But what does openly mean, if i'm keeping it a secret and someone finds out somehow but i still deny it how is that "openly"...
Navy cook discharged under DADT despite the lack of either asking or telling
- Thread starter SpecialKO
- Start date
- Status
Necronic
Staff member
Very, very good post.
Let me tell you a little story.
When I was in the Marines I got a Chapter 11 (basically a work write-up) because I had a girl in my barracks room. Where I was stationed you had a 2 or 3 man little apartment. At the time it was just me because my roommate got promoted and had to go to a difference set of quarters. Anyway, I got written up because there was a girl in my room at 3 pm on a Friday. I was asleep on one bed and she was actually sleeping in the other.
A week later the same First Sergeant that wrote me up walked in on my old roommate and his girlfriend actually having sex in his new room...and he apologized and walked out.
So the military has NEVER done these things fair and equitably.[/QUOTE]
Of course the girl in your room was the First Sergeants mother, so....you know. UNFAIR!
Hmmm...
So it's basically "no-gays, but we're not going to look for that specifically when you enlist, so maybe you can get away with it".
Yes.
Also, the logic is that straight soldiers hate gay soldiers, and therefore the unity and morale will be destroyed. Which, by the way, was the same argument used against allowing black soldiers to serve with white ones.
D
Disconnected
I know it, I just don't like believing it.
I actually agree with the idea behind what she was saying. I just figured I'd mention that she was ignoring the relevant laws and regulations and knocking down straw men in order to make her point.
I also agree that regulations would ideally be enforced evenly and fairly across the board, and that there shouldn't be discriminatory rules in place, but that doesn't change the fact that this person was in violation of DADT and was discharged for that reason.
I don’t think Shego’s question is about straw men at all. DADT does not exist in a vacuum. As Dave pointed out, there’s already inconsistent enforcement of Article 125, just as there is inconsistent enforcement of DADT (there are gay people already serving relatively openly in the military, and their supervisors choose not to enforce DADT). Was it even a violation of DADT, since it was actually the “ask” that got violated, not the “tell”: those pictures were on a private device, not DoD equipment.
I think the key here is the actions of the guy’s Commander and Captain. I would think that if the guy’s sexual orientation was going to be a problem, the Captain and Commander would be looking for any excuse to get this guy off their boat and out of the Navy. But they didn’t. They recommended that he stay and just be hit with the reprimand for the phone. So why is an Admiral over-ruling the personnel decisions of his officers, when it’s been proven time and again that these “morals” policies are not set in stone? Is it because he’s a hard-nose about strict policy enforcement who would have dishonorably discharged a straight guy with blowjob pics of his wife in the same situation? Or is it because he’s latched on to a dubious violation of a policy that is currently up for review and may be struck down anyway, and is putting his personal feelings about homosexuality above the recommendations of his officers regarding their own boat?
C
crono1224
I don’t think Shego’s question is about straw men at all. DADT does not exist in a vacuum. As Dave pointed out, there’s already inconsistent enforcement of Article 125, just as there is inconsistent enforcement of DADT (there are gay people already serving relatively openly in the military, and their supervisors choose not to enforce DADT). Was it even a violation of DADT, since it was actually the “ask” that got violated, not the “tell”: those pictures were on a private device, not DoD equipment.
I think the key here is the actions of the guy’s Commander and Captain. I would think that if the guy’s sexual orientation was going to be a problem, the Captain and Commander would be looking for any excuse to get this guy off their boat and out of the Navy. But they didn’t. They recommended that he stay and just be hit with the reprimand for the phone. So why is an Admiral over-ruling the personnel decisions of his officers, when it’s been proven time and again that these “morals” policies are not set in stone? Is it because he’s a hard-nose about strict policy enforcement who would have dishonorably discharged a straight guy with blowjob pics of his wife in the same situation? Or is it because he’s latched on to a dubious violation of a policy that is currently up for review and may be struck down anyway, and is putting his personal feelings about homosexuality above the recommendations of his officers regarding their own boat?[/QUOTE]
The points still being true, he told, his device is no longer private when he 'illegally' brings it on the ship, they had a right to search is pictures to ensure that he wasn't photographing anything. Now if this would have happened when he was on shore just going in and out of an office there would be a big difference.
This is of course one of those stupid things because rules are never enforced equally, and I am surprised that the admiral would supersede two people in kicking the guy out. It makes me think there had to be some other motive, either the admiral is really big homophobe, or something because I would understand if all the people were on the same page, or even if only 2 out of the 3 were for kicking him out, but 1 against 2 seems strange to me.
Here's the thing I'm trying to make clear:
Legally ceased or not. They were searching for pictures of the ship. They happened across the relationship pictures. They were the only ones privvy to this information. It was still not "told", it was "taken". It's not "Don't Ask or Get Taken" Where's the "tell" in this situation? He didn't tell anyone anything. That's my point. The policy itself, as ridiculous as it was, doesn't apply to this situation. The officers who found the pictures "told".
Legally ceased or not. They were searching for pictures of the ship. They happened across the relationship pictures. They were the only ones privvy to this information. It was still not "told", it was "taken". It's not "Don't Ask or Get Taken" Where's the "tell" in this situation? He didn't tell anyone anything. That's my point. The policy itself, as ridiculous as it was, doesn't apply to this situation. The officers who found the pictures "told".
