First Amendment Under Attack

[MooseMom]

Nope, this is an honorable and brave man filled duty and honor. Your criticisms are unfounded and offensive. But that is the way things go on IHD.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-6837189/a-blind-army-officers-challenging-vision/

Thank you for this link, Hemodoc, but this does not seem to address the issue at hand, which is this soldier's claim (and yours) that an active duty member of the military is prohibited from wearing his/her uniform to church.

Again, I am extremely disappointed that such a brave man, who has overcome many obstacles just as many of us here on IHD (of which you were so dismissive) have done, would resort to lying.  But you know what?  I'm going to be charitable and withdraw my accusation of "liar".  That's a harsh indictment, and I don't have any proof that this lie originated with him.  Instead, I will assert that he is perpetuating a lie, and why such an honorable man would do that is simply beyond me.  The fact that he has a new book out, though, gives me a clue.

And you have perpetuated this lie, also, claiming that your First Amendment rights are "under attack".  That's hyperbolic, and the "proof" you have provided has been shown as untrue.  I've always thought you've at least tried to be honorable, and I know that anyone who advocates for dialysis patients while undergoing something as life-changing as home hemo is brave, so why an honorable and brave man like yourself would choose to engage is this form of political and hysterical Chinese Whispers is mystifying to me.  But that is the way things go on IHD.

[Rerun]

I guess I'm lost.  I  watched the CBS link about the man who got caught up in a car bomb and lost his sight.  There was nothing about him wanting to wear his uniform to church.  He should wear it if he wants to.  My brother in law wore his whites when he got married ... in church. 

Who is a liar?

My sight is not the best after my eye surgery July 29th so it is a struggle to read all this.   

[Hemodoc]

Nope, this is an honorable and brave man filled duty and honor. Your criticisms are unfounded and offensive. But that is the way things go on IHD.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-6837189/a-blind-army-officers-challenging-vision/

Thank you for this link, Hemodoc, but this does not seem to address the issue at hand, which is this soldier's claim (and yours) that an active duty member of the military is prohibited from wearing his/her uniform to church.

Again, I am extremely disappointed that such a brave man, who has overcome many obstacles just as many of us here on IHD (of which you were so dismissive) have done, would resort to lying.  But you know what?  I'm going to be charitable and withdraw my accusation of "liar".  That's a harsh indictment, and I don't have any proof that this lie originated with him.  Instead, I will assert that he is perpetuating a lie, and why such an honorable man would do that is simply beyond me.  The fact that he has a new book out, though, gives me a clue.

And you have perpetuated this lie, also, claiming that your First Amendment rights are "under attack".  That's hyperbolic, and the "proof" you have provided has been shown as untrue.  I've always thought you've at least tried to be honorable, and I know that anyone who advocates for dialysis patients while undergoing something as life-changing as home hemo is brave, so why an honorable and brave man like yourself would choose to engage is this form of political and hysterical Chinese Whispers is mystifying to me.  But that is the way things go on IHD.

Moosemom, your vain and unfounded accusations against this brave man are a great disappointment.

I have placed many examples including the last one of Christians getting unequal treatment. If you don't wish to accept the truth so be it.

[Hemodoc]

The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/

California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/

The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.

[willowtreewren]

The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/

California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/

The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.

Christians may believe anything they want, as can any other religious people. They may NOT force their beliefs on others by keeping them from marrying whomever they wish or receiving special treatent (non-profit status) for promoting those beliefs.

[Hemodoc]

The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/

California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/

The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.

Christians may believe anything they want, as can any other religious people. They may NOT force their beliefs on others by keeping them from marrying whomever they wish or receiving special treatent (non-profit status) for promoting those beliefs.

You prove my point willowtreewren, the first amendment is under attack. We no longer have the religious freedom to believe as an individual will. You no longer allow my religious belief system. Thus, the first amendment no longer means we have religious liberty in this nation the way you and many others are interpreting it and in doing so you fail to see the dangers of the precedent.

If someone wishes to go get married, none of my business, I oppose it, but it is they that will stand before the God that they don't believe in one day. Good luck on that day.

As far as the non-profit status, taking tax supplements for giving to the church is NOT a biblical position although most Christians don't understand this important doctrinal aspect. I have advocated to my fellow church members for quite a while that the tax exempt status is a trap that they will use to destroy the churches through just this process of gay and lesbian rights. In fact, the Bible predicted both situations. Churches lining up with the political powers and the gays and lesbians rising up against the church. If you wish, I would be very happy to explain in a pm why that is so.

