LGBTQ-HIV

[Ole Cowboy]

It started with Gays, then the door was opened to the Tranny crowd and you could see this coming:

Pentagon is being sued for allegedly discriminating against people living with HIV

Two non-profit legal organizations focused on advancing LGBT rights and the rights of people living with HIV are suing the Department of Defense for what they allege are discriminatory policies that restrict the ability of people living with HIV to serve in the U.S. military.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...1.05.18&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief

Well how stylish, lets see can we open the doors to paraplegic or Mongoloid (Down syndrome), hey how about the deaf, mute, blind, those with Leprosy and of course the sick, lame and LAZY!

 

[AustinN4]

Seems you are on a gay kick lately.

 

[oohrah]

People living with HIV controlled by medication are not debilitated like the others you mention. Active duty service members I have known who had HIV under control were not restricted in their duties except they were considered non-deployable.

They did however have to put up with ignorance and bias from some bigoted DOD persons.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

People living with HIV controlled by medication are not debilitated like the others you mention. Active duty service members I have known who had HIV under control were not restricted in their duties except they were considered non-deployable.

They did however have to put up with ignorance and bias from some bigoted DOD persons.

You missing it, they are SUING to let them in with HIV. NO ONE has a RIGHT to serve in the military, its a job with qualifications. Many have been turned down to illness or issues with feet, lungs, your name it. The military is not a day care center for the sick, lame and lazy...here to fight wars, not cure or treat your ills...

 

[busykngt]

...except they were considered non-deployable.

If a uniformed service member is “non-deployable” (for whatever reason) then as far as I’m concerned (me & my tax money), they serve no defensive military purpose - which is what I’m paying for the military to be. It’s NOT a “jobs program” or a “public works” program.

 

[Big Green]

If a uniformed service member is “non-deployable” (for whatever reason) then as far as I’m concerned (me & my tax money), they serve no defensive military purpose - which is what I’m paying for the military to be. It’s NOT a “jobs program” or a “public works” program.

Ditto

 

[grasshopperglock]

Sounds like excuses for avoiding a draft are being dwindled down.

Are you Gay?. Do you cut yourself? Do you smoke pot? Are you an illegal alien? Do you have HIV? Are you a female or male impersonator? Do you have the herps?

Too bad. Uncle Sam gives not a phuck. Grab a rifle and start shooting at the Chinese. Russians too.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Active duty service members I have known who had HIV under control were not restricted in their duties except they were considered non-deployable.

.

Each service has some unique requirements for existing members who test positive for HIV. Every service requires a determination of whether the member can continue in service or not.

But, to put it in perspective, of the 1.03 million HIV tests in the Army from 2012 thru 2014, 271 soldiers tested positive.

That’s an incredibly small percentage.

 

[Moonpie]

Less talking. More range time.

 

[dapakattack]

People living with HIV controlled by medication are not debilitated like the others you mention. Active duty service members I have known who had HIV under control were not restricted in their duties except they were considered non-deployable.

They did however have to put up with ignorance and bias from some bigoted DOD persons.

It starts out as non-deploy-able, but then they follow up by suing to serve in more roles.

 

[Sock Puppet]

You missing it, they are SUING to let them in with HIV. NO ONE has a RIGHT to serve in the military, its a job with qualifications. Many have been turned down to illness or issues with feet, lungs, your name it. The military is not a day care center for the sick, lame and lazy...here to fight wars, not cure or treat your ills...

As usual, your arguments are non sequitur. He's already serving (and has deployed). They aren't letting him commision based on DoD policy. That is what the lawsuit is about.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

As usual, your arguments are non sequitur. He's already serving (and has deployed). They aren't letting him commision based on DoD policy. That is what the lawsuit is about.

I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits, even tho I put it in BOLD for ya, you still ducked.

OK, lets try it again and I quote from the article in the LINK:

"Pentagon is being sued for allegedly discriminating against people living with HIV

Two non-profit legal organizations focused on advancing LGBT rights and the rights of people living with HIV are suing the Department of Defense for what they allege are discriminatory policies that restrict the ability of people living with HIV to serve in the U.S. military."

Speaking of non sequitur, what did you see that written down somewhere, clearly above your pay grade...

 

[TAZ]

Oh yes. That’s what we need. HIV infected people in jobs where having holes poked in them is a decent possibility. That’s where we want to have bleeders spreading an incurable disease. Cause you know, all people carry around gloves and have time to glove up before dragging someone under fire to safety.

Effing people.

 

[Dawico]

Less talking. More range time.

Speaking of non-deployable.......

 

[toddnjoyce]

He's already serving (and has deployed). They aren't letting him commision based on DoD policy.

The fine print: there is an incredibly short period between when you are discharged as an enlisted member and you are commissioned as an officer.

Generally speaking, the goal is ‘zero break in service’. That means discharge one day, commission the next. The challenge is that once your discharged, you have to be qualified to be commissioned.

I’m guessing the reason this came to a lawsuit is that during the two years this particular member was pushing a policy waiver up the chain (and being denied, per existing policy) he (and his command) knew early on he wouldn’t be qualified to commission and decided (with or without the support of the DCNG) to either become the first exception to policy or sue to get the policy changed.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Oh yes. That’s what we need. HIV infected people in jobs where having holes poked in them is a decent possibility. That’s where we want to have bleeders spreading an incurable disease. Cause you know, all people carry around gloves and have time to glove up before dragging someone under fire to safety.

Effing people.

That’s nice.

Generally speaking each of the services provide an existing service member who tests positive a potential option to continue in service in a non-deployable specialty with a limitation of CONUS only assignments so long as the member does not pose a risk to others. There is also the member’s option to separate for the good of the service.

If an HIV+ member is found to be fit for limited duty assignments in a non-deployable specialty and then fails to comply with the measures necessary to protect others, then the member can be disciplined, discharged, or both. Immediately.

These are general paraphrases of DoD policy; each service has its own specific policies and procedures.

 

[Sock Puppet]

I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits, even tho I put it in BOLD for ya, you still ducked.

OK, lets try it again and I quote from the article in the LINK:

"Pentagon is being sued for allegedly discriminating against people living with HIV

Two non-profit legal organizations focused on advancing LGBT rights and the rights of people living with HIV are suing the Department of Defense for what they allege are discriminatory policies that restrict the ability of people living with HIV to serve in the U.S. military."

Speaking of non sequitur, what did you see that written down somewhere, clearly above your pay grade...

You know, you're a self-licking ice cream cone: You're "right" because you think you are. You resort to belittling and insults to prove you're right. Those are the tactics of the Dems/liberals. You've learned their lessons well!

You brought the unrelated issues to the discussion, then threw out insults when someone disagrees with you. BTW, that's usually an indication you've lost the argument. If you can't have a civil discussion about a subject with which you disagree, you aren't worth my time.

 

[Sock Puppet]

The fine print: there is an incredibly short period between when you are discharged as an enlisted member and you are commissioned as an officer.

Generally speaking, the goal is ‘zero break in service’. That means discharge one day, commission the next. The challenge is that once your discharged, you have to be qualified to be commissioned.

I’m guessing the reason this came to a lawsuit is that during the two years this particular member was pushing a policy waiver up the chain (and being denied, per existing policy) he (and his command) knew early on he wouldn’t be qualified to commission and decided (with or without the support of the DCNG) to either become the first exception to policy or sue to get the policy changed.

Yes, that's true. That's exactly what was being ignored. But let's not confuse the issue with facts.

 

[MTA]

Coming soon to a base near you: On base housing and tricare for servicemembers married to their household pets.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

If I know you have HIV and are bleeding - I'm not getting near you.