The Air Force forces Gay Marriage affirmation

[aegsm76]

link
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/a...m-gay-marriage
snippets
The Air Force has punished a highly-decorated and respected colonel after he refused to publicly affirm the same-sex spouse of a retiring subordinate.
Col. Leland Bohannon, who was on the verge of being promoted to a one-star general, was suspended from command and orders were handed down recommending he not be promoted.
“His career is likely over and he will likely have to retire as a colonel instead of as a general,” First Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry told the Todd Starnes Show.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

link
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/a...m-gay-marriage
snippets
The Air Force has punished a highly-decorated and respected colonel after he refused to publicly affirm the same-sex spouse of a retiring subordinate.
Col. Leland Bohannon, who was on the verge of being promoted to a one-star general, was suspended from command and orders were handed down recommending he not be promoted.
“His career is likely over and he will likely have to retire as a colonel instead of as a general,” First Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry told the Todd Starnes Show.

I am not to quick to blame the Air Force on this.

[aegsm76]

JD - any reason why?
I mean why would someone about to go to one-star take this stand.
He knew what it could cost him, but did take a stand.
The big picture here is more important to me.
According to the liberal mantra, Christians can no longer have their own business (because they cannot decide not to provide a service to LGBTQXYZ), now they cannot serve in the military and next is they will not be able to work in the corporate world (because these businesses will be making you affirm that community, as well).
Do you doubt the big picture of what is coming down the road?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

link
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/a...m-gay-marriage
snippets
The Air Force has punished a highly-decorated and respected colonel after he refused to publicly affirm the same-sex spouse of a retiring subordinate.
Col. Leland Bohannon, who was on the verge of being promoted to a one-star general, was suspended from command and orders were handed down recommending he not be promoted.
“His career is likely over and he will likely have to retire as a colonel instead of as a general,” First Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry told the Todd Starnes Show.

What if the Colonel only showed up to the wedding and took a knee? lol

I mean, didn't you argue on the other thread that Kaepernick shouldn't have a right to protest while on the job? But this Colonel protests his disagreement with this gay couple while on duty and you support him.

I'm not getting it. What's the difference between the two men and their protest?

Personally, I support Kaepernick and Col. Bohannon's right to protest through peaceful refusal. Why should either face disciplinary action when they are both American citizens and have the right to refuse to participate in a ceremony to illustrate their convictions?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if the Colonel only showed up to the wedding and took a knee? lol

I mean, didn't you argue on the other thread that Kaepernick shouldn't have a right to protest while on the job? But this Colonel protests his disagreement with this gay couple while on duty and you support him.

I'm not getting it. What's the difference between the two men and their protest?

Personally, I support Kaepernick and Col. Bohannon's right to protest through peaceful refusal. Why should either face disciplinary action when they are both American citizens and have the right to refuse to participate in a ceremony to illustrate their convictions?

Aquila, I'd like to think you're smarter than this, but I've been wrong before.

EEOC:
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Religious discrimination includes failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices where the accommodation does not impose undue hardship."

The Colonel's actions are protected by law. Kap's are not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Aquila, I'd like to think you're smarter than this, but I've been wrong before.

EEOC:
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Religious discrimination includes failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices where the accommodation does not impose undue hardship."

The Colonel's actions are protected by law. Kap's are not.

The Colonel's actions are based on his faith. Aren't Kap's based on his race?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Colonel's actions are based on his faith. Aren't Kap's based on his race?

No. They're based on his political agenda. The law protects against Kap being discriminated against because of his race, it doesn't allow him to use his race for political protests.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

No. They're based on his political agenda. The law protects against Kap being discriminated against because of his race, it doesn't allow him to use his race for political protests.

I think we can agree there.

How can we be sure the Colonel isn't using his religion as a front for his own political agenda?