Air Force Veteran Relieved of Duty Over Refusal to Affirm Homosexuality

[Jeff]

Another step toward the end, Now you are wrong if you disagree with Homo sex, you don't have to act out against it just disagree and you are discriminating against the gays, yes this is another step in destroying this country, I have never served but have seen many on here argue that a gay man fighting next to them was no problem but now the Air Force wants you to believe it is ok also , it wasn't good enough to just live and let live you must now be on board with the Gays.

A 19-year Air Force veteran has been relieved of his duties because of his refusal to affirm homosexual behavior. Senior Master Sergeant Monk, recently returned from deployment and serving as a first sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, found himself at odds with his new commander, an openly homosexual Air Force officer, because of Monk's refusal to agree to disciplinary action against an Air Force instructor over comments the instructor had made about same-sex marriage.
“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” Monk told Fox News (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html). “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.”

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/16336-air-force-veteran-relieved-of-duty-over-refusal-to-affirm-homosexuality

[logroller]

This is about a failure to discipline an instructor who did, in fact, violate AF policy in the course of of executing official duties.

From the OP link
Monk said that the incident reveals that military policy is completely replacing all aspects of free speech. Concerning the instructor he told Fox: “If this young man had given a speech and said he was good with homosexuality, we wouldn’t be here. The narrative is that you cannot say anything that contradicts Air Force policy.”

So if he hadn't violated air force policy, he wouldn't have been punished...I think that's the way it works.
Say, for example, some member here disagreed with an administrative action and posted saying such-- (That's a clear Rule violation)-- and jim banned said poster and then a staff member refused to go along with it....you think Jim would keep such a person around on staff?

[aboutime]

Just more of the Intended, Obama, Democrat, Socialism being injected into our military which...by the way. Is all part of the destruction of our military by the administration.

One step at a time toward the disintegration, and destruction of the once, greatest military in the World. That is how socialism, and communism are slowly, and deliberately introduced into a society of Dumbed-down, uneducated, easily-led, government dependent sheep become slaves.

[revelarts]

But it turned out to be what he refused to say that placed him at odds with the homosexual officer. Monk was called in to advise his superior on disciplinary action against the Air Force instructor, who was accused of making derogatory comments against homosexuals and of creating a hostile work environment. But when Monk looked into the instructor's comments he could find nothing amiss, noting that he had simply compared the United States to the doomed ancient Roman Empire, expressing his concern over the similarities.

“He said in spite of our differences, we can’t let that happen to the United States,” Monk recalled, adding that the instructor “used homosexual marriage as an example, saying that he didn’t believe in it, but it doesn’t matter because he was going to train them the same way.”

But when several individuals complained about the instructor's comments, the lesbian superior turned to Monk for his counsel on disciplinary action against the airman, making it clear that she wanted the instructor to pay. “Her very first reaction was to say, ‘We need to lop off the head of this guy,’” Monk recalled. “The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination.”

Instead of agreeing with her, however, Monk suggested that the officer use the incident as an opportunity to teach the importance of tolerating diverse opinions. “I don’t believe someone having an opinion for or against homosexuality is discriminatory,” Monk told Fox News.
That was not the advice Monk's lesbian superior was looking for, and Monk was soon informed that if he didn't get on the same page he would be re-assigned. Monk recalled that in a meeting over the incident his commander essentially demanded that he affirm the homosexual lifestyle. “She said, ‘Sgt. Monk, I need to know if you can, as my first sergeant, if you can see discrimination if somebody says that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage,’” he recalled.
Monk said that his moral convictions forced him to remain silent. “As a matter of conscience I could not answer the question the way the commander wanted me to,” he told Fox. The master sergeant said that his refusal to go along with his homosexual superior led to his firing. “I was essentially fired for not validating my commander’s position on having an opinion about homosexual marriage,” he said.


Since when did not liking someone or a practice become legal DISCRIMINATION.

racial Minorities and the handicapped just ask to get a job and be served, not that you like them or agree with them to work with them. Do you think Colan Powell was liked by all of his superiors and fellows? Or that they all thought that Blacks "deserved " to be in the positions he was trying for? Do you think some maybe even expressed it but still did their jobs? Why didn't he lop some heads?!!!?

Is lopping someones head off AF policy today?
Does expressing disagreement with AF policy mean your fired? Or does ACTING against AF policy get you fired?
Is it legal "discrimination" to say you don't like something?

Based on this report this whole thing STINKS like Hell.

AS the report mentions now the don't ask don't tell applies to Christian's Religious position on Homosexuality . and your OPINION can get you fired. THAT'S CRAZY!

the Actions of sodomy and the like is OK with the AF. But just saying you think it's bad but you'll treat everyone fairly anyway is worthy of firing?! "Getting your head lopped off"? It's insane.

So much for tolerance, It's conform or get fired and harassed.
Bake my cake for what your God considers sinful acts or else...,
Sell me flowers for what your God considers sinful acts or else...,
Don't even say you don't like what your God considers sinful acts or else.

The gays should march with the Muslims in washington.
they both seem to want a form a Sharia.

[aboutime]

Since when did not liking someone or a practice become legal DISCRIMINATION.

racial Minorities and the handicapped just ask to get a job and be served, not that you like them or agree with them to work with them. Do you think Colan Powell was liked by all of his superiors and fellows? Or that they all thought that Blacks "deserved " to be in the positions he was trying for? Do you think some maybe even expressed it but still did their jobs? Why didn't he lop some heads?!!!?

Is lopping someones head off AF policy today?
Does expressing disagreement with AF policy mean your fired? Or does ACTING against AF policy get you fired?
Is it legal "discrimination" to say you don't like something?

Based on this report this whole thing STINKS like Hell.

AS the report mentions now the don't ask don't tell applies to Christian's Religious position on Homosexuality . and your OPINION can get you fired. THAT'S CRAZY!

the Actions of sodomy and the like is OK with the AF. But just saying you think it's bad but you'll treat everyone fairly anyway is worthy of firing?! "Getting your head lopped off"? It's insane.

So much for tolerance, It's conform or get fired and harassed.
Bake my cake for what your God considers sinful acts or else...,
Sell me flowers for what your God considers sinful acts or else...,
Don't even say you don't like what your God considers sinful acts or else.

The gays should march with the Muslims in washington.
they both seem to want a form a Sharia.


rev. It's for reasons like this we have countless foreign members of military renouncing, and leaving their nation of record to come to the U.S.A.
Obama, Democrats, and the DUMB Secretary of Defense (brown nose and all) are just following through with their intentions to destroy our nation's military. IF NEED BE...One member at a time in order to make our military more adapted to Being THAN FRAN THISCO bred, Village People with Play Guns, Tanks, and SHARED FOXY HOLES...Choose ONE.

[Larrymc]

Another step toward the end, Now you are wrong if you disagree with Homo sex, you don't have to act out against it just disagree and you are discriminating against the gays, yes this is another step in destroying this country, I have never served but have seen many on here argue that a gay man fighting next to them was no problem but now the Air Force wants you to believe it is ok also , it wasn't good enough to just live and let live you must now be on board with the Gays.

A 19-year Air Force veteran has been relieved of his duties because of his refusal to affirm homosexual behavior. Senior Master Sergeant Monk, recently returned from deployment and serving as a first sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, found himself at odds with his new commander, an openly homosexual Air Force officer, because of Monk's refusal to agree to disciplinary action against an Air Force instructor over comments the instructor had made about same-sex marriage.
“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” Monk told Fox News (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html). “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.”

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/16336-air-force-veteran-relieved-of-duty-over-refusal-to-affirm-homosexualityIf this keeps up, they'll have to bring the draft back, they wont have enough gays to do the job after anyone with a moral compass starts to jump ship, and stop enlisting. in what is becoming Obama's Army.

[aboutime]

If this keeps up, they'll have to bring the draft back, they wont have enough gays to do the job after anyone with a moral compass starts to jump ship, and stop enlisting. in what is becoming Obama's Army.


