please stop proving me right...

[Hobbs]

You don't understand that we are talking about being arrested for trespassing by refrusing to leave a recruitment center when asked not about whether or not the military can ciscriminate about who enlists.

We aren't talking about enlisting but about trespassing.

It's still trespassing. As Protege said, once you're asked to leave, and you don't, you're committing a crime. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, black, red, purple or Republican. Your argument is moot because, as Smileyeagle stated, the person refused to leave. That's trespassing, plain and simple.

[HYHYBT]

What you both aren't understanding in this situation, however, is that the military is allowed to discriminate.

Why do you keep pretending every time this comes up that people who SAY that the military is allowed to discriminate, and even giving specific examples of cases where they are allowed to discriminate, don't understand that the military is allowed to discriminate? The point is that, for anything not directly related to the ability to do the job, such as being gay, they OUGHT NOT TO BE. That they are in fact allowed to do so is quite plain.

It is only disciminatory if the government is trying to deny a right to a citizen.

So, first you insist (despite nobody disagreeing with you on that point) that they do discriminate, and then in the next breath (so to speak) you say they're NOT discriminating because there is no right to serve? You cannot have it both ways, so pick one.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's pretty plain that Hobbs argument is that it technically isn't discrimination and even if it were: the military is allowed to anyway.

Nor is he saying it's right or wrong, merely allowed as in, not illegal.

[Hobbs]

So, first you insist (despite nobody disagreeing with you on that point) that they do discriminate, and then in the next breath (so to speak) you say they're NOT discriminating because there is no right to serve? You cannot have it both ways, so pick one.

No, you're getting it wrong again. Wingates said it best. Here it is again.

When they were talking of discrimination, they were referring to discrimination laws within the law. The US Armed Forces also have anti-discrimination laws based on race, sex, creed etc., however, as I previously stated, certain provisions allow the Armed Forces to discriminate when it is deemed in the best interests of the country etc. It's still technically discrimination, but it's not, nor should it be considered, illegal. Smileyeagle's post made it clear that the person refusing to leave felt they had a right to serve; which no one, in fact does. This is because it is never even mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it an obligation since the Armed Forces operate with an All-Volunteer Force.

[jackfaire]

It's still trespassing. As Protege said, once you're asked to leave, and you don't, you're committing a crime. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, black, red, purple or Republican. Your argument is moot because, as Smileyeagle stated, the person refused to leave. That's trespassing, plain and simple.

*facepalm* My argument was that it is trespassing plain and simple. I was making the point that the law was non discriminatory however enforcing it on someone who won't leave because they are guy but not on another person who won't leave who isn't gay is.

It's pretty plain that Hobbs argument is that it technically isn't discrimination and even if it were: the military is allowed to anyway.

Nor is he saying it's right or wrong, merely allowed as in, not illegal.

It's pretty plain Hobbs argument had 0 to do with what we were discussing. We were talking about is it discriminatory for anyone to press charges for someone trespassing against someone that's gay but not pressing charges against someone that is trespassing that isn't gay. He then turned it into a discussion about the military discriminating against people when it comes to enlisting hell we could have been talking about Taco Bell making a gay man leave. The organization has little to nothing to do with the discussion except as the backdrop for the incident.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's still trespassing. As Protege said, once you're asked to leave, and you don't, you're committing a crime. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, black, red, purple or Republican. Your argument is moot because, as Smileyeagle stated, the person refused to leave. That's trespassing, plain and simple.

I'll place $20 on the table though that if the person had been told they couldn't enlist because they were black and were arrested for refusing to leave there would be unanimous support for the black person... why is it any different when a gay person is denied the ability to enlist?
I'm ineligible to enlist anyway (medical history) and I'm tired of the circular logic that gays don't defend the country so they don't deserve rights and because they don't deserve rights they shouldn't defend the country.

