By J.M. Phelps | Gateway Pundit
The U.S. Coast Guard is unduly burdening the rights of a Coast Guard veteran by dragging its feet on a religious accommodation request over elusive transgender policies, according to an attorney representing a prospective Coastie who takes opposition.
Jonathan Sanders was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard in 2009 after eight years of service.
In 2023, as the Coast Guard reeled from recruiting and retention lows at the behest of the now-rescinded COVID-19 shot mandate and the implementation of woke policies, Sanders decided to serve his nation again in uniform.
He met with recruiters and was on track to return to service when a crashing wave of uncertainty about his future overcame him. Gender policies had changed over the years, and the Coast Guard had now endorsed transgenderism—something Sanders took a moral and scientific objection to due to his sincerely held religious convictions.
“Mr. Sanders had conscience issues with calling someone of one biological sex by the pronoun of the other biological sex,” said Sanders’ attorney, Associate Professor Antony Kolenc, a retired Air Force JAG with over 21 years of service, who now directs the Veterans and Servicemembers Law Clinic (VSLC) at Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida.
Sanders was also reluctant to bunk or shower with someone of the opposite biological sex for moral reasons. After bringing this to the attention of recruiters, they simply directed him to the transgender policy of the Coast Guard with the expectation that he would abide by it.
In a series of emails exchanged to inquire more about the policy, Sanders was confronted by U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, asserting he would have to address other Coasties by their preferred genders, adding that the issue was “non-negotiable.”
According to Kolenc, authorities told Sanders, “Our oath of enlistment requires that we obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over us, and respecting our shipmates is a pillar of our core values.”
When Kolenc asked for “the policies,” all he was provided were policies about how Coasties can transition to the opposite sex. “I thought it was a little strange that they’re acting like there’s this non-negotiable policy about pronouns but can’t provide us anything to prove it.”
Disappointed but refusing to back down, Sanders had no other option but to seek legal counsel with the legal clinic at Ave Maria School of Law. He felt called to take a stand not only to defend his own rights but also to help others who might have a similar conscience objection.
Sanders told The Gateway Pundit:
“I tried really hard to find a way to use preferred pronouns. I just could not get past my conscience. I even offered to use generic pronouns like they/them or to simply use a member’s rank. That was the best I could come up with. I really, really tried.”
“After doing our background research,” Kolenc said, “we sent a demand letter to the Coast Guard on April 23, 2024.” The letter went through the recruiting office Sanders was working with, essentially laying out the facts of his argument.
“We thought it was a knee-jerk reaction for the Coast Guard to place an unconstitutional condition on the re-accession of an honorably discharged veteran merely because he asked about a policy.”
Kolenc views the Coast Guard’s action as a clear violation of the First Amendment under the Compelled Speech doctrine because “the Coast Guard is trying to compel people to use certain pronouns, and if they don’t use those pronouns, headquarters is not even considering them for recruitment.”
Further, because of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), “the Coast Guard needs to accommodate someone who has expressed a sincere religious objection to this, especially when the member is willing to compromise as much as Mr. Sanders has done here.”
In July, the Coast Guard finally responded by email, stating,
“The Coast Guard transgender policy is not intended to dictate Mr. Sanders’ right to think and believe as he wishes. The Coast Guard’s Military Transgender Service policy requires that all Coast Guard members be considered and treated in accordance with the member’s gender recorded in DEERS, including members who have transitioned genders.”
View the complete email excerpt:
In Kolenc’s opinion, “The Coast Guard basically ignored our compelled speech argument, but it said that Sanders could pursue a religious accommodation request (RAR).”
While objection on religious grounds was not his sole reason for opposing the “transgender policy,” Sanders decided to pursue the accommodation request, submitting the request on August 7, 2024.
Sanders emphasized his willingness to use a person’s rank and last name or gender-neutral pronouns, such as they and them. However, he stated that he could not consent to calling a fellow Coastie by a pronoun opposite of their biological sex at birth. “I am not against transgender sailors; I am against illegal orders and expectations,” Sanders shared.
On September 19, the Coast Guard acknowledged that Sanders’ RAR was “in process” and that processing of such requests were “averaging about three to four months for adjudication.”
According to Kolenc, this violates the 45-day deadline required by Coast Guard regulations. “That would have been September 22,” he pointed out. As a result, he said, “My client feels like they’re not taking him seriously.” Both he and Sanders want a decision to be made as soon as possible.
Without an RAR determination, to date, Kolenc suspects, “they’re stonewalling on this.” Kolenc lamented, “It’s deeply troubling that this is taking so long, particularly at a time when recruiting and retention is so challenging in the military services.”
The Gateway Pundit reached out to LCDR Brad Baker, a Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, as well as Coast Guard Media Relations with the following questions:
- Can you show me any non-negotiable policy in writing that states that all Coast Guard members must address their peers by their preferred pronouns?
- If no policy exists, why are you requiring Mr. Sanders to follow such a policy?
- Why is it taking so long to grant or deny an accommodation when apparently the regulation requires a response in 45 days, according to Mr. Sanders?
- Have there been any cases where the Coast Guard has encountered this conscience issue prior to Mr. Sanders’ case? What happened in those cases?
- Is the Coast Guard currently requiring members to shower with those of the opposite biological sex?
Neither LCDR Baker nor CG Media Relations responded by press time.
Leave a Comment