Larrymc. Obama and the Democrats know....A DRAFT will never happen again. Too many Americans who voted for Obama would never allow forced military service to replace FOOD STAMPS, and WELFARE with free phones, and free health care.

As I said before. This is just one more step toward the destruction of our military. One person at a time. Get enough of the active members to LEAVE after their tours, and all we will have left are Gays who need to be married while MOPPING decks, and dancing on their cruises to Non-Gay acceptable nations.

[logroller]

Since when did not liking someone or a practice become legal DISCRIMINATION.

racial Minorities and the handicapped just ask to get a job and be served, not that you like them or agree with them to work with them. Do you think Colan Powell was liked by all of his superiors and fellows? Or that they all thought that Blacks "deserved " to be in the positions he was trying for? Do you think some maybe even expressed it but still did their jobs? Why didn't he lop some heads?!!!?

Is lopping someones head off AF policy today?
Does expressing disagreement with AF policy mean your fired? Or does ACTING against AF policy get you fired?
Is it legal "discrimination" to say you don't like something?

Based on this report this whole thing STINKS like Hell.

AS the report mentions now the don't ask don't tell applies to Christian's Religious position on Homosexuality . and your OPINION can get you fired. THAT'S CRAZY!

the Actions of sodomy and the like is OK with the AF. But just saying you think it's bad but you'll treat everyone fairly anyway is worthy of firing?! "Getting your head lopped off"? It's insane.

So much for tolerance, It's conform or get fired and harassed.
Bake my cake for what your God considers sinful acts or else...,
Sell me flowers for what your God considers sinful acts or else...,
Don't even say you don't like what your God considers sinful acts or else.

The gays should march with the Muslims in washington.
they both seem to want a form a Sharia.
Openly disagreeing with Air Force policy is an action. And nobody's talking about lopping off heads except you. If it were policy, though, and you disagreed and refused to affirm, you'd face disciplinary action regardless of your righteous conviction. Indeed the bible does say something to the effect that ye are blessed if you are persecuted for your beliefs-- so own up to it and face the disciplinary action-- God approves.

Fwiw, Conscientious objection has long been allowed in our military; but you're still subject to being removed from duty. I suppose if he had joined some religious organization, you'd have a point; but its the us military rev, not just some civil job. They have different rules for a reason and if you don't like it, don't join. Pretty simple.


rev. It's for reasons like this we have countless foreign members of military renouncing, and leaving their nation of record to come to the U.S.A.
Obama, Democrats, and the DUMB Secretary of Defense (brown nose and all) are just following through with their intentions to destroy our nation's military. IF NEED BE...One member at a time in order to make our military more adapted to Being THAN FRAN THISCO bred, Village People with Play Guns, Tanks, and SHARED FOXY HOLES...Choose ONE.

All that may be, but when you were in the military did you get to tell your subordinates that and refuse to endorse your superiors? I'm curious when that was allowed, because I'm pretty sure it has never been the policy of the US military to allow, let alone endorse, open dissent within the ranks.

[aboutime]

Openly disagreeing with Air Force policy is an action. And nobody's talking about lopping off heads except you. If it were policy, though, and you disagreed and refused to affirm, you'd face disciplinary action regardless of your righteous conviction. Indeed the bible does say something to the effect that ye are blessed if you are persecuted for your beliefs-- so own up to it and face the disciplinary action-- God approves.

Fwiw, Conscientious objection has long been allowed in our military; but you're still subject to being removed from duty. I suppose if he had joined some religious organization, you'd have a point; but its the us military rev, not just some civil job. They have different rules for a reason and if you don't like it, don't join. Pretty simple.



All that may be, but when you were in the military did you get to tell your subordinates that and refuse to endorse your superiors? I'm curious when that was allowed, because I'm pretty sure it has never been the policy of the US military to allow, let alone endorse, open dissent within the ranks.


No. We told them they were permitted to disagree, and were only authorized to refuse to endorse, or follow Unlawful orders.
As for telling them about refusal to support, or follow superiors. Common sense, and the ability to THINK on their own, knowing the differences between right and wrong, good and bad...outweighed any kind of possible Religious, or Moral disagreements.
Back then. We knew there were gays among us. But...they didn't force straight members of the military to SUCK UP to all of their demands...to be fair, and ruin the dedication of brotherhood, and sisterhood that WAS the backbone of Honor, and Duty to God, and Country.

Those things are now what Obama, and Gays are destroying. Then claiming it's unfair.

[Jeff]

This is about a failure to discipline an instructor who did, in fact, violate AF policy in the course of of executing official duties.

From the OP link
Monk said that the incident reveals that military policy is completely replacing all aspects of free speech. Concerning the instructor he told Fox: “If this young man had given a speech and said he was good with homosexuality, we wouldn’t be here. The narrative is that you cannot say anything that contradicts Air Force policy.”

So if he hadn't violated air force policy, he wouldn't have been punished...I think that's the way it works.
Say, for example, some member here disagreed with an administrative action and posted saying such-- (That's a clear Rule violation)-- and jim banned said poster and then a staff member refused to go along with it....you think Jim would keep such a person around on staff?

log I am not saying it isn't there policy I was trying to show what bad shape our country is in, I mean the guy didn't call his superior a Dyke or something he is being relieved of his duties because of his refusal to affirm homosexual behavior and that to me is one more step of the Government controlling or trying to every aspect of our lives , This is what happens when you have a openly gay officer, Shouldn't this guy be allowed to believe in his religious beliefs, according to the Constitution he does but not in the military and why because that is where the Government will start pushing there BS laws. Now lets say the Air Force decides they want to serve pork every Friday does that mean the Muslims in the Air Force must eat it no because there wont be no openly racist rule that says they have to, But they are so hung up on being nice to the Gays that now you must show you accept it , that is ridiculous.

[revelarts]

Openly disagreeing with Air Force policy is an action. And nobody's talking about lopping off heads except you. If it were policy, though, and you disagreed and refused to affirm, you'd face disciplinary action regardless of your righteous conviction. Indeed the bible does say something to the effect that ye are blessed if you are persecuted for your beliefs-- so own up to it and face the disciplinary action-- God approves.

Fwiw, Conscientious objection has long been allowed in our military; but you're still subject to being removed from duty. I suppose if he had joined some religious organization, you'd have a point; but its the us military rev, not just some civil job. They have different rules for a reason and if you don't like it, don't join. Pretty simple. .
then why aren't 1000's of racist officers, soldiers and airmen fired Log? some of them belong to the klan or neo Nazi groups some belong to racist gangs.

It's not AF policy to promote racism but they have acted, by joining those orgs, in a racist manner.
Your defense of this is dissapointing Log.

And please give me the specific AF policy the guy violated.
Was it the 'always speak kindly about homosexuality' policy?
What "policy", what code, what law, says an Airman cannot express an opinion contrary to the AF, EVEN if you are preforming the letter of the law?

and I can hardly believe you said this.
" If it were policy, though, and you disagreed and refused to affirm" .
what? You can't refuse to affirm it AS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION LOG?!?!
That's utter 100% BS.


....
The gays should march with the Muslims in washington.
they both seem to want a form a Sharia.

[Larrymc]

Openly disagreeing with Air Force policy is an action. And nobody's talking about lopping off heads except you. If it were policy, though, and you disagreed and refused to affirm, you'd face disciplinary action regardless of your righteous conviction. Indeed the bible does say something to the effect that ye are blessed if you are persecuted for your beliefs-- so own up to it and face the disciplinary action-- God approves.

Fwiw, Conscientious objection has long been allowed in our military; but you're still subject to being removed from duty. I suppose if he had joined some religious organization, you'd have a point; but its the us military rev, not just some civil job. They have different rules for a reason and if you don't like it, don't join. Pretty simple.



