You Can Get Fired For Being Gay

[Iain]

In the United States Military, you can be relieved of your position (read: FIRED) because of your sexuality. There's actually a regulation in that makes sure that this happens.

As a result of this, one of the few members of the Army National Guard that is fluent in Arabic is being fired.


Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.

Or is it?

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.

I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to diffuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn't want to live a lie.

Obama has been praised for delaying efforts to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell," and some major gay rights groups are actively lobbying to delay consideration of the issue. They seem to believe that Obama should focus on other gay-rights issues first, and that he shouldn't spend his precious political capital trying to ram a repeal bill through Congress.

This misses the point. Obama could sign an executive order today. With roughly three-quarters of the public, including a majority of republicans, in favor of open gay service, a meaningful public backlash is unlikely. A slight majority of service members prefer that the policy be left in place, but polls also show that only a tiny minority of them care strongly about the issue, and that the vast majority of service members are comfortable interacting with gays.

Obama may believe he has nothing to lose by waiting. But what about Dan Choi's career? Is this really the right time to fire military officers who are fluent in Arabic?

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html)


Thoughts?

[Dean]

In a lot of places you can get fired for things that your employers shouldn't be able to fire you for. It's stupid.

Specifically on the subject of gay people, a lot of people still seem to subscribe to this line of thinking
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/05/05/joe-the-plumber-slurs-gay-people-i-would-never-let-quotqueersquot-near-my-children/
I mean, he's essentially saying that being gay = being a sex offender. You're probably at least as likely to be raped by a Catholic priest as you are to be raped by the average gay person.

[Iain]

That's what really gets to me, is the people who think that being gay means you're diseased or some kind of sex offender. It's not like there's anything different other than their preferences.

I'm sure there are some gay people who are indeed bad people, but you can't take those people and use them as a yardstick to judge everyone. It just doesn't work, and apparently, a lot of people don't get that.

[Dean]

Sometimes I feel as though it's a wonder that the Flat Earth Society isn't around anymore... oh wait.

[Dedicated]

Why are they blaming Obama? I can't see their point? Surely this law was around when Bush was president? And probably well before that through other presidents terms.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the law is right, I'm just saying it's stupid to blame Obama for it.

[Iain]

Why are they blaming Obama? I can't see their point? Surely this law was around when Bush was president? And probably well before that through other presidents terms.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the law is right, I'm just saying it's stupid to blame Obama for it.

They're blaming him, because he could do away with the law. I know it's not his fault, and it was around well before he, Bush, or even Clinton was in office, but he could honestly get rid of it, because it's really an unfair law. It would set a really good example for the rest of the country, in my opinion.

However, flip of the coin, I see how Obama's got more important things to worry about at the moment, what with two wars to manage, an economy that's steadily declining, and bailouts being requested left and right.

[Timothy]

The article doesn't really blame Obama for anything; it just points out that his hands aren't completely tied and he could do something about the issue if he wanted to -- at least that's how I interpreted it.

[Todd]

Obama can't just get rid of the law. A repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell would have to to through the house and the senate first. He did say he would get rid if DADT but it will take awhile.

[Iain]

Obama can't just get rid of the law. A repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell would have to to through the house and the senate first. He did say he would get rid if DADT but it will take awhile.

At least he's taking initiative to get rid of it. DADT is like the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It's like getting fired for being Muslim.

Which, from what I understand, has happened before, and pisses me off just as much as this does.

[Dedicated]

Couldn't Bush or Clinton or any other president do away with the law?

[Iain]

They could have, but the thing is, they didn't. In eight years in office, for both of them.

And look, before Obama's first year is up, he's already talking about ending it. Another reason why I was so excited about him becoming president.

[Todd]

Couldn't Bush or Clinton or any other president do away with the law?

Clinton signed DADT into law as a "compromise" to allow gays to serve in the military as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay, as opposed to previous laws which banned gays completely. And Bush? You really expect a right wing nutjob like him to repeal it?

[Iain]

Clinton signed DADT into law as a "compromise" to allow gays to serve in the military as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay, as opposed to previous laws which banned gays completely. And Bush? You really expect a right wing nutjob like him to repeal it?

It's like asking an extremist to calm down with their views. It's not likely to happen.

[Theazninvasion68]

Dont repeal the DADT Law.
If you openly admitted to it, you openly submit yourself to the law that's down.

If you never admitted anything, There's nothing against you.
And plus, who's to say that anyone MUST know what sexuality or religion you are? That's not at any purpose or relation to actual job.

So I don't agree that being fired for being Gay, but It isn't something to be admitting to public if you know what the consequences were.

[Iain]

Dont repeal the DADT Law.
If you openly admitted to it, you openly submit yourself to the law that's down.

If you never admitted anything, There's nothing against you.
And plus, who's to say that anyone MUST know what sexuality or religion you are? That's not at any purpose or relation to actual job.

So I don't agree that being fired for being Gay, but It isn't something to be admitting to public if you know what the consequences were.

Some people feel like they're lying to themselves and everyone else when they don't let other people know that they're gay, and it bothers them. That's why they would say that, despite the consequences.

Besides, the DADT law was in order to combat something that was a dumbass idea to begin with. Restrictions based on sexuality? Sounds like something Hitler would've done, not the United States, a country that prides itself on equality.

Not so equal, once you think about it.

[Dedicated]

So basically, they're giving someone shit about not removing a law because no one else has removed it?



