Judge orders 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction

[GreenLP]

Glad to see another victory for freedom!

Judge orders ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ injunction

By The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the department is under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/judge-orders-dont-tell-injunction/

 

[erowe1]

Glad to see another victory for freedom!

In what way is this a victory for freedom?

 

[Danke]

Chalk another one up for those cocksuckers.

 

[GreenLP]

In what way is this a victory for freedom?

Seriously? Perhaps you're at the wrong forum. This is a "liberty" forum, not a forum that supports discrimination.

 

[erowe1]

Seriously? Perhaps you're at the wrong forum. This is a "liberty" forum, not a forum that supports discrimination.

Could you still answer the question of how this ruling is a victory for freedom?

Also, what does being a "liberty" forum have to do with whether or not it supports discrimination? Are those two subjects somehow related?

 

[oyarde]

Could you still answer the question of how this ruling is a victory for freedom though?

Also, what does being a "liberty" forum have to do with whether or not it supports discrimination? Are those two subjects somehow related?

The military routinely discriminates . You are free not to serve . There is little liberty in the military , you volunteer and except those terms .

 

[Inkblots]

This is indeed good news.

And it is also a victory for those who favor liberty and equality before the law, as GreenLP said. Private individuals have the right to determine who they associate with on any grounds – even repugnant or nonsensical ones – under their freedom of association and private property rights. However, it is completely unacceptable for the government to discriminate against its employees based on race, orientation, and so on. The only metric should be capability to perform the job, and a homosexual orientation in no way affects soldiering ability.

 

[erowe1]

The military routinely discriminates . You are free not to serve . There is little liberty in the military , you volunteer and except those terms .

How does this point in any way buttress the claim that the ruling against DADT is a victory for freedom?

 

[erowe1]

Private individuals have the right to determine who they associate with on any grounds

DADT is not about associations between private individuals. It's about associations between individuals and the military.

 

[Inkblots]

And of course, right on cue, our President gives into his natural inclination to be on the wrong side of absolutely every issue:

Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

 

[erowe1]

It is completely unacceptable for the government to discriminate against its employees based on race, orientation, and so on. The only metric should be capability to perform the job, and a homosexual orientation in no way affects soldiering ability.

I can understand why some people think this. But I fail to see how it has anything at all to do with freedom.

 

[Inkblots]

erowe1 said: "I can understand why some people think this. But I fail to see how it has anything at all to do with freedom."

What is freedom? It is the ability to act according to one's free will. It is the absence of compulsion and oppression. Now, the an-caps will tell you we can never truly be free so long as the government exists. This is true as far as it goes: perfect liberty is impossible if a coercive force such as government exists. Now, I'm not an an-cap. I believe that perfect freedom, like perfection of all types, is unfortunately unattainable in this fallen world, and I believe some limited government is necessary to maximize freedom, though not perfect it.

That said, if there were no government, and all association was free association, there would be no need for any sort of anti-discrimination policies. However, government does exist, and people of all races, orientations, sexes, and so on, are compelled to live under it and to submit to it. Therefore, the removal of any sort of arbitrary law, regulation, or restriction that affects any group of people is a victory for freedom. Get it?

In addition, as I said above, the only metric the government should use for allowing people into any job is the person's suitability to perform the task. As taxpayers, we are compelled to pay for the governments services, good or poor. Therefore, removing a restriction that ejects competent government employees, in this case, soldiers, from holding their posts also increases freedom by improving the service that citizens receive from their government.

 

[GreenLP]

Could you still answer the question of how this ruling is a victory for freedom?

Since you seem uneducated about freedom and liberty, I will tell you. The judge struck down a law that unnecessarily discriminated against certain people in the military, akin to a law saying Christians joining the military can't be asked by the military if they are Christian, or they can't announce publicly that they are Christian.

Also, what does being a "liberty" forum have to do with whether or not it supports discrimination? Are those two subjects somehow related?

Perhaps a dictionary will help you.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As long as gays pay for the military they should be able to serve without discrimination. I disagree with Erowe empathically. If you were forced to pay for say, insurance, but were unable to collect because you are gay would you be in favor of that Erowe, because that is what this situation boils down to.