All that may be, but when you were in the military did you get to tell your subordinates that and refuse to endorse your superiors? I'm curious when that was allowed, because I'm pretty sure it has never been the policy of the US military to allow, let alone endorse, open dissent within the ranks.I think this is a whole new situation, never before has someones sexual orientation been an issue, nor has Abandoning your faith or own moral compass been a policy to serve, Only sense the Idiot in the White House decided that simply serving is not enough for Gays, no they not only need everyone to know they are Gay, you must also agree with their agenda as is apparently now also policy.

[revelarts]

...And nobody's talking about lopping off heads except you. ...

---But when several individuals complained about the instructor's comments, the lesbian superior turned to Monk for his counsel on disciplinary action against the airman, making it clear that she wanted the instructor to pay. “Her very first reaction was to say, ‘We need to lop off the head of this guy,’” Monk recalled. “The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination.”----

[logroller]

then why aren't 1000's of racist officers, soldiers and airmen fired Log? some of them belong to the klan or neo Nazi groups some belong to racist gangs.

It's not AF policy to promote racism but they have acted, by joining those orgs, in a racist manner.
Your defense of this is dissapointing Log.

And please give me the specific AF policy the guy violated.
Was it the 'always speak kindly about homosexuality' policy?
What "policy", what code, what law, says an Airman cannot express an opinion contrary to the AF, EVEN if you are preforming the letter of the law?

and I can hardly believe you said this.
" If it were policy, though, and you disagreed and refused to affirm" .
what? You can't refuse to affirm it AS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION LOG?!?!
That's utter 100% BS.


....
The gays should march with the Muslims in washington.
they both seem to want a form a Sharia.
Oh good night: from lopping off heads to the klan, finishing strong with the muzzie red herring. Do try and stick to the subject at hand.

First off, an instructor in the Air Force expressed disdain for America and its demise, exemplified by same sex marriage...then says, I'll treat you the same though. Oh that's comforting. Even you pieces of shit that soil America can expect fair treatment...even though equality in marriage is the equivalent of America's demise.
To those who agree, it reinforces their beliefs (likely of religious origin) and, to those who don't share his beliefs, its insulting to fellow airmen to say the least.

and in any event, it violates Air Force Instruction 1-1, 7 August 2012, which admonishes: This instruction is directive in nature and failure to adhere to the standards set out in this instruction can form the basis for adverse action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). An example would be a dereliction of duty offense under Article 92.


Conduct, 2.1 Overview:(in part)
We must also maintain loyalty to the Air Force’s core values and standards and maintain professionalism and respect for others regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation. This respect for others not only involves personal interaction, but also extends to communications and interactions in social media and cyberspace. You must never degrade the public’s trust and confidence in the United States Air Force and in you.


2.12.1. All Airmen are able to choose to practice their particular religion, or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own.
So unless saying that you're the reason America is failing is respecting others viewpoints, he broke a directive to which he was dutifully bound to obey. He was derelict of his duties.

This other guy, SMS Monk, refused to answer a question as to whether he believes it is discrimination for a person to state that they disagree with homosexual “marriage". That, too, is punishable. Of course, he has right not to incriminate himself and if her question would cause him to incriminate himself...but then, that would mean that, according to relevant code, it is unlawful discrimination for a person to state that they disagree with homosexual marriage. If such were the case, and his co ordered him to reprimand the instructir and he failed to do so, hed violate a lawful order. Whoa nelly! What then?

“An order requiring the performance of a military duty may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. … [T]he dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.” MCM ¶14.c(2)(a).

For military members, failure or refusal to obey a lawful order is a criminal offense. The Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) explains that the maximum peacetime penalty for willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. The maximum wartime penalty is death. MCM ¶14.e(2)-(3).

And near as I can tell, all this guy got was a transfer; likely because the commander actually respected his religious convictions but couldn't tolerate dereliction in her ranks and, rather than putting him in such a position, she sent him elsewhere. That's why he ran crying to the media instead of her superior. Fuckin whiney baby.

And maybe do a little research about this base and its history of inappropriate sexual conduct (read: suppressed rape) of female enlisted by their instructors that, I'm guessing not coincidently, preceded this commander being given her current post.
Maybe those women should go join the slut walk. :flameth:

[logroller]

---But when several individuals complained about the instructor's comments, the lesbian superior turned to Monk for his counsel on disciplinary action against the airman, making it clear that she wanted the instructor to pay. “Her very first reaction was to say, ‘We need to lop off the head of this guy,’” Monk recalled. “The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination.”----
do you really think she literally meant decapitation? :rolleyes:
Maybe he's got a case for unlawful command influence, but seeing as how he was there for "counsel", I doubt it will be very persuasive within the ranks as the commander has the lawful authority to make such a determination as to whether it was discrimination. That's why it's in the public purview with media spinning it like a top.

[revelarts]

do you really think she literally meant decapitation? :rolleyes:
Maybe he's got a case for unlawful command influence, but seeing as how he was there for "counsel", I doubt it will be very persuasive within the ranks as the commander has the lawful authority to make such a determination as to whether it was discrimination. That's why it's in the public purview with media spinning it like a top.

Do you think I meant it literally? :rolleyes:
I just repeated what she said for emphasis and you tried to use her outrageous hyperbole it to correct me.

[revelarts]

Oh good night: from lopping off heads to the klan, finishing strong with the muzzie red herring. Do try and stick to the subject at hand.

First off, an instructor in the Air Force expressed disdain for America and its demise, exemplified by same sex marriage...then says, I'll treat you the same though. Oh that's comforting. Even you pieces of shit that soil America can expect fair treatment...even though equality in marriage is the equivalent of America's demise.
To those who agree, it reinforces their beliefs (likely of religious origin) and, to those who don't share his beliefs, its insulting to fellow airmen to say the least.

and in any event, it violates Air Force Instruction 1-1, 7 August 2012, which admonishes: This instruction is directive in nature and failure to adhere to the standards set out in this instruction can form the basis for adverse action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). An example would be a dereliction of duty offense under Article 92.

So unless saying that you're the reason America is failing is respecting others viewpoints, he broke a directive to which he was dutifully bound to obey. He was derelict of his duties.

This other guy, SMS Monk, refused to answer a question as to whether he believes it is discrimination for a person to state that they disagree with homosexual “marriage". That, too, is punishable. Of course, he has right not to incriminate himself and if her question would cause him to incriminate himself...but then, that would mean that, according to relevant code, it is unlawful discrimination for a person to state that they disagree with homosexual marriage. If such were the case, and his co ordered him to reprimand the instructir and he failed to do so, hed violate a lawful order. Whoa nelly! What then?

“An order requiring the performance of a military duty may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. … [T]he dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.” MCM ¶14.c(2)(a).

For military members, failure or refusal to obey a lawful order is a criminal offense. The Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) explains that the maximum peacetime penalty for willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. The maximum wartime penalty is death. MCM ¶14.e(2)-(3).

And near as I can tell, all this guy got was a transfer; likely because the commander actually respected his religious convictions but couldn't tolerate dereliction in her ranks and, rather than putting him in such a position, she sent him elsewhere. That's why he ran crying to the media instead of her superior. Fuckin whiney baby.

And maybe do a little research about this base and its history of inappropriate sexual conduct (read: suppressed rape) of female enlisted by their instructors that, I'm guessing not coincidently, preceded this commander being given her current post.
Maybe those women should go join the slut walk. :flameth:

the subject at hand is BS Interpretation of legal Discrimination.
Are you now trying to say that ONLY sexual orientation is protected? since I've gone off on a tangent about the klan and Neo Nazis services happily serving without much HEAD LOPING.



Military officials said the 19-year-old New York-born Chen shot himself to death in a guardhouse in Afghanistan on Oct. 3, 2011, after being harassed by other soldiers with taunts that included racial epithets.
On Monday, officials said that the last of eight soldiers accused in the case is facing dismissal from the service. Of the other soldiers, five were sentenced to prison and two received demotions. In all, four were facing dismissal.