So, non-profit status, get rid of it as far as I am concerned. I don't utilize it myself anyway and it is indeed the trap that the churches will regret and I suspect quite soon. These other organizations are just a prelude to the one set of group that opposes the gay rights movement without any compromise. It has already happened in Canada and other developed nations. It is coming to the US as well and this is just the prelude.

[rocker]

The list continues to grow against Christians exercising the constitutional right to believe in things such as marriage between a man and woman. San Antonio is once again putting forth and "antidiscrimination" ban against those who voice opposition against gay marriage among other issues. The ordinance does not provide an exemption for religion.

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/christians-face-possible-ban-from-san-11538157/

"[The ordinance] would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability."

I assume you would have us believe that saying "I don't like Italians" is illegal in San Antonio right now.

California is considering a similar law that would remove the tax exempt status for the Boy Scouts and other organizations that have banned openly gay leaders and recently reversed the ban on openly gay scouts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/california-tax-exempt-boy-scouts/

How quickly we move from "believing in" to "denying services to".  And tax-exempt status is favorable special treatment by the state.  The state is simply saying it will no longer give favorable special treatment to organizations that actively discriminate.  The Boy Scouts are free to continue to operate in the state.  They aren't being banned.  No one is doing anything to their first amendment rights.

The church will not bend on this issue. Not that we have not known this was coming. The Bible warned of this over 2000 years ago. It is sad to see America swapping the traditional Judeo-Christian values for that of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess twerking will fit in well with this new America.

And people have been pointing to this or that as proof that the end times are here for about....2000 years now.  Well, actually about 1900, as The Revelation was written in about 95.

[Hemodoc]

Rocker,

Yes, this is a society moving from a Judeo-Christian basis to one that seems quite compatible with folks that were in Sodom and Gomorrah. If that is the society you like, so be it, not my cup of tea and not one I would want for my kids or grandkids.

Now, the first amendment is a constitutional guarantee of the natural right to religious freedom. Are you telling me you now oppose religious freedom my friend? Do you also oppose the right to free speech that would also be harmed by the San Antonio provision. You cannot have it both ways. It is one thing to state that gays can marry in any given state, it is another thing to say you can't speak out in opposition to that based on your religious belief. It is still another thing to declare a religious belief an act of discrimination that bars someone from public office.

So, do you support free speech? Do you support religious freedom? Your response declares that you don't.

Lastly, if you wish to gain a true understanding of the book of Revelation, send me a pm. I would be more than happy to improve your knowledge of end times Bible prophecy issues. By the way, when I became a born again Christian in 1994, this was not an imminent consideration for churches, although Ted Kennedy pushed the ENDA bill since 1974 each and every year and was never passed before he died. It just got out of committee once again a bit over a month ago. Perhaps this is going to be the year Teddy gets his wishes on this.

Yet, back in 1994, I had many discussions with my new Christian friends how the government would use the gay rights agenda to take away the tax exempt status of churches and potentially in a retroactive manner which would financially cripple the churches and members alike. Churches will be the next target after precedents are established with the Boy Scouts and other such organizations. One of the biggest groups in opposition to to ENDA is schools who oppose transgender teachers. That is probably one of the reasons it has not had the support for passage yet. Now that was not 2000 years ago, that was 20 years ago when people would have laughed at that sort of "speculation" which really was not speculation at all. It is simply one of the many signs of end times prophecy.

An interesting play on the acronym ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination ACT) is to change it to the END Act. Yes, the damage to churches will indeed be just that, an end act against the free and open application of Christianity in public here in the US. I can't help but to believe that the acronym is more than just coincidence, but maybe it is just that a coincidence despite the fact it will be an end act for the first amendment for sure. At that point, Christians will have no recourse but to take church worship underground here in the US as it is in the many nations today already.

So, yes, I believe that this is one of many signs of the end times, "so shall it be as the days of Lot," which is a specific reference to the morals of Sodom and Gommorah as well as those people deliberately coming against Lot what acted as a judge in their land, and I believe that the San Antonio non-discrimination act will be repeated in many localities across this nation in the next few years. So, are you still going to mock the concept that the first amendment is under attack?

[rocker]

Do you also oppose the right to free speech that would also be harmed by the San Antonio provision.

Again, you make wild unsupported accusations, with nothing to back them up.  If you can give a single example of someone being arrested for speech under the existing ordinance in San Antonio, you would have a point.  But it doesn't prohibit speech.

Lastly, if you wish to gain a true understanding of the book of Revelation, send me a pm.

I've been reading real Biblical scholarship for years, so I'm not sure what you could add.

