Maybe it's because I'm watching this decades later, but I found the story with the AIDS patient to be confusing. For the first two thirds of the show, we have a fairly straightforward case of an employer trying to protect the many at the ostensible expense of the one. The plaintiff has AIDS, and after much consideration, the boss decides to protect other workers from infection by letting everyone know. His only obvious failure is not consulting the plaintiff first, and both sides seem very reasonable. It's really a toss-up which way it will go.
Then, all of a sudden, the AIDS narrative disappears into the background and it becomes a treatise on homosexuality. Behind closed doors, the previously reasonable defendant turns into a ranting bigot, obsessed with the plaintiff's same-sex attraction (as if that were already an established plot point). Then, despite there being no evidence of previous discussion on that topic, Jimmy knows exactly what he's talking about. Perhaps the writers themselves were bigots, thinking that anyone with AIDS must be in a homosexual relationship?
The episode was okay, but that aspect was really confusing. What's more, the discussion then turns to a Liberal vs. Conservative discussion of marriage redefinition, with Jimmy representing the Liberal side of the argument and the defendant representing an ignorant misconstruction of the Conservative side. If they really wanted to unnaturally shoehorn that debate into the episode, the least they could have done was present a realistic and balanced discussion, like they've done with so many other topics.
Bottom line: the episode was good enough - especially Eugene's character development - but it seemed like Jimmy's case had an essential scene or two wind up on the cutting room floor.
Then, all of a sudden, the AIDS narrative disappears into the background and it becomes a treatise on homosexuality. Behind closed doors, the previously reasonable defendant turns into a ranting bigot, obsessed with the plaintiff's same-sex attraction (as if that were already an established plot point). Then, despite there being no evidence of previous discussion on that topic, Jimmy knows exactly what he's talking about. Perhaps the writers themselves were bigots, thinking that anyone with AIDS must be in a homosexual relationship?
The episode was okay, but that aspect was really confusing. What's more, the discussion then turns to a Liberal vs. Conservative discussion of marriage redefinition, with Jimmy representing the Liberal side of the argument and the defendant representing an ignorant misconstruction of the Conservative side. If they really wanted to unnaturally shoehorn that debate into the episode, the least they could have done was present a realistic and balanced discussion, like they've done with so many other topics.
Bottom line: the episode was good enough - especially Eugene's character development - but it seemed like Jimmy's case had an essential scene or two wind up on the cutting room floor.