A representative of an organization advocating justice for Chen said all eight should be discharged.
Elizabeth OuYang, an attorney who heads the New York branch of the national nonprofit Organization of Chinese Americans, said minority members of the U.S. military "must decide whether it is worth the risk to fight for your country when your country will not protect you." So your saying that if Chen had NOT killed himself the Racial taunting would have stopped because of the Codes you sited.
Or that the offenders heads would have been LOPPED OFF.
But Maybe the commander Should have told them to stop the Taunting and DO their jobs. The commander would NOt be able to LOP OFF HEADS If those with racist attitudes had remained civil and done their work fairly. CHEN would Know who didn't like Asians but THAT"S LIFE> some people don't like other races. the Military is there to get the job done. If the Job isn't getting done because people are TAUNTING others or REFUSING to work with others THEN there's a problem. Personal Religiously held opinions about WHERE THE COUNTRY IS GOING AND WHY are not the Air Force's/Miltary's legal disciplinary purview.


No one knows how many white supremacists have served since then. A 2008 report commissioned by the Justice Department found half of all right-wing extremists in the United States had military experience.
(BUT)

"We don't really think this is a huge problem, at Bragg, and across the Army," said Colonel Kevin Arata, a spokesman for Fort Bragg.

"In my 26 years in the Army, I've never seen it," the former company commander said.

Experts have identified the presence of street gang members as a more widespread problem. Even so, the Pentagon has launched three major pushes in recent decades to crack down on racist extremists. The first directive was issued in 1986, when Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger ordered military personnel to reject supremacist organizations.
That failed to stop former Marine T.J. Leyden, with two-inch SS bolts tattooed above his collar, from serving from 1988 to 1991 while openly supporting neo-Nazi causes. A member of the Hammerskin Nation, a skinhead group, he said he hung a swastika from his locker, taking it down only when his commander politely asked him to ahead of inspections by the commanding general.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-army-idUSBRE87K04Y20120821

I'm no fan of the SPLC but the but Military rules say that a a Neo-Nazi shouldn't BE in the Military. but the guy here didn't even have to hide it with his commander. I'd Assume that neo-Nazis WOULD NOT help a Jewish, a Asian or BLack soldier in the field the way they should. They espouse Openly they want a war with them and others. Christians Just don't want to support or promote Homosexual Marriage or the practice of Homosexuality as normal and good behavior.

If that makes someone FEEL bad sorry.
Christan don't want to promote what Congressman Weiner Does and Normal and Good Behavior.
Or Drinking till you pass out every night as Normal and good Behavior,
Or smoking meth and heroin as Normal and good Behavior,
Or Corruption in Gov't as Normal and Good Behavior,
heck or Disrespecting of Parents,
A consistent Christian doesn't approve of the serial Heterosexual fornication promoted by the wider or the military culture and thinks THAT'S bringing the country down,.
No Christian is perfect either.
But ALL of those things -and many others- are part of what is bringing this country down. And if people can't see the difference in THAT and Racism and Legal Discrimination. and have hurt feeling about it THEY need some training in what Christians believe and why it's not discrimination. Especially when it does not affect how they will work side by side with people that have ALL of the named behaviors and more.

"...respected his religious convictions but couldn't tolerate dereliction in her ranks.."?
really?
Is it dereliction to say that 'rampant hetrosexual forication is part of what's bringing the country down'? 'but I'll teach you guys the same as anyone else.'

Is head lopping in order?

[logroller]

the subject at hand is BS Interpretation of legal Discrimination.
Are you now trying to say that ONLY sexual orientation is protected? since I've gone off on a tangent about the klan and Neo Nazis services happily serving without much HEAD LOPING.
I believe I quoted an entire passage that included other protected classes; I highlighted sexual orientation because its germane to the issue at hand.


So your saying that if Chen had NOT killed himself the Racial taunting would have stopped because of the Codes you sited.
uh, im not sure how thats relevent. Any more than the taunting of Jewish soldiers by evangelical Christians is relevant. The law alone doesn't stop anything-- it has to be enforced.



Or that the offenders heads would have been LOPPED OFF.
They were punished in accordance with ucmj.




But Maybe the commander Should have told them to stop the Taunting and DO their jobs.
. Indeed. Such woukd be a lawful order and the commander would likewise be subject to reprimand for failing to do so.
The commander would NOt be able to LOP OFF HEADS
WRONG-- If the soldiers failed to obey such an order in wartime conditions, (as was the case in afghansitan) its punishable by death. I already quoted that law. Of course, there'd have to be a courts martial and that's a wholly different set of legal constraints.



If those with racist attitudes had remained civil and done their work fairly. CHEN would Know who didn't like Asians but THAT"S LIFE> some people don't like other races. the Military is there to get the job done. If the Job isn't getting done because people are TAUNTING others or REFUSING to work with others THEN there's a problem.
Like creating a hostile work environment, degrading morale, stuff like that...yeah, that's the thrust of the AFI 1-1 directive I noted previously. It's only 27 pages, you, like SMS Monk, should read it.



Personal Religiously held opinions about WHERE THE COUNTRY IS GOING AND WHY are not the Air Force's/Miltary's legal disciplinary purview.

Maybe, maybe not. That's your opinion, not that of the Commanding officer. The difference is, she has the authority to enforce her opinion, and you do not. And though i take issue with your contivance of a religiously held view on the future of this country, neither my opinion nor yours warrants inclusion into the instruction of airmen.



I'm no fan of the SPLC but the but Military rules say that a a Neo-Nazi shouldn't BE in the Military. but the guy here didn't even have to hide it with his commander. I'd Assume that neo-Nazis WOULD NOT help a Jewish, a Asian or BLack soldier in the field the way they should. They espouse Openly they want a war with them and others.
And that commander would face reprimand and disgrace if and when something's comes of it.



Christians Just don't want to support or promote Homosexual Marriage or the practice of Homosexuality as normal and good behavior.
Ok. And the military just doesn't want to support or promote any one set of religious beliefs. Thats the crux if the issue here, and not gay marriage per se. Thats just the way the media spins it...because the simple fact of the matter is the commander exercised her lawful authority to suppress dissent from those in her command.



If that makes someone FEEL bad sorry.
If that fosters dissent within the ranks; they're fired; if that makes someone FEEL bad, sorry.



Christan don't want to promote what Congressman Weiner Does and Normal and Good Behavior.
Or Drinking till you pass out every night as Normal and good Behavior,
Or smoking meth and heroin as Normal and good Behavior,
Or Corruption in Gov't as Normal and Good Behavior,
heck or Disrespecting of Parents,
A consistent Christian doesn't approve of the serial Heterosexual fornication promoted by the wider or the military culture and thinks THAT'S bringing the country down,.
No Christian is perfect either.
Clearly. Still not relevant to case at hand. Neither are those issues solely held by Christians; regardless, I must take issue with your serial formication comment as the military has much stricter laws regarding sexual behavior than does the society at large. Things like fraternization and adultery are not only frowned upon, but punishable. In fact, most of those behaviors, were a military member were to so engage, are punishable.



But ALL of those things -and many others- are part of what is bringing this country down.
So....Manifest destiny oughta set things straight?



And if people can't see the difference in THAT and Racism and Legal Discrimination. and have hurt feeling about it THEY need some training in what Christians believe and why it's not discrimination. Especially when it does not affect how they will work side by side with people that have ALL of the named behaviors and more.
Have you replaced dadt with hear no evil, see no evil?
Those things have, and continue to, affect how they work side by side. The status quo has long been just deal with it, but the problems didnt disappear because they ignored it.



"...respected his religious convictions but couldn't tolerate dereliction in her ranks.."?
really?
Is it dereliction to say that 'rampant hetrosexual forication is part of what's bringing the country down'? 'but I'll teach you guys the same as anyone else.'


Is head lopping in order?
There are laws on proper behavior for those subject to ucmj, period. No need to color it with sexual orientation because, yes, that's discriminatory.

