▁concerns ▁about ▁the ▁intr us iveness ▁of ▁the ▁dis closure ▁requirements . ▁The ▁useful ness ▁of ▁the ▁financial ▁information ▁remained ▁a ▁subject ▁of ▁debate . ▁ ▁Executive ▁Order ▁ 1 2 9 6 8 ' s ▁anti - dis c rim ination ▁statement , ▁" The ▁United ▁States ▁Government ▁does ▁not ▁disc rim inate ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁race , ▁color , ▁religion , ▁sex , ▁national ▁origin , ▁dis ability , ▁or ▁sexual ▁orientation ▁in ▁grant ing ▁access ▁to ▁class ified ▁information ." ▁respond ed ▁to ▁long standing ▁compla ints ▁by ▁advoc ates ▁for ▁gay ▁and ▁les bian ▁rights ▁by ▁including ▁" sex ual ▁orientation " ▁for ▁the ▁first ▁time ▁in ▁an ▁Executive ▁Order . ▁It ▁also ▁said ▁that ▁" no ▁inference " ▁about ▁suit ability ▁for ▁access ▁to ▁class ified ▁information ▁" may ▁be ▁raised ▁sole ly ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁the ▁sexual ▁orientation ▁of ▁the ▁employee ." ▁ ▁The ▁federal ▁government ▁had ▁for ▁dec ades ▁assumed ▁that ▁hom osex ual ity ▁constit uted ▁a ▁dis qual ification ▁for ▁holding ▁a ▁security ▁clear ance , ▁despite ▁the ▁opposite ▁find ings ▁of ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Navy ' s ▁C ritt enden ▁Report ▁in ▁ 1 9 5 7 . ▁A ▁ 1 9 9 0 ▁U . S . ▁App e als ▁Court ▁decision , ▁High ▁Te ch ▁G ays ▁v . ▁Def ense ▁Indust rial ▁Security ▁Clear ance ▁Office , ▁u ph eld ▁the ▁den ial ▁of ▁security ▁clear ances ▁to ▁hom osex ual ▁employees ▁of ▁government ▁contract ors