C
Chibibar
I totally understand. I believe that if the guy had a picture in his wallet and one of the other Navy buddy found it and turn it in to his superior, the guy would still be discharge
but if the picture happen to be hetro couple making out, then it would have been ok.Edit: Is it right? Oh HELL no, but with the current "homophobes" in the military, they would do anything to kick them out if they found out.
The only cool thing is that his commanding officer just wanted to reprimand the guy for the phone incident, but the Admiral override the commanding officer and go with discharge
this tells me that at least some officer can handle it (but file it per reg which was probably a bad idea to begin with)
C
crono1224
I am also willing to bet that his rating didn't help if he was in a nuke related field and had 2 of his officer stand up for him I don't think it would have been so easy. Although I do know that the translator had gotten kicked out too and that is a high demand field.
He didn't walk up to an officer, open his mouth, and say "I'm gay." Granted.
He did, however, bring a phone into an area where they were restricted, knowing that when it was found that same officer would be looking through its contents. In effect, he was volunteering whatever information and pictures were on that phone.
By the same token, walking up to another man on the street and making out with him isn't telling anyone what his orientation is. But it definitely makes it clear to anyone who sees, and I'm assuming that the officers involved in this situation would have handled something like that in the same way.
I thought that the CO and the Captain didn't handle it the same way as they didn't discharge him, the Admiral did. Are you saying the two officers were wrong and should be reprimanded for not following protocol?[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that they would have done the same thing in my hypothetical situation as they did in the real one. Nothing more, nothing less.
D
Disconnected
from what I understand asking means nothing, telling means everything, thus another ridiculous side of the policy.
Hence it becomes a loaded question:
Admiral: "Hey Johnson, are you one of them nancy boys?"
Johnson: ...
If Johnson does not answer the admiral becomes suspicious and will by nature want to find out the truth (but he can't handle the truth!)
If Johnson lies and says no, he is now uncomfortable for his entire military career being dragged to whore houses and stripper bars*
If Johnson says yes he is ousted.
Who can Johnson report his admiral too if he is asked?
I've yet to hear of someone being discharged for asking.
*not actual fact
Hence it becomes a loaded question:
Admiral: "Hey Johnson, are you one of them nancy boys?"
Johnson: ...
If Johnson does not answer the admiral becomes suspicious and will by nature want to find out the truth (but he can't handle the truth!)
If Johnson lies and says no, he is now uncomfortable for his entire military career being dragged to whore houses and stripper bars*
If Johnson says yes he is ousted.
Who can Johnson report his admiral too if he is asked?
I've yet to hear of someone being discharged for asking.
*not actual fact
You don't get discharged because you asked or told. You'll get discharged if, after an investigation, the military determines you are not allowed to serve due to your homosexuality.
DADT is policy, but breaking it is not automatic grounds for discharge, as homosexuality is.
In other words, while DADT applies to the ban on homosexuals in the military, the two are separate policies with different consequences for breaking them.
If that comic o nthe previous page is correct, I think you're actually looking at it the wrong way, Shego.
See, the officers cheking the pictures on the cam HAD to look through all pictures to check for espionage stuff and whatever. That seems logical. They would've seen the supposedly clearly gay pictures. -> Those officers <- were the ones who told - they had to! And them saying they've seen pictures of private X going down on a guy is considered proof enough...So...There you go.
He himself didn't "Tell" - by misfortune, the people who had to search his phone happened upon those pictures, and they told. DADT also applies if your best friend or school teacher or whatever accidentally Tells, after all.
That aside, DADT is a horrible, repulsive law that just proves how hypocritical some parts of Western civilization are. We're the Land of the Free, Freedom to Do Your Own Thing - as long as you're not some queer-ass nancy cockmuncher, by God! <_<
See, the officers cheking the pictures on the cam HAD to look through all pictures to check for espionage stuff and whatever. That seems logical. They would've seen the supposedly clearly gay pictures. -> Those officers <- were the ones who told - they had to! And them saying they've seen pictures of private X going down on a guy is considered proof enough...So...There you go.
He himself didn't "Tell" - by misfortune, the people who had to search his phone happened upon those pictures, and they told. DADT also applies if your best friend or school teacher or whatever accidentally Tells, after all.
That aside, DADT is a horrible, repulsive law that just proves how hypocritical some parts of Western civilization are. We're the Land of the Free, Freedom to Do Your Own Thing - as long as you're not some queer-ass nancy cockmuncher, by God! <_<
Actually, this is no longer true. 3rd-party info can only be used if the 3rd party is under oath, and hearsay can no longer be used.
Not that it helped this guy, obviously.
You're not supposed to ask, and DADT is a actually protective measure... it's like "no gays in the army, but it's ok as long as we don't officially know about it"... "see, we're not homophobic, gays can serve, as long as it doesn't affect morale, and people knowing about it does"... "but it's totally not about you being gay, it's about everyone else not trusting you because you are".
Hahahahaha... looks like it's not just the army that has DADT as a policy: GameSpy: Man Banned From Xbox Live for Including His Hometown in Profile - Page 1
To be fair, they DID fix it and are updating training to reflect it.
C
Chibibar
After escalating it. The rep should have just look it up and verify.
After escalating it. The rep should have just look it up and verify.[/QUOTE]
As stupid as it started, that actually doesn't sound close to the worst customer service I've ever heard. At least it escalated up to the point where someone did something about it. I wonder how long the whole process took.
Getting the local government involved against a private company isn't really a point in their customer service's favour.
- Status