For a first-time offense, I'd think a formal letter of counseling would be the maximum extent of what I'd consider appropriate. Not formal charges of a capital nature and, as I mentioned previously, if formal charges were to be brought forth her comments would be a case of UCI. (Unlawful command influence) IMO a criminal charge wouldnt even be possible given the facts and so UCI doesn't apply since the commander has the authority to decide such without judicial order.
If the person doesn't agree with such a finding, there's an appeal process, per law, that includes superior command, convening authorities, the secretary of the branch, all the way up to the CiC and, even congress and if you still don't agree; what it doesn't allow is for you to run to the media or post about it online, circumventing the prescribed channels because you dont like it.-- you can vote those in congress and the CiC out or file formal charges in a district court to get the law reversed-- That's what the gays had to do with dadt, and in the meantime they were discharged and had their benefits revoked as per the law. Nobody here received anything like that, the guy monk got transferred, as he was scheduled for months beforehand, and the unnamed training officer who expressed his beliefs received a notice of counseling, an official notice of infraction-- like a speeding ticket. Hardly lopping off anyone's head, rev.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is about a failure to discipline an instructor who did, in fact, violate AF policy in the course of of executing official duties.

From the OP link
Monk said that the incident reveals that military policy is completely replacing all aspects of free speech. Concerning the instructor he told Fox: “If this young man had given a speech and said he was good with homosexuality, we wouldn’t be here. The narrative is that you cannot say anything that contradicts Air Force policy.”

So if he hadn't violated air force policy, he wouldn't have been punished...I think that's the way it works.
Say, for example, some member here disagreed with an administrative action and posted saying such-- (That's a clear Rule violation)-- and jim banned said poster and then a staff member refused to go along with it....you think Jim would keep such a person around on staff? That is true as far as the Air Force goes. However the guy standing on principle and rejecting the damn socialism being injected into Air Force policy is to be commended and praised by all decent and loyal patriotic Americans. The tyrannical government has forced too much anti-freedom socialism on this nation and all its citizens. If a civil war ever does come to be then the authors and supporters of all this socialist crap will be found and dealt with is my best guess. I wouldn't want to be in any of those lousy bastards shoes! And it coming to that is drawing closer every day the current bastard is in charge. Fact..-Tyr

[revelarts]

It seem your a lost cause on this issue Log.
Seems Nothing trumps positive promotion of perverse "sexual orientation" to you.
If you do not Promote Homosexuality as GOOD in the Military then you are legally discriminating and deserve punishment.
Being a homosexual is protected.
Being a Christian is not, and in fact is probably grounds for discipline and court martial.
I think we get the message clearly.


That is true as far as the Air Force goes. However the guy standing on principle and rejecting the damn socialism being injected into Air Force policy is to be commended and praised by all decent and loyal patriotic Americans. The tyrannical government has forced too much anti-freedom socialism on this nation and all its citizens. If a civil war ever does come to be then the authors and supporters of all this socialist crap will be found and dealt with is my best guess. I wouldn't want to be in any of those lousy bastards shoes! And it coming to that is drawing closer every day the current bastard is in charge. Fact..-Tyr

tyr if i may bring in what you said in another thread.

Since the Airmen is in the Military. if he doesn't do as Log and the lesbian commander says, and praise Homosexuality, then it's TREASON and he should be shot. He put on the uniform, and must never question or disobey an order. ever , period. no matter what the gov't does.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It seem you a lost cause on this issue Log.
Nothing trumps "sexual orientation" If you do not Promote Homosexuality as GOOD in the Military then you are legally discriminating and deserve punishment.
Being a homosexual is protected, being a Christian is not. and in fact is probably grounds for discipline and court martial.
I think we get the message clearly.



tyr if i may bring in what you said in another thread.

Since the Airmen is in the Military. if he doesn't do as Log and the lesbian commander says, and praise Homosexuality, then it's TREASON and he should be shot. He put on the uniform, and must never question or disobey an order. ever , period. I NEVER SAID THAT, YOU ARE ADDING YOUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT I SAID . To prove it you need to post my quote that you are referencing and Ill prove your little re-quoting above is 100% wrong. ok? By the way Rev this type of post is beneath you or else I've ever so greatly misjudged you. Is there a reason that you did not show my quote? Sure there is! Do me the favor of posting my exact quote which you are paraphrasing. Then I will respond and we'll let the readers decide. I stand on my principles and never break them! I never flip flop, am as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.. --Tyr

[revelarts]

I NEVER SAID THAT, YOU ARE ADDING YOUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT I SAID . To prove it you need to post my quote that you are referencing and Ill prove your little re-quoting above is 100% wrong. ok? By the way Rev this type of post is beneath you or else I've ever so greatly misjudged you. Is there a reason that you did not show my quote? Sure there is! Do me the favor of posting my exact quote which you are paraphrasing. Then I will respond and we'll let the readers decide. I stand on my principles and never break them! I never flip flop, am as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.. --Tyr

It's what you said in the manning verdit thread.
in the military you break the rules you get shot.


"35 years out in 7.. Sob should have been shot!! This verdict gives the green light to others to do the same by it's extreme leniency.-tyr "

"Sorry Rev, it doesn't work that way. The guy was U.S. military not a civilian. What he did was actually treason, he should have been shot. His action did far more damage that a soldier running away under fire or deserting from a military camp in a combat zone. Both those will get you shot . He should have been shot. Notice I did not take such a hard stand on Snowden? That's because he was a civilian not a soldier. -Tyr"

We agree on a lot of thing and i respect you, I'm just pointing out what seems to me be an inconsistency.

you say in this thread that actions of the officer "standing on principles" should be PRAISED and the undeserved military punishment and twisted socialist gov't policies may result in a rightful civil war.
But when another Serviceman "standing on principle" tries to alert the public to gov't wrong doing he deserves to be shot. shot. shot.

Seems inconsistent to me.
others may disagree.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's what you said in the manning verdit thread.
in the military you break the rules you get shot.


We agree on a lot of thing and i respect you, I'm just pointing out what seems to me be an inconsistency.

you say in this thread that actions of the officer "standing on principles" should be PRAISED and the undeserved military punishment and twisted socialist gov't policies may result in a rightful civil war.
But when another Serviceman "standing on principle" tries to alert the public to gov't wrong doing he deserves to be shot. shot. shot.

Seems inconsistent to me.
others may disagree. ----------------------------------------------------------- Nothing inconsistent about it my friend. Manning actions were spying , the officer's action was breaking a new regulation he disagreed with. I never stated that all infractions in the military warrant being shot! I even listed two that would get you shot and neither of those was an enlisted man or officer merely breaking a regulation! My list pointed to 1.cowardice, 2.desertion and 3.spying all three warranting being shot , nothing more. Manning was spying and can not be compared to a career military officer breaking a new regulation on how to kiss ass on the gays! I know you can not be that stupid.... Apples and cucumbers do not compare very well amigo. Can you point to which of those 3 the officer did by refusing to obey a new gay as kissing regulation? I did mention the officer stood on principle and chose nation over regulation--he paid the price. Manning chose spying and we still do not know exactly why. Yet can you not agree that spying is a far more serious action than refusing to kiss gays asses? If not , I think you need more help than I could ever offer! Come on now Rev , you are better than this. At least I think so... I hope that my given comment in this post has cleared this up and will suffice. I have not transgressed any of my principles nor have I been inconsistent in any way.-Tyr

[logroller]

It seem your a lost cause on this issue Log.
Seems Nothing trumps positive promotion of perverse "sexual orientation" to you.
If you do not Promote Homosexuality as GOOD in the Military then you are legally discriminating and deserve punishment.
Being a homosexual is protected.
Being a Christian is not, and in fact is probably grounds for discipline and court martial.
I think we get the message clearly.



tyr if i may bring in what you said in another thread.

