching or whatever. But, it does illustrate the laughable illogic of McDonnell's "rampant" standard. As to McDonnell's "address a real problem" standard, how is it not a "real problem" if even a few dozen people - or one person, for that matter - are discriminated against in state hiring every year?  It's certainly a "real problem" for the people who were discriminated against, and it's also a "real problem" for Virginia's attractiveness as a place for people to live and work, as well as for businesses to locate. Sorry, but the only things "rampant" here are Bob McDonnell's lack of sensitivity and his lack of willingness to move beyond the rigid he was taught by Pat Robertson's professors back in the "thesis" days.