I happen to agree with GreenLP. This is a win (And I am in the military and heterosexual -- still can't wait to get out!). The one thing about this is that I think there should be co-ed birthing and bathing (Starship Troopers, etc.). The reasoning behind this is pretty well positioned -- either you don't let gays bath with men, and lesbians bath with women, or, there is no fundamental difference on this so everyone should bath with everyone. It would be cheaper to have co-ed, but considering the Gubmit has the gun, they can go ahead and pay the little extra to have gay showering (Don't be a hypocrit here and say you can't do that 'seperate but equal' bullarky, because currently men and women are seperated and that isn't being screamed to death about 'seperate but equal')

 

[Dr.3D]

Boy is this thread confusing.

First the DADT keeps people from discriminating because nobody knows the sexual preference of the other person. Then suddenly a judge allows discrimination because the sexual preference of the other person is allowed to be established.

Just how does this prevent discrimination?
It would seem if anything, to make a target of those who divulged their sexual preference to others who wouldn't like their sexual preference.

 

[erowe1]

Since you seem uneducated about freedom and liberty, I will tell you. The judge struck down a law that unnecessarily discriminated against certain people in the military, akin to a law saying Christians joining the military can't be asked by the military if they are Christian, or they can't announce publicly that they are Christian.


Perhaps a dictionary will help you.

I admit to being uneducated. Please educate me. Can you answer the questions? The dictionary said nothing relevant to this topic.

I don't see how it would be anti-freedom if the military excluded Christians.

In fact, the more people the military excludes, the fewer people there are in it and the more pro-freedom it is, as I see it.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Boy is this thread confusing.

First the DADT keeps people from discriminating because nobody knows the sexual preference of the other person. Then suddenly a judge allows discrimination because the sexual preference of the other person is allowed to be established.

Just how does this prevent discrimination?
It would seem if anything, to make a target of those who divulged their sexual preference to others who wouldn't like their sexual preference.

As someone who is in the military, when you are living in close proximity with others for a long time, you get to know a lot about them -- a persons sexuality even if they do not divulge is no secret in the military. This just allows them to 'be open' about it without getting kicked out. Granted, everyone knows my position on the Standing Army (ABOLISH!), but given this is happening here and now, and really doesn't have anything to do with a contradiction in beliefs per se, I am confident to say this is a good ruling.

 

[erowe1]

As long as gays pay for the military they should be able to serve without discrimination. I disagree with Erowe empathically. If you were forced to pay for say, insurance, but were unable to collect because you are gay would you be in favor of that Erowe, because that is what this situation boils down to.

I disagree that that's what it boils down to.

When we are forced to pay for the military, what we are paying for is the alleged protection it gives us, not the opportunity to join it, as though it's some job corps or something. To the extent that the military actually defends us at all (or makes us less safe, as the case may be), it does so for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to join the military. So in that sense, which is the sense that is analogous to your insurance example, it does not discriminate.

To look at it the way you described would not only obligate the military to admit gays, but also women for combat roles, handicapped people, the elderly, people who fail their fitness tests, and children (at least if they pay federal taxes).

And again, I understand how people come to your position. But even explained that way, I still fail to see how it is in any way a victory for freedom. How is freedom the guiding principle behind your explanation?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I admit to being uneducated. Please educate me. Can you answer the questions? The dictionary said nothing relevant to this topic.

I don't see how it would be anti-freedom if the military excluded Christians.

In fact, the more people the military excludes, the fewer people there are in it and the more pro-freedom it is, as I see it.

You don't see how it would be anti-liberty to discriminate against Christians, but yet make them pay for this? It would be tantamount to saying all men will pay for Medicare, but won't be able to receive Medicare. Would you say that is pro-liberty, pro-freedom?

 

[GreenLP]

I don't see how it would be anti-freedom if the military excluded Christians.

So the govt can force Christians to pay for the military, but can forbid them from joining, even if they meet all the requirements?

In fact, the more people the military excludes, the fewer people there are in it and the more pro-freedom it is, as I see it.

Are you one who thinks the US shouldn't have a military?