4 ms·
Sounds like a reason not to embrace homophobia as policy. So it shouldn't matter if intelligence agencies get this info -- being gay in the military or governm
by x0x0 5y ago
Sounds like a reason not to embrace homophobia as policy. So it shouldn't matter if intelligence agencies get this info -- being gay in the military or government is fine.
- dylan604 5y agoWhile I do not agree with it, it is a religious belief. That puts it in a different bracket. Religions get to do things that normal people cannot do.
- worik 5y agoWhy?
- inkblotuniverse 5y agoCollective bargaining.
- worik 5y agoWhat a good answer! Worth more than a upvote!!
- dylan604 5y agoWhy what? Why I don't agree with it? - Because I don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone/anything else. I just don't have time to care about other people's shit as I have enough of my own shit to worry about. It's in a different bracket? - Because in the USofA, religions are put in a separate bracket. That's how it was founded. Religions get to do things others can't? - Because SCOTUS has decided that churches get to ignore certain protections of protected classes because of their religious dogma. They have spoken, so that's how it is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- heavyset_go 5y ago> Religions get to do things that normal people cannot do. In the past, people used their religions to oppose things like interracial relationships, and even judges[1] in the US would use religion to defend discrimination against interracial couples. Turns out that people don't get to use religion to discriminate[2]: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion...
- dylan604 5y agoThat's not universally applied though. Religous organizations do not have to provide birth control to employees. Religious schools can not employee teachers based on differing beliefs. Religious business does not have provide services to people they do not like.
- x0x0 5y agoHow does that make it a national security issue?
- dylan604 5y agoWhen did it become a national security issue?
- x0x0 5y agoThe original comment explicitly referenced "foreign intelligence agencies"
- threatofrain 5y agoYou need leverage to blackmail somebody, and your blackmail risk is part of whether you can attain clearance. Hence whether some government jobs are open to you.
- tzs 5y agoEven if the military or government were enthusiastically pro-gay blackmail would still be a concern because people who are not out are usually trying to keep it secret from more groups than just their employer.
- x0x0 5y agoWe currently do not issue (afaik) clearances to closeted gay people. You can be gay, but not closted.
- MattGaiser 5y agoRefactoring society to eliminate discrimination is one of the mega challenges of our era.