I think that one of the fundamental arguments that underlies Beckett's defense is the notion that discrimination, in any form, is representative of wrongful termination. Miller's point in his closing is that Andrew Beckett was fired because he was homosexual and that his contraction of AIDS was seen as a detriment, a reflection of the discrimination against homosexuals that was prevalent at the firm. The lack of documentation regarding poor performance as well as the abrupt and sudden change against Andrew upon the discovery that Andrew had contracted AIDS is underscoring that the dismissal was a result of prejudicial attitudes as opposed to anything within his performance. A claim to the equal opportunity clause of the 14th Amendment would be appropriate to note here, and Miller makes this case extremely clear in his closing arguments. It becomes evident, both through Miller's closing argument, and through the defense's assertion, that the law firm in which Beckett worked did not understand how to appropriate the issue of homosexuality, feeling that the cause of AIDS is "invited through actions" taken by Beckett. In such assertions, it becomes evident that he was dismissed because of discrimination, and thus unlawful practices. It would be these points that Miller makes in his closing arguments in Philadelphia.