Anyway, I don't see what the issue is... If there was a law that helped prevent me from being in the army, I'd be supporting it :lol:

I'm extremely unsure of how the above comment will go down.

[Dean]

So I don't agree that being fired for being Gay, but It isn't something to be admitting to public if you know what the consequences were.
I hate to say so but you're right, as it is. There just shouldn't be those consequences.

[Iain]

I don't even get why DADT needed to be implemented anyway. You'd think that it wouldn't be a big deal who is in the military, as long as they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.

The whole thing just makes me sick.

[Theazninvasion68]

So basically, they're giving someone shit about not removing a law because no one else has removed it?



Anyway, I don't see what the issue is... If there was a law that helped prevent me from being in the army, I'd be supporting it :lol:

I'm extremely unsure of how the above comment will go down.

Aside the hazards of service, there are lots of after-service benefits, such as Free college, a reasonable amount of pay, free job/skill training. If your pretty much out of any sort of housing, they'll house, feed and train you Rigorously.

And you get paid to do that.

Yeah, There shouldn't be. But it's how Law works, The majority gets a law passed but also tries to satisfy the minority into a compromise. A DADT way would be a good compermise between the two, except you shouldn't be punished.


@Iain: Same here, It just is what it is. Like I don't understand why you can't focus on the job and accept them.

[Iain]

Aside the hazards of joining, there are lots of after-service benefits, such as Free college, a reasonable amount of pay, free job/skill training. If your pretty much out of any sort of housing, they'll house, feed and train you Rigorously.

And you get paid to do that.

Yeah, There shouldn't be. But it's how Law works, The majority gets a law passed but also tries to satisfy the minority into a compromise. A DADT way would be a good compermise between the two, except you shouldn't be punished.

What about the moral issues of joining the service? That's why I'm not joining, to be honest. I'd love to stick my neck out for my country, but only for the right reasons.

I personally think that there shouldn't have been a reason for DADT to be implemented to begin with, like I already said. Since when is it equal and fair to deny a gay man or woman the opportunity to serve his or her country? It's not. End of story.

[Timothy]

The law is pathetic as is, but it's even worse, in this instance, when you consider the shortage of military personnel who are fluent in Arabic.

[Theazninvasion68]

The reason why I'm not joining is because we're fighting the war for the wrong reasons, imo.
The Moral issues? Didn't think about that until I read that. Could you expand on that? :)

You do have a equal and fair chance to an opportunity to serve, Technically, As long as you don't admit to it.

But I do see your point, It isn't REALLY fair or equal but it is, due fine-print in the law.

[Iain]

The law is pathetic as is, but it's even worse, in this instance, when you consider the shortage of military personnel who are fluent in Arabic.

That's what got to me this morning. There are so few people in the military who are fluent in Arabic, and they're getting rid of one of them? That's great.


The reason why I'm not joining is because we're fighting the war for the wrong reasons, imo.
The Moral issues? Didn't think about that until I read that. Could you expand on that? :)

You do have a equal and fair chance to an opportunity to serve, Technically, As long as you don't admit to it.

But I do see your point, It isn't REALLY fair or equal but it is, due fine-print in the law.

Moral issues: Most of the wars we've fought, we've fought for the wrong reasons. Example: We went into Vietnam for no reason other than a promise that someone made to end Communism. Was it noble? Depends on how you look at it. But we stick our noses into EVERYTHING, whether it concerns us or not. We need to stop playing peacemaker, and spreading our armed forces so thin, or when we really need them, we won't have them.

I just don't want to fight a war that I don't believe in, or see the sense in us taking part in.

[Theazninvasion68]

Oooh.

I see. It's funny how no textbook will ever admit Vietnam was a failure, and there's nothing wrong about communism, it's just a different way.

Very different way.

[lpboarder]

Moral issues: Most of the wars we've fought, we've fought for the wrong reasons.

I just don't want to fight a war that I don't believe in, or see the sense in us taking part in.

I take issue with this because you cannot pick and choose what wars you are willing to fight and which ones you arent. If you wait to join when there is a "popular" war, what happens when the next one is one you dont like? You're still obligated to serve. No one can accurately predict right off if a war is being fought for just reasons until its over and the results are calculated. Vietnam? The administration, not the military, screwed us there.




I see. It's funny how no textbook will ever admit Vietnam was a failure, and there's nothing wrong about communism, it's just a different way.

Very different way.

In theory there is nothing with communism, maybe. In practice, its an utter failure though.

[Dean]

In theory there is nothing with communism, maybe. In practice, its an utter failure though.
On recent and past evidence the same goes for laissez faire capitalism. Neither extremity really works.

[Iain]

I take issue with this because you cannot pick and choose what wars you are willing to fight and which ones you arent. If you wait to join when there is a "popular" war, what happens when the next one is one you dont like? You're still obligated to serve. No one can accurately predict right off if a war is being fought for just reasons until its over and the results are calculated. Vietnam? The administration, not the military, screwed us there.

Which is why I'm not signing up for the military unless I'm forced to. Personal decision.

And yeah, I know, it was the administration. I didn't blame the military, nor will I. It's never the military's fault we're in a war. It's the people that sent them there.

[lpboarder]

On recent and past evidence the same goes for laissez faire capitalism. Neither extremity really works.

Have to disagree. Capitalism is alive and well all over the world, is it not? Communism has failed because the power (practiced by the government) is absolute, oppressive and corrupt from the beginning (i.e. Cuba, NK).