The Revelation is simple political polemic against an unpopular Roman emperor.  For example, that's why there are so many references to seven - the author must remind you over and over and over that it's really Rome he's talking about.  It's as if I wrote a story about a dumb cowboy president who bumbles around and eventually sets off a nuclear war.  Alll of my contemporaries would know who and what I was talking about - but if my story survived for a few hundred years, it would start to sound pretty strange. Most early churches did not consider the book inspired or canonical.

[Hemodoc]

Do you also oppose the right to free speech that would also be harmed by the San Antonio provision.

Again, you make wild unsupported accusations, with nothing to back them up.  If you can give a single example of someone being arrested for speech under the existing ordinance in San Antonio, you would have a point.  But it doesn't prohibit speech.

Lastly, if you wish to gain a true understanding of the book of Revelation, send me a pm.

I've been reading real Biblical scholarship for years, so I'm not sure what you could add.

The Revelation is simple political polemic against an unpopular Roman emperor.  For example, that's why there are so many references to seven - the author must remind you over and over and over that it's really Rome he's talking about.  It's as if I wrote a story about a dumb cowboy president who bumbles around and eventually sets off a nuclear war.  Alll of my contemporaries would know who and what I was talking about - but if my story survived for a few hundred years, it would start to sound pretty strange. Most early churches did not consider the book inspired or canonical.

Ahhhh, you are a preterist. I completely support your right to believe what ever you wish to believe, but I for the life of me can't make out 70 A.D. and the fall of Jerusalem from the book of Revelation. I don't see the 200 million man army principally from China, when did the Euphrates river dry up? , when did they have 100 pound hailstones, and blood up to the horses bridle for 200 miles. Sorry, but I don't buy into preterism and it seems to require a fervent imagination to make that work in addition to ignoring so many prophecies already fulfilled and still to be fulfilled.

So, yes, I would love to have a discussion on preterism because it truly is beyond my limited intellect to fathom that interpretation of the book of Revelation. Perhaps on another thread if you are interested.

But, once again, you do have the right to believe whatever you wish to believe. That is a natural right protected by the first amendment. Although I disagree strongly with a preterist viewpoint on the Bible, I would defend your right to believe in such a thing.

Likewise, anyone who wishes to run for political office in San Antonio and openly opposes gay marriage based on a religious belief has the right to have that belief and speak openly about that and still run and hold political office. In addition, I don't believe you are putting this proposed law into the context of some recent SCOTUS decisions that support the first amendment freedoms that were supported by the liberal members of the court as well.

Perhaps the most important SCOTUS case pertaining to the San Antonio law is Snyder v. Phelps, otherwise known to folks as the Westboro Baptist Church Funeral case. WBC openly disparages gays and others in their signs. (BTW, WBC is not a gospel preaching church at all and they are not Baptists at all) SCOTUS decided 8-1 that WBC had the right to openly protest and state whatever they wanted based on first amendment protections including openly disparaging gays and lesbians among others. So at present, despite many attempting to attack the first amendment rights such as those in San Antonio pushing for this new law, SCOTUS to date has taken a strong position on first amendment rights even for reprehensible folks like WBC.

I don't believe that gay rights should be a protected entity unto it's own no more than should preterists have special protections as a "civil right." Both are already protected by the first amendment. If folks in individual states wish to vote for gay marriage, that is their right under the 10th amendment. Making gay and lesbian rights into a civil right unto its placing own and that placed squarely in opposition to first amendment religious protections presents a legal entanglement that will lead to a direct confrontation over limits to the first amendment right of religious liberty and I believe that there are many that want that confrontation. Where that will settle out in the legal world is hard to predict. Where the Bible states it will settle on the other hand is quite open, "So shall it be as the days of Lot." Miley Cyrus gave us a look at that world outlook a few days ago.

[rocker]

Ahhhh, you are a preterist.

No, it's a far simpler concept than preterism. It's fiction. Political propaganda.  Mockery.  It has been a favored tool of political oppositions from the dawn of time, and it is trivial to find hundreds of contemporary examples.  You create a caricature of your political opponent as purest evil.  You give that caricature specific similarities to a particular person, so that everyone will recognize him/her.  Then you write some long, usually tedious screed putting that person in ludicrously evil situations.

Likewise, anyone who wishes to run for political office in San Antonio and openly opposes gay marriage based on a religious belief has the right to have that belief and speak openly about that and still run

I've asked you repeatedly to show where anyone has been prohibited from running for public office in San Antonio based on statements they have made.  You have provided no such examples.  Because it's not in the law.  Nothing is currently preventing anyone from running for office and spewing any foul garbage they wish.

and hold political office.