And yes, I hear the people saying their are good republicans out there, I believe you that somewhere in this country there are good republicans, that does not change that I have met only one and he was hated by the members of his party for it. I of course speak of the former Governor Huntsman, who supported work to overturn Utah's Amendment 3 (codifying that homosexuals are inferior). Every single Republican on the legislature tried to Crucify him for it. His approval rating amongst Republican voters plummeted. He now works with the Obama administration, which is a shame because, while I know he would never get reelected in Utah, we would have gotten an extra year of progress.

I want to know the open and accepting party you keep telling me, but so far in my life I have seen nothing but hatred.

And Protege, it's only the black card if discrimination hasn't happened, I guarantee you if someone went on CS and complained that they couldn't enlist because they were black you wouldn't say they were playing the black card... asking a double standard on what counts as discrimination is, guess what, discrimination.

[Hobbs]

I'll place $20 on the table though that if the person had been told they couldn't enlist because they were black and were arrested for refusing to leave there would be unanimous support for the black person... why is it any different when a gay person is denied the ability to enlist?

I wouldn't take that bet because the US Armed Forces are not allowed to discriminate based upon race. Gay is not a race. Even if such a thing happened, the black individual should still be charged with trespassing because it's the law (against trespassing).

Again, from US Code Title 10, s. 654

(8) (B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Bolded for your benefit. Please read it this time.

[Hobbs]

It's pretty plain Hobbs argument had 0 to do with what we were discussing. We were talking about is it discriminatory for anyone to press charges for someone trespassing against someone that's gay but not pressing charges against someone that is trespassing that isn't gay...The organization has little to nothing to do with the discussion except as the backdrop for the incident.

It's pretty plain that you don't even know what you're discussing. Smiley was making it seem wrong that it would be a felony to refuse to leave a recruiting office. Furthermore by adding the individual was gay. The point is, the moment the individual mentioned their homosexuality, they were ineligible for enlistment. After that happened and being told to leave, refusal was tantamount to trespassing. Which, as I stated, on federal property is a felony.

The organization has everything to do with the incident since it is completely the rules and regulations of the Armed Forces that were brought into question by Smiley's comment/scenario.

[jackfaire]

The organization has everything to do with the incident since it is completely the rules and regulations of the Armed Forces that were brought into question by Smiley's comment/scenario.

Ah sorry my bad in the future I will realize that, "It was wrong that the person was charged with trespassing" has nothing to do with trespassing.

[Hobbs]

Ah sorry my bad in the future I will realize that, "It was wrong that the person was charged with trespassing" has nothing to do with trespassing.

I said it was about trespassing; you've said it's about trespassing. I really have no idea what else to say to you.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well, back to the original topic, the Montana GOP is trying to add criminalization of homosexuality to their platform as well. I know that there has to be some good republicans out there, but this is no longer an isolated incident.

[jackfaire]

Well, back to the original topic, the Montana GOP is trying to add criminalization of homosexuality to their platform as well. I know that there has to be some good republicans out there, but this is no longer an isolated incident.

Oooooookay not going back to my hometown like ever if that happens.

[guywithashovel]

You want to know something I find interesting about this thread and others like it in which Smiley disparages Republicans? It's that many people on the board stick up for Republicans and point out that not all of them are like that. This is in spite of the fact that many of the forum's participants swing to the left in their views (though not FAR left). I have to wonder if Democrats would get the same courtesy on a predominantly conservative board.

[smileyeagle1021]

I have to wonder if Democrats would get the same courtesy on a predominantly conservative board.

I don't, I've been on those boards before, they don't tolerate opposing viewpoints, people are just quietly deleted off the member list and threads closed.

In other news, NOM is on tour showing that while a very (very very very) small minority of Christians support gay rights, the church as a whole still thinks we should be put to death. Thanks again for proving me right.

[Hobbs]

Again you say "the church" as a single entity and don't acknowledge that different denominations teach different things. For example, the Church doesn't teach that homosexuals should be put to death.