- Mar 28, 2010
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
doubtless. but it is NOT homosexuals that are "impairing" their careers but their own unwillingness to accept a behavior that does in no way affect them. It is not even sexuality but religious intolerance and the insistence that their religion has more meaning than the law that is affecting their careers. it SHOULD.those who feel religiously obligated (not motivated by hate or homophobia, but by religious obligation, assuming any of you can understand that there's a difference there) to view homosexuality as an immoral behavior might find their careers impaired because of that belief.
you continue to insist that the fact that they do not LIKE what homosexuals do justifies restrictions on homosexuals. that is nonsense. It is, as others have pointed out, no more just in regard to sexuality than it is to race or the very religion these folks are using to justify it.if non-coms and officers are required to go further in actively supporting and affirming homosexuality in a public manner, then yes that could be an issue.
no. nor is it going to be forbidden for atheists to say that Catholicism is a form of oppressive thought control. No one is suggesting that allowing gays to serve in the military demands a repeal of the first amendment.What about Chaplains? Is it going to be forbidden for a Catholic chaplain to even mention that the Catholic church considers homosexual activity to be a sin?
that would be one optionMaybe you say "Well, let him resign and get out of the military then, the intolerant schmuck."
who cares?Okay, let's say all the Catholic Chaplains resign, and along with them half or more of the Baptist Chaplains, plus some others. Do you know how many soldiers are Baptist or Catholic?
undoubtedlyAll I'm saying is that yes, there might be some questions about how all this is going to play out
absolutely not. relgious liberty is the freedom to ascribe to the doctrines of a religion. it is specifically NOT the privilege to impose those restrictions on others. it is specifically the denial of that privilege.and at some point those questions might fall under the heading of religious liberty
no one is looking to burn you OR call you a bigot. I am trying to point out that you have a seriously skewed understanding of what the constitution protects.