No.  No one has the right to hold political office, only the right to run. It's a strange sort of entitlement to say someone has the right to hold office.

Your statements about the law are simply false.

Here is an example of the affected San Antonio code:

It shall be unlawful for any person, or any employee or agent thereof within the city, to discriminate against, withhold from or deny any person, because of race, color, religion, sex, age or handicap, any of the advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public by a place of public accommodation.

I don't see "saying out loud" or "running for public office" anywhere in the code.

[Hemodoc]

No, it's a far simpler concept than preterism. It's fiction. Political propaganda.  Mockery.  It has been a favored tool of political oppositions from the dawn of time, and it is trivial to find hundreds of contemporary examples.  You create a caricature of your political opponent as purest evil.  You give that caricature specific similarities to a particular person, so that everyone will recognize him/her.  Then you write some long, usually tedious screed putting that person in ludicrously evil situations.

Well, if you believe that the book of Revelation is fiction, then I could indeed show you otherwise, but if you wish to believe it is fiction, so be it but that is not true at all. If ever interested, I would be more than happy to show you that it is not at all fiction my friend.

Now, not sure what political opponent you allege I create a pure evil caricature. If you want to discuss politics, have at it. If you wish to put words in my mouth I have not spoken, not much to debate in that case.

[Hemodoc]

I've asked you repeatedly to show where anyone has been prohibited from running for public office in San Antonio based on statements they have made.  You have provided no such examples.  Because it's not in the law.  Nothing is currently preventing anyone from running for office and spewing any foul garbage they wish.

It is not the current law that is at issue my friend, but instead the PROPOSED law with the provisions for gay rights featured as a civil right. So, please tell me how to provide an example of someone prevented from running for office from a law that is not a law as of yet. Let's go back to the start:

The ordinance would prevent people who have demonstrated bias toward lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals from serving in city positions and prohibit the city from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would also prevent local business owners from discriminating against LGBT individuals.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/26/san-antonio-divided-over-proposed-lgbt-non-discrim/

So, back to the subject at hand. Should San Antonio include a gay rights provision and prohibit people from serving in city positions if they "discriminate" against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. What they are calling discrimination is nothing more than religious belief that the gay lifestyle is a sin.

Sorry, but if you believe the book of Revelation is fiction and political satire, I certainly could provide a lot of evidence to the contrary. You have every right to believe that even though I disagree with you. I believe the Bible is the true literal word of God and have plenty of evidence to back up that claim.

If folks in any given state wish to pass a law granting the "right" to marry same sex partners, I don't agree with that, but that is the right of the people of the state to vote that into law.

Now, the problem with the San Antonio law as proposed is it infringes on religious freedom and free speech if it should pass. That is not surprising given that Castro is the Mayor of the city and he was heavily involved in the last Democratic convention where they had a great deal of trouble putting God and Jerusalem back into their platform if you remember that debacle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJE9YfsbNQ

So it is not really surprising to me that San Antonio is where this is happening given the political ambitions of its mayor. The LA mayor was embarrassed that putting God and Jerusalem was booed at the convention. Quite a testimony of where this nation is headed.

[rocker]

It is not the current law that is at issue my friend

It is exactly the current law that is at issue.  All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.

Your statements about the proposal are simply false.

[Hemodoc]

It is not the current law that is at issue my friend

It is exactly the current law that is at issue.  All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.

Your statements about the proposal are simply false.

Oh boy, you are way off base. It is the sexual orientation, gender identity that is at issue in the PROPOSED changes to the law that is at issue as the news article above denotes. Oh well, I guess no sense debating this any longer.

Have a great day my friend.

[renalwife]

I have been reading this  unending conversation.  All I can say is your rights end where my rights begain.

[Hemodoc]

I have been reading this  unending conversation.  All I can say is your rights end where my rights begain.

Is that really what the first amendment is all about? Gay marriage can be voted in under the 10th amendment as a states right although I would not vote for it myself. That should in no manner infringe first amendment freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Yet, that is where this entire issue is going to place limits on the first amendment. This is not occurring in isolation as Canada, Sweden and several other countries have already declared the Bible hate speech. Is that really where we wish to go?

[monrein]

I do not wish to, nor will I debate this but Canada has NOT declared the Bible hate speech.  The recent ruling was far more nuanced and subtle and referenced vilifying comments that quoted a respected source, The Bible, in such a way as to incite hatred.   It is one thing to quote biblical text of any kind it is quite another to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. 

