By Sarah Holliday | Washington Stand
A Christian infantry officer is now being punished by the Idaho Army National Guard for using his First Amendment right to speak out against the LGBT ideology that he believes is harming children.
In 2023, the officer posted about some of his deeply held beliefs on his private social media account while running for political office in his “private capacity.”
According to Liberty Counsel (LC), the legal group defending him, his posts included statements “against graphic, obscene children’s books in a library and the promotion of a ‘drag kids’ event and drag queens in schools.
He also posted statements such as ‘No child is born in the wrong body,’ males should not be competing in female sports, and against the medical mutilation of gender-confused children.”
His concern over LGBT indoctrination resulted in “a subordinate senior enlisted man who claims to be homosexual” filing “a formal discrimination military complaint against the officer” for sharing his beliefs.
The complaint accused the infantry officer’s posts of showing “just how much the officer truly hates the LGBTQ community.” His complaint continued:
“I feel like I have been discriminated against because of my sexual orientation,” which “has caused a hostile work environment. … I am deeply concerned about the hostile and prejudiced behavior I have experienced, which has adversely affected my well-being, work performance, and overall sense of belonging within the workplace/organization.”
“I must emphasize that this has created an uncomfortable, unsafe, and a hostile work environment, making it increasingly challenging for me to perform my duties effectively. With the active ties to the extremist/hate group, it makes me feel threatened and unsafe. All the posts on his social media and how public he is about his hate towards individuals like me and my family. Not just for me but for my husband and my child.”
As a result of this complaint, the infantry officer was removed from command by the Idaho Army National Guard, “then illegally pressured … to resign without benefit of any counsel or notice.” However, he chose to rescind his notice shortly after he sought help from LC.
As they summarized, “As a Christian the officer believes all people are made in God’s image and have inherent dignity and are worthy of respect. He is committed to serving those under his command, regardless of political or religious disagreements, and would give his life in defense of his state and nation.”
Additionally, LC Founder and Chairman Mat Staver stated, “Governor Brad Little must ensure that the Idaho Army National Guard upholds federal and state law and protects the free speech of enlisted personnel. This discrimination against an officer based on a frivolous complaint must be addressed and his record cleared and career restored.”
To provide further detail, LC’s Associate Vice President of Legal Affairs Daniel Schmid joined Wednesday’s episode of “Washington Watch.”
According to Schmid,
“Immediately upon receiving the complaint, some of the superiors in the officer’s chain of command brought him in and said, ‘You will resign or we’ll make this ugly.’ Those were the words to him. They forced him to resign without counsel, without the presence of counsel, and without advice of counsel.”
Schmid went on to explain how “the complaint was not based on anything he did as a commanding officer.” It was about “a speech that he made outside of the military context, in the context of a political campaign. … He was making statements on various issues in the culture today, from a religious perspective, and the First Amendment affords him that right.” And yet, his statements are now “the subject of an investigation that’s ongoing even to this day.”
According to Schmid, this case is about making “sure that the individuals who sign up to defend our liberties, our constitutional rights, are also entitled to those same rights” Specifically, he clarified, the First Amendment.
“You don’t surrender your constitutional rights or your statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and others just because you sign up for military service.”
In the case of this officer, Schmid contended that he “was entitled to political speech. He was entitled to hold religious values and to espouse those values in life and in his speech. He didn’t surrender those. He’s entitled to the same Constitution that he swore an oath to defend, and we ought to stand up and defend him.”
But it’s also a fight for all Americans, guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice emphasized, since this case demonstrates a clear “disregard for the law.” Not to mention, he added, this isn’t the first time an instance such as this has occurred.
Schmid agreed. “That’s the sad part,” he sighed. “Because we’ve seen this before,” referring to how the military dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic with “the attempted purge of religious adherents for the COVID vaccine mandates. … There was just a blatant disregard for the law in that realm as well.”
He continued, “disturbingly, in the current administration, we see an open disregard for people of faith, for those who espouse conservative views.”
In this “particular complaint,” the concerns that people of faith are being targeted become further justified because, as Schmid explained, there was “a reference in the investigation to a Department of Defense instruction which … we termed … as an attempt to purge conservatives from the ranks of the military.”
As Schmid went on to argue, the instruction that claimed to “root out extremism … was written so broadly” that it can easily be applied to anyone who chooses to espouse their views in response to the current political climate — specifically views that are Christian and conservative.
Schmid contended, “Under the current administration, it seems they don’t want those guys in the military service. They’ll purge them by virtue of vaccine mandates, or they’ll purge them by virtue of … their social media. … It’s astounding what’s taking place in the military right now.”
He urged, “These are our heroes. These are the ones who signed up to defend us. And they’re entitled to the same protections that you and I are. And we should make sure that they receive them.”
As Hice concluded, “Standing for this infantry officer” is “standing on behalf of every one of us.”
First published on Washington Stand
Leave a Comment