Since the Airmen is in the Military. if he doesn't do as Log and the lesbian commander says, and praise Homosexuality, then it's TREASON and he should be shot. He put on the uniform, and must never question or disobey an order. ever , period. no matter what the gov't does.
Your position is the losing cause rev. Because you're stuck in the narrative that he was punished for refusing to accept gay marriage. That's not the case. The issue is discriminatory speech under the the color of authority by the staff sergeant that initially caused the inquiry. That's it.
This guy bringing forth the allegations, monk, wan't even punished in any way, shape or form-- i challenge you to show otherwise-- that he was transferred to another position that is commensurate to his rank and experience and, furthermore, it a transfer to which he was already scheduled to undertake.

Sounds to me like the hateful rhetoric that has just been business as usual round there got a little taste of discipline and he's bitterly trying to cover his tracks.

[DragonStryk72]

I know it hasn't been that long since I was in, so I doubt the UCMJ has changed all that drastically. I say this because he was given a lawful order to operate in amends to his personal religious beliefs that he aired in uniform. Right there, he was in the wrong by the UCMJ.

I'm sorry, whether you agree with gay marriage, homosexuality, or whatnot, in the military, it doesn't matter. It has never mattered, because it is the same as it always has been: It is about the unit, and not you. What, you think you're an individual?

Sorry, but thems the breaks guys, and that is made clear as crystal from day one. You can have whatever personal beliefs you like, but you have to shut up about the divisive ones in uniform and at work. Soldiers don't have free speech, as we can be prosecuted through the military courts for what comes out of our mouth, and that hasn't changed over time.

[logroller]

I know it hasn't been that long since I was in, so I doubt the UCMJ has changed all that drastically. I say this because he was given a lawful order to operate in amends to his personal religious beliefs that he aired in uniform. Right there, he was in the wrong by the UCMJ.

I'm sorry, whether you agree with gay marriage, homosexuality, or whatnot, in the military, it doesn't matter. It has never mattered, because it is the same as it always has been: It is about the unit, and not you. What, you think you're an individual?

Sorry, but thems the breaks guys, and that is made clear as crystal from day one. You can have whatever personal beliefs you like, but you have to shut up about the divisive ones in uniform and at work. Soldiers don't have free speech, as we can be prosecuted through the military courts for what comes out of our mouth, and that hasn't changed over time.
No one was even punished through the courts though. It was a letter of counseling, the equivalent of a speeding ticket, and not even for the guy levying the allegations that he was relieved of duty over refusal to affirm homosexuality.

Buncha hogwash, that's what this is. People just don't like being told that, despite a long history of doing so, they can't force their ideology on everyone else. Well, Boo fucking hoo. I'm reminded of CK Louis' speech on being white


http://youtu.be/TG4f9zR5yzY

[DragonStryk72]

No one was even punished through the courts though. It was a letter of counseling, the equivalent of a speeding ticket, and not even for the guy levying the allegations that he was relieved of duty over refusal to affirm homosexuality.

Buncha hogwash, that's what this is. People just don't like being told that, despite a long history of doing so, they can't force their ideology on everyone else. Well, Boo fucking hoo. I'm reminded of CK Louis' speech on being white


http://youtu.be/TG4f9zR5yzY

Actually, a counseling, if not a written counsel, is the military version of your civilian boss coming to tell you quickly about your fly being unzipped. Seriously, if it isn't being written up, that's your CO being nice.

[aboutime]

I know it hasn't been that long since I was in, so I doubt the UCMJ has changed all that drastically. I say this because he was given a lawful order to operate in amends to his personal religious beliefs that he aired in uniform. Right there, he was in the wrong by the UCMJ.

I'm sorry, whether you agree with gay marriage, homosexuality, or whatnot, in the military, it doesn't matter. It has never mattered, because it is the same as it always has been: It is about the unit, and not you. What, you think you're an individual?

Sorry, but thems the breaks guys, and that is made clear as crystal from day one. You can have whatever personal beliefs you like, but you have to shut up about the divisive ones in uniform and at work. Soldiers don't have free speech, as we can be prosecuted through the military courts for what comes out of our mouth, and that hasn't changed over time.


Dragon. Doesn't matter what the UCMJ says. No Officer, commissioned, or otherwise is permitted to instruct any member in uniform what they can, or cannot believe personally. And, no officer. Despite rank. Has any power to determine, discuss, or punish any member in uniform concerning their religious beliefs, or practices.
There are limits on Lawful orders, and the officer in question violated those limits.

[DragonStryk72]

Dragon. Doesn't matter what the UCMJ says. No Officer, commissioned, or otherwise is permitted to instruct any member in uniform what they can, or cannot believe personally. And, no officer. Despite rank. Has any power to determine, discuss, or punish any member in uniform concerning their religious beliefs, or practices.
There are limits on Lawful orders, and the officer in question violated those limits.

Um, no officer DID. However, since he opened his mouth at work and caused shit for the division with his personal beliefs that he cannot dump on people, according to the UCMJ he was told to make amends, which IS within the UCMJ. Sorry, but he walked himself into that.

A lawful order was given, and the officer did not violate them. Current military policy is that homosexuals in the military are okay, plain and simple. So whatever his personal philosophy, he needed to not bring it up at work, and certainly not as someone in charge of others. There was no reason to even bring up his personal feelings, because treating your subordinates equally under the SOP and UCMJ is a given.

It's like telling me you intend to stop at stop lights. Well yeah, I hope to god you do, cause the alternatives are really horribly, and why are you even saying it?

[logroller]

Dragon. Doesn't matter what the UCMJ says. No Officer, commissioned, or otherwise is permitted to instruct any member in uniform what they can, or cannot believe personally. And, no officer. Despite rank. Has any power to determine, discuss, or punish any member in uniform concerning their religious beliefs, or practices.
There are limits on Lawful orders, and the officer in question violated those limits.
You mean the master sergeant who discussed his personal feelings on gays in America?
Because the commander didn't order the guy to do a thing near as I can tell-- she just asked a question that he refused to answer-- and he wasn't even punished for not answering-- he was reassigned, as he was expecting before the incident in question. So where's the issue, exactly?


He acknowledged that he was due for a reassignment, but the dispute with the commander led to his being abruptly removed from a leadership position and leaves open a question about whether he will receive a Meritorious Service Medal for which his commande had recommended him in late June.

Not receiving the medal could hurt his career, Monk said, because it would “send a message to whomever is reviewing” his military records.


Monk is now assigned to the 59th Medical Wing at Lackland, a position he said is commensurate with his rank and experience. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130816/NEWS05/308160021/AF-sgt-claims-he-fired-religious-views-gays

So he doesn't know if he's in trouble, so he runs off to a lawyer who leaks the story to the press...refusing to answer questions and running to lawyer. Is that something innocent people do?


...Doesn't matter what the UCMJ says. did you read that on the wall of the brig? Because the Military investigations services and MPs might disagree. Just saying.

[revelarts]

Um, no officer DID. However, since he opened his mouth at work and caused shit for the division with his personal beliefs that he cannot dump on people, according to the UCMJ he was told to make amends, which IS within the UCMJ. Sorry, but he walked himself into that.

A lawful order was given, and the officer did not violate them. Current military policy is that homosexuals in the military are okay, plain and simple. So whatever his personal philosophy, he needed to not bring it up at work, and certainly not as someone in charge of others. There was no reason to even bring up his personal feelings, because treating your subordinates equally under the SOP and UCMJ is a given.

It's like telling me you intend to stop at stop lights. Well yeah, I hope to god you do, cause the alternatives are really horribly, and why are you even saying it?

Seems to me it's like a cop like saying.
I think the stop light on this road is stupid and dangerous but i'm going to obey it anyway. And teach others to as well, because it's the law right now.
the opinion does not effect the work. THAT's been my point all along.
Does USMJ call for head lopping if you hurt someones feelings who loooves the stop light?