 

[Hemodoc]

I do not wish to, nor will I debate this but Canada has NOT declared the Bible hate speech.  The recent ruling was far more nuanced and subtle and referenced vilifying comments that quoted a respected source, The Bible, in such a way as to incite hatred.   It is one thing to quote biblical text of any kind it is quite another to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. 

 

Monrein, sorry to take issue with your statement, but the issue of the Bible as hate speech actually is a real issue in Canada which includes a recent Supreme court ruling on this very issue a few months ago

It began in 2003 when an openly gay member of Parliament introduced a bill that passed declaring the Bible hate speech with severe penalties attached.

The bill, passed 141-110, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
\“It’s been a good week for equality in Canada,” said the bill’s sponsor, Svend Robinson, an openly homosexual member of Parliament.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20862/#TR8jcyiCSJz7jC31.99

However, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Wednesday that oftentimes, it is impossible to say that one loves the sinner and hates the sin. It asserted that the hatred of the act was inseparable from hating the person or person group.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the court outlined. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.

A number of incidents have made headlines in recent years where American businesses have been punished for their refusal to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle, such as the story of a photographer in New Mexico that was forced to pay $700 in fines for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment service, to the Vermont bed and breakfast owners who settled a lawsuit with two lesbians who were told by an employee that they could not hold their commitment service on the property. A Kentucky t-shirt screening company was also recently punished for declining to complete a work order involving t-shirts that were to be worn at a local homosexual pride parade.

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

Canadian Supreme Court Ruling Has Implications for Christian Witness

The Story: On Wednesday, Canada's Supreme Court upheld a ban on "hate speech" contested by a Christian activist, ruling that the country's hate speech ban "is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/06/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness/

The third reference above spells out the outcome of creating a separate civil right based on gender identity or sexual preference and its negative impact on religious freedom. Other nations have similar laws already.

[Gerald Lively]

As I understand it, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the portions of the Bible that violate Canadian Civil Rights laws, are hate speech.  Specifically, discrimination against homosexuals is a violation of the law regardless of what the Bible says or instructs people to do.

I spent almost one or two minutes reading the about the decision. 

gl

[Gerald Lively]

The last I heard was the military (Pentagon) wants all personnel to wear class A uniforms to all public events, which would include religious services.  Every funeral you see involving the military has class A uniform requirements.  Fatigue uniforms are for all other activities, such as war.

No one could get away with imposing some dress code law on military personnel.   

[Hemodoc]

The last I heard was the military (Pentagon) wants all personnel to wear class A uniforms to all public events, which would include religious services.  Every funeral you see involving the military has class A uniform requirements.  Fatigue uniforms are for all other activities, such as war.

No one could get away with imposing some dress code law on military personnel.   

Gerald, I hope you are doing well.

The officer in question on the Huckabee show stated it was a written memorandum all were required to sign.

[rocker]

It is not the current law that is at issue my friend

It is exactly the current law that is at issue.  All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.

Your statements about the proposal are simply false.

Oh boy, you are way off base. It is the sexual orientation, gender identity that is at issue in the PROPOSED changes to the law that is at issue as the news article above denotes.

And here I must apologize.  For some time, I had been assuming that you had sought out information on this situation.  Now I realize that your only source was the single article. That appears to be the origin of your misunderstanding.

From http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Nonbias-ordinance-draws-long-and-loud-argument-4767721.php

" the proposal would bring together [existing] nondiscrimination clauses into a single chapter. It would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability."

[..]

"It does not to attempt to legalize same-sex marriage or require businesses to provide same-sex benefits. It does not require separate bathroom facilities or monitor use. It does not regulate speech, religion or political activity."

[willowtreewren]

The officer in question on the Huckabee show stated it was a written memorandum all were required to sign.

So we go back to what Moosemom stated earlier: that without evidence other than this man's word, one must wonder about his motives in sharing this.

Evidence refuting his statement has been offered by others in this thread. Where is the evidence that what he said is true?

[Hemodoc]

The officer in question on the Huckabee show stated it was a written memorandum all were required to sign.

So we go back to what Moosemom stated earlier: that without evidence other than this man's word, one must wonder about his motives in sharing this.

Evidence refuting his statement has been offered by others in this thread. Where is the evidence that what he said is true?

Sorry, to refute his statement, you have to prove that they did not get this order. All that has been stated is in past times and from manuals. Yet, this is a man who so moved his superior officers by virtue of his character and resolve to keep him on as the first blind active duty officer. To date, no one has offered a shred of evidence that what he stated is false.  The accusations against this brave man are vile and unfounded.