Quote:

He was compelling everyone who has to deal with him on a professional level to accept his homosexual lifestyle.

Ridiculous. Do you "compel" everyone who has to deal with you on a professional level to accept (or even acknowledge) your heterosexual lifestyle?

I shouldn't have to remind you, but I will: sexual preference has no bearing on ability to do one's job. That's why it is illegal to discriminate on that basis, just as it is with other factors that have no bearing on job performance, such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I'm beginning to understand why you keep failing your American citizenship test!

And this whole tack you are taking is entirely beside the point.
He wasn't fired for compelling acceptance of blah blah blah, or for any other reason. He was personally and professionally held in high regard throughout his tenure. Then he resigned his post, rather than stay on in violation of his personal principles, something I think most people would find admirable.

Stick to the topic or admit you can't.

Of course I would agree, but again, this an utterly irrelevant attempted distraction from the case at hand.

Leave it to you to try to tarnish a qualified, well-respected career diplomat who happens to be gay by trying to feebly compare him to a killer and a religious nut.

This man was appointed, served with distinction, and chose to step down.
I really don't think Phelps or Manson would find themselves appointed in the first place.

If you can't debate the actual issue (and it appears you can't), don't try (and don't expect another reply). It only makes you look foolish. But if (and only if) you do come up with any relevant points on your next attempt, I will be happy to reply to you again.

But on another point, I do want to offer you my thanks. I appreciate you doing your part to keep my thread on the front page. That way, more people have a chance to see my request to take action with their legislators to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act.