Increasingly, scholars have focused their attention on how voters evaluate queer, trans, and gender non-conforming candidates for political office. Missing, however, is an examination of how voters evaluate queer individuals serving in executive positions. Past research has documented the gendered pattern of cabinet appointments. In advanced democracies, women have frequently been appointed to lead ministries that oversee "feminine" or low-prestige policy areas. While this pattern has changed in recent years, the question remains: do queer politicians face similar barriers? In this project, we employ a conjoint survey experiment in the United Kingdom to assess how individuals evaluate queer and gender non-conforming cabinet ministers. In doing so, we examine whether queer and gender non-conforming cabinet ministers are punished by voters compared to straight and gender conforming ministers. Additionally, we assess whether voters see queer and gender non-conforming politicians as better suited to lead different ministries than their straight and gender conforming counterparts. To vary the degree to which these ministers conform to typical gender norms, we manipulate the hypothetical minister's sexual orientation, physical appearance, and hobbies. We then explore how these factors affect perceptions of the minister's deservingness and competency.