ANd BTW there are quite a few Military here.
can i get idea from you guys of how often during your careers you have heard racial slurs, or disparaging Comments used about and to minorities of all types in uniform?
Rarely 2 zero, occasionally , regularly, weekly, daily?

How many military members here have heard lewd, rude degrading or disparaging Comments about and to women in uniform?
Rarely 2 zero, occasionally , regularly, weekly, daily?

how often did it call down the application of the USMJ?
Rarely 2 zero, occasionally, regularly, weekly, daily?

[Gaffer]

Seems to me it's like a cop like saying.
I think the stop light on this road is stupid and dangerous but i'm going to obey it anyway. And teach others to as well, because it's the law right now.
the opinion does not effect the work. THAT's been my point all along.
Does USMJ call for head lopping if you hurt someones feelings who loooves the stop light?

ANd BTW there are quite a few Military here.
can i get idea from you guys of how often during your careers you have heard racial slurs, or disparaging Comments used about and to minorities of all types in uniform?
Rarely 2 zero, occasionally , regularly, weekly, daily?

How many military members here have heard lewd, rude degrading or disparaging Comments about and to women in uniform?
Rarely 2 zero, occasionally , regularly, weekly, daily?

how often did it call down the application of the USMJ?
Rarely 2 zero, occasionally, regularly, weekly, daily?

1. regularly

2. occasionally

3. zero

A known queer was quickly removed, because he would not last long in a combat unit. They were not tolerated.

[Kathianne]

I believe I quoted an entire passage that included other protected classes; I highlighted sexual orientation because its germane to the issue at hand.


uh, im not sure how thats relevent. Any more than the taunting of Jewish soldiers by evangelical Christians is relevant. The law alone doesn't stop anything-- it has to be enforced.



They were punished in accordance with ucmj.


. Indeed. Such woukd be a lawful order and the commander would likewise be subject to reprimand for failing to do so.
WRONG-- If the soldiers failed to obey such an order in wartime conditions, (as was the case in afghansitan) its punishable by death. I already quoted that law. Of course, there'd have to be a courts martial and that's a wholly different set of legal constraints.



Like creating a hostile work environment, degrading morale, stuff like that...yeah, that's the thrust of the AFI 1-1 directive I noted previously. It's only 27 pages, you, like SMS Monk, should read it.



Maybe, maybe not. That's your opinion, not that of the Commanding officer. The difference is, she has the authority to enforce her opinion, and you do not. And though i take issue with your contivance of a religiously held view on the future of this country, neither my opinion nor yours warrants inclusion into the instruction of airmen.



And that commander would face reprimand and disgrace if and when something's comes of it.



Ok. And the military just doesn't want to support or promote any one set of religious beliefs. Thats the crux if the issue here, and not gay marriage per se. Thats just the way the media spins it...because the simple fact of the matter is the commander exercised her lawful authority to suppress dissent from those in her command.



If that fosters dissent within the ranks; they're fired; if that makes someone FEEL bad, sorry.



Clearly. Still not relevant to case at hand. Neither are those issues solely held by Christians; regardless, I must take issue with your serial formication comment as the military has much stricter laws regarding sexual behavior than does the society at large. Things like fraternization and adultery are not only frowned upon, but punishable. In fact, most of those behaviors, were a military member were to so engage, are punishable.



So....Manifest destiny oughta set things straight?



Have you replaced dadt with hear no evil, see no evil?
Those things have, and continue to, affect how they work side by side. The status quo has long been just deal with it, but the problems didnt disappear because they ignored it.



There are laws on proper behavior for those subject to ucmj, period. No need to color it with sexual orientation because, yes, that's discriminatory.

For a first-time offense, I'd think a formal letter of counseling would be the maximum extent of what I'd consider appropriate. Not formal charges of a capital nature and, as I mentioned previously, if formal charges were to be brought forth her comments would be a case of UCI. (Unlawful command influence) IMO a criminal charge wouldnt even be possible given the facts and so UCI doesn't apply since the commander has the authority to decide such without judicial order.
If the person doesn't agree with such a finding, there's an appeal process, per law, that includes superior command, convening authorities, the secretary of the branch, all the way up to the CiC and, even congress and if you still don't agree; what it doesn't allow is for you to run to the media or post about it online, circumventing the prescribed channels because you dont like it.-- you can vote those in congress and the CiC out or file formal charges in a district court to get the law reversed-- That's what the gays had to do with dadt, and in the meantime they were discharged and had their benefits revoked as per the law. Nobody here received anything like that, the guy monk got transferred, as he was scheduled for months beforehand, and the unnamed training officer who expressed his beliefs received a notice of counseling, an official notice of infraction-- like a speeding ticket. Hardly lopping off anyone's head, rev.

I don't have a huge problem with gays in the military, commonsense says there have been some since the very beginnings. With that said, trying to force others to endorse others political beliefs, which is what gay marriage is about, is totally wrong and unconstitutional.

Yes, there are freedoms one gives up when serving in the military, such as writing anti-gay or racist statements on public forums, (btw, if one isn't in the military, your management team may fire you for the same), however, that doesn't extend to non-public opinions in the course of serving. No, one may not harass those one doesn't 'like,' but one does have the right to remain silent on the issue.

[aboutime]

I will happily allow all of the AUTHORITIES here on DP to tell the rest of us how I am wrong about what I said.

Seems like a useless adventure, sharing honest facts with those who claim to have ALL OF THE ANSWERS.

Go for it.

[logroller]

I will happily allow all of the AUTHORITIES here on DP to tell the rest of us how I am wrong about what I said.

Seems like a useless adventure, sharing honest facts with those who claim to have ALL OF THE ANSWERS.

Go for it.
Ive not given you one singular answer as an authority, but, rather, I've presented arguments.

Your facts, regardless of their integrity, don't refute my arguments, so I'm not surprised that you yield. In debate, being unable to dispute another's arguments is a concession of defeat, and I accept.

The fact of the matter is this guy has suffered no harm and he's manufactured a case of controversy over what happened.

[aboutime]

Ive not given you one singular answer as an authority, but, rather, I've presented arguments.

Your facts, regardless of their integrity, don't refute my arguments, so I'm not surprised that you yield. In debate, being unable to dispute another's arguments is a concession of defeat, and I accept.

The fact of the matter is this guy has suffered no harm and he's manufactured a case of controversy over what happened.


Once again. You gain your arrogance by always getting,
and making sure you get the 5409.
If you took my post as a concession. I should just call you jafar.

[logroller]

Once again. You gain your arrogance by always getting,
and making sure you get the 5409.
If you took my post as a concession. I should just call you jafar.
Once again, that's not a refutation, but a denial.
Jafar-- as in, denier of that which is irrefutable-- Pot calling the kettle black I'd say. Likewise, its you that wants the last word.

and so far as my authority goes, take note that you trolled jafar into a thread he had no part in. Oh that's right, rules don't matter to you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Morally and ethically the guy was right as rain but possibly technically he was not , not so sure on the last part. One thing is for sure we can already see the divisive and fracturing nature of the decision of HOW to treat the gays is in our military. The whole damn thing is designed to weaken the military just like I've said all along. I'll tell you superstars this --- when in combat and the guy deliberately doesn't cover for the gay guy and lets him get his ass blown away how you geniuses going to know he did that? Same way officers that by way of ignorance , bravado,or stupidity endangered and got too many of their men killed needlessly were dealt with. I bet the assclowns all for this gay crap didn't think of that ,huh? When the government ffkks a man there are more ways than one to skin that cat.. Let a bug war start I bet the gays get blasted at a higher rate. And it damn sure will not be because they are braver or more aggressive in battle. And don't think the special undeserved promotion of gay guys and girls over more deserving souls isn't going to happen. Those hard feelings will fuel into the battlefield tactic of not covering the gay guy too. Like I said , a clusterbuck from the getgo! -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Once again, that's not a refutation, but a denial.
Jafar-- as in, denier of that which is irrefutable-- Pot calling the kettle black I'd say. Likewise, its you that wants the last word.

