So why is it wrong for General Pace to express his opinions about homosexuality,but ok to judge pres. candidat

Question

Aren't we supposed to have freedom of speech? But now if it offends any group of people it's not pc. I can understand outrage if he had bashed gays , but all he did was give an opinion based on how he was raised. Can't we have our beliefs without persecution? Why should anyone gay or straight have to declare their sexual orientation when entering the military? Will they defend our country better? Let the man have his opinion and let all choose how they live and what they do.

Thank you for the input, I appreciate your opinions,however, I believe I was misunderstood in some ways. I personally don't beleive anyone should have to divulge or protect their sexual orientation when entering the military or any job situation. My husband served in Desert Storm and I know he didn't care if a soldier was gay or straight. He just wanted to know the soldier had his back. Being gay or straight in my opinion has nothing to do with a person's ability to do a good job. I never suggested it did. As a matter of fact I think it's irrelevant.I don't agree with don't ask don't tell. A person should be able to openly be themselves without persecution. I was never taught to hate people, period. No matter their race,gender, orientation and so forth. I can however disagree with a lifestyle without hating. I have gay friends that I dearly love, one is like a son to me. Love thy neighbor isn't judge thy neighbor. I hope to hear the complete Pace quote. Maybe I missed something?

Answer 1

You have confused 1st amendment rights with Hate Speech.

Such Hate Speech is NOT covered by the Constitution since its only intent is to harm people. It has been proved to foment anti-LGBT violence.

He can have all the opinions and hatred he wants.
When he makes them public, in an official capacity, then it is hate speech.

He should be fired immediately. CEOs have been fired for much less.

Just replace his remarks about LGBT people with "blacks" or "Jews" and you will see how discriminatory and unacceptable they are.

I'm sorry, but learning hatred and bigotry has never been, and will never be, a job skill needed for defending our country well. Shame on you for even suggesting this!!

Answer 2

Hmmm, so if it is simply stating an opinion based on how he was raised, how is it any different than the opinion of others who were raised thinking something like interracial marriage is wrong? How would it be different if he took a stance (once again based on "how he was raised") stating that women shouldn't be in the military?
To disparage another group, ANY group, based only on a prejudice is neither an acceptable code of conduct nor does it have any justification when considering the greater body of the group so disparaged. Homosexuals are in the military. They provide valuable services with every bit as much distinction and valor as any other person. That is a fact. Making a statement disparaging them for an issue of who they are sexually attracted to, something which neither involves nor overtly affects the General, is nothing more than bigotry and demoralizes those same individuals who do serve with as much distinction and valor as their heterosexual counterparts.
Yes, he has the right to "free speech", he also has the right to have to ANSWER for such speech, especially if that statement is nothing more or less than a demoralizing attack against others. "Free Speech" is the Sword of Damocles, stray a bit too far and the cut is made. Any negative repercussions he receives are those of his own making. The better part of wisdom comes from not so much knowing what to say as knowing when to remain silent.

As for declaring one's sexual orientation when entering the military, that only becomes an issue when a particular orientation is verboten. Currently, so long as it does not stray into the realm of sexual harassment, any person may be as overtly heterosexual as they wish without repercussions. If the question comes up as to another's sexual orientation comes up(even through rumor) they can and have been questioned(which is directly against DADT but I digress), if they acknowledge affirmatively that they are indeed homosexual they are summarily dismissed, if they deny the allegations an investigation ensues(either overtly or covertly) and if evidence is found, they are dismissed with prejudice. If such a situation is to remain fair and unbiased either ALL orientations (both heterosexual and homosexual) should be able to serve openly or have to suppress and deny their orientation equally.