and so far as my authority goes, take note that you trolled jafar into a thread he had no part in. Oh that's right, rules don't matter to you. ---------------------------------------- Hey, hey , gonna be a dull ass place if we can not speak about another current member here until after he/she posts in a thread. Sorry but if that's a rule Im gonna be looking for another place less restrictive... I mean a little clarification on this is needed IMHO. I mean you just used Jafar same as he did if its true . And what is trolled a person anyways? I speak about other members here often in my comments. Sometimes its good ,sometimes its bad. --Tyr

[logroller]

Morally and ethically the guy was right as rain but possibly technically he was not , not so sure on the last part. One thing is for sure we can already see the divisive and fracturing nature of the decision of HOW to treat the gays is in our military. The whole damn thing is designed to weaken the military just like I've said all along. I'll tell you superstars this --- when in combat and the guy deliberately doesn't cover for the gay guy and lets him get his ass blown away how you geniuses going to know he did that? Same way officers that by way of ignorance , bravado,or stupidity endangered and got too many of their men killed needlessly were dealt with. I bet the assclowns all for this gay crap didn't think of that ,huh? When the government ffkks a man there are more ways than one to skin that cat.. Let a bug war start I bet the gays get blasted at a higher rate. And it damn sure will not be because they are braver or more aggressive in battle. -Tyr

Hey look bro, same could be said for blacks, jews, women...but you need to ask yourself what America stands for, inclusion or exclusion?

I'd say the former-- win, lose or draw. That's what built this nation, we're a nation composed of those who sought freedom from oppression and we've done alright so far. Seems a cruel twist of irony that we'd reject that when the going gets tough. We should embrace it and show the world that we're not all hype.

Imagine the glory of seeing a terrorist meet his end thanks to a black jewish gay female bombardier. Too far-fetched? maybe, but even the possibility of that is what makes America the greatest nation on Earth. :salute:

[logroller]

---------------------------------------- Hey, hey , gonna be a dull ass place if we can not speak about another current member here until after he/she posts in a thread. Sorry but if that's a rule Im gonna be looking for another place less restrictive... I mean a little clarification on this is needed IMHO. I mean you just used Jafar same as he did if its true . And what is trolled a person anyways? I speak about other members here often in my comments. Sometimes its good ,sometimes its bad. --Tyr
trolling is trolling.

In Internet slang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang), a troll (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)r (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English), / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)r (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Campbell-Trolls-1) by posting inflammatory,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-2) extraneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective), or off-topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic)messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Usage)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Howard_Fosdick-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Tastam90.2C_Message_.23_369489-4) or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) response[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-PCMAG_def-5) or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-IUKB_def-6)- wikipedia

But did I ban him? No. But when somoeone accuses me of abusing my authority Im gonna call them on it and bring attention to their trespasses that have gone unaddressed.

The simple fact of the matter is he used the mention of another member, who's personage and position is completely unrelated to this thread in an attempt to flame me. Fucking A right I'm gonna call him on that shit. But I didn't ban him, and if I had I wouldn't address it publicly. But that's trolling and there are rules on that
Personal Feuds - No surprisingly, members can sometimes get involved in personal feuds. We ask that these be kept off the boards. Please don't derail threads by going "after" someone you don't like. Don't start threads just to rile someone up. Don't harass other members. Please PM staff if you need assistance.

all who participate here agreed to that when they signed up. That's all I was saying.

as for my mention of Jafar....AT brought it up, but feel free to report it. ;)

[aboutime]

Once again, that's not a refutation, but a denial.
Jafar-- as in, denier of that which is irrefutable-- Pot calling the kettle black I'd say. Likewise, its you that wants the last word.

and so far as my authority goes, take note that you trolled jafar into a thread he had no part in. Oh that's right, rules don't matter to you.


Awww. Poor kid. Truth works again. Authority? Uh, huh.

[Kathianne]

Hey look bro, same could be said for blacks, jews, women...but you need to ask yourself what America stands for, inclusion or exclusion?

I'd say the former-- win, lose or draw. That's what built this nation, we're a nation composed of those who sought freedom from oppression and we've done alright so far. Seems a cruel twist of irony that we'd reject that when the going gets tough. We should embrace it and show the world that we're not all hype.

Imagine the glory of seeing a terrorist meet his end thanks to a black jewish gay female bombardier. Too far-fetched? maybe, but even the possibility of that is what makes America the greatest nation on Earth. :salute:

There's a history of the military being used as conduit to social change, that I am more than aware of and it has worked out fine. Here though it's being done a bit different, the 'minority group' is going beyond equality of treatment to add benefits to the one group and they are being granted. Travel time for weddings? That's not given to any other groups.

[jimnyc]

Once again, that's not a refutation, but a denial.
Jafar-- as in, denier of that which is irrefutable-- Pot calling the kettle black I'd say. Likewise, its you that wants the last word.

and so far as my authority goes, take note that you trolled jafar into a thread he had no part in. Oh that's right, rules don't matter to you.


---------------------------------------- Hey, hey , gonna be a dull ass place if we can not speak about another current member here until after he/she posts in a thread. Sorry but if that's a rule Im gonna be looking for another place less restrictive... I mean a little clarification on this is needed IMHO. I mean you just used Jafar same as he did if its true . And what is trolled a person anyways? I speak about other members here often in my comments. Sometimes its good ,sometimes its bad. --Tyr

AT brought Jafar into this thread and I believe Logroller was pointing that out, and pointing out that he had not taken any action at all. Basically, an observation was all. Tyr, you most certainly can bring up another member of the board, whether they be in the thread or not. I think it goes without saying that this is something that shouldn't be abused, and the discussions should be on topic. In other words, there are times where it's just fine and there could be times where it's abusive if one did it too often and in too many threads. I don't foresee that ever being an issue with the crop of members we have now though.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

AT brought Jafar into this thread and I believe Logroller was pointing that out, and pointing out that he had not taken any action at all. Basically, an observation was all. Tyr, you most certainly can bring up another member of the board, whether they be in the thread or not. I think it goes without saying that this is something that shouldn't be abused, and the discussions should be on topic. In other words, there are times where it's just fine and there could be times where it's abusive if one did it too often and in too many threads. I don't foresee that ever being an issue with the crop of members we have now though. Not a problem , sounds reasonable to me. Thanks.. I was not challenging Log's authority with my comment but did want clarification is all. Had no issue with Log myself. Now back to flinging sand in the sandbox... --Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

---But when several individuals complained about the instructor's comments, the lesbian superior turned to Monk for his counsel on disciplinary action against the airman, making it clear that she wanted the instructor to pay. “Her very first reaction was to say, ‘We need to lop off the head of this guy,’” Monk recalled. “The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination.”----

Reading the speech of the lesbian and Monk, it seems clear to me that between the two, the lesbian had the much more offensive behavior. Something is really wrong here.

[Gaffer]

In Vietnam a known queer was immediately removed. If not he would be sure to be the only casualty on the next combat patrol. Asshole officers and even NCO's that abused their authority were often casualties in a fire fight. Strange how that happened.

[aboutime]

In Vietnam a known queer was immediately removed. If not he would be sure to be the only casualty on the next combat patrol. Asshole officers and even NCO's that abused their authority were often casualties in a fire fight. Strange how that happened.


Gaffer. They had a word for it, as I expect, you already know.

FRAGGING. There were a few such incidents reported during those years.
Not that it would be used today. But...to most Nam Vets who see what is happening to our Military at the hands of a Phony, Pretending, CIC. There's probably many of us who are reminded about those days we all wish...would never return again.
Anything Negative that takes place within our Military Today, from all the rapes, to crimes against fellow members in uniform can, and should be placed squarely on the Shoulders of OBAMA.

And I don't care if anyone disagree's with that. If you do. Go watch HANOI JANE in her movie.