Originally Posted by ajmccarrell (Post 778592)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57022

Here's a story about firemen who were ordered to participate in a pride parade. Given the position that many of you took on the issue about whether or not doctors should be allowed to refuse certain types of care if it violated their conscience, do you agree with the firemen here, or do you think they should just shut up about it, and why? I'm really curious here. To me, it appears to be the same issue of personal freedom, what do the rest of you think?

Originally Posted by GoS (Post 778603)

I didn't read the article, but don't think that anyone should be forced to do something like what you described. We all don't have to support it, but we should at least respect it.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew (Post 778641)

. . . Man, folks sure are afraid of us sissies!

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew (Post 778641)

What the WorldNetDaily article unsurprisingly failed to note was the fact that firefighters in San Diego are always asked first to volunteer to participate in a parade, and then, if there are no volunteers -- or not enough -- then firefighters are assigned.

This is not just true of gay pride parades -- this is the same protocol the department uses for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day parades, St. Patrick's Day parades, and various other "special interest" parades.

Instead, the article focused on "another example of how radical homosexual activists in positions of authority force their agenda on unwilling citizens."

Man, folks sure are afraid of us sissies!

Originally Posted by strandinthewind (Post 778647)

Show me your hose :cool:

:wavey::wavey::wavey:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew (Post 778641)

What the WorldNetDaily article unsurprisingly failed to note was the fact that firefighters in San Diego are always asked first to volunteer to participate in a parade, and then, if there are no volunteers -- or not enough -- then firefighters are assigned.

This is not just true of gay pride parades -- this is the same protocol the department uses for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day parades, St. Patrick's Day parades, and various other "special interest" parades.

Instead, the article focused on "another example of how radical homosexual activists in positions of authority force their agenda on unwilling citizens."

Man, folks sure are afraid of us sissies!

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew (Post 778636)

WorldNetDaily is run by an Evangelical Christian (Joseph Farah) who has referred to homosexuality as "aberrant sexual behavior" and is constantly railing against what he calls "the gay agenda" -- all of which informs the many & numerous anti-gay "articles" he posts (on WorldNetDaily and elsewhere).

If you're going to ask us to read an article, I suggest linking to a website that's not antagonistic and biased towards the very people with whom you're trying to have a discussion.

Although I'm not entirely convinced that a legitimate discussion is what you were really looking for.

Originally Posted by ashton (Post 778684)

Nice, an "article" from one of the whackiest sites found on the internet, provided by the resident bigot back from his latest time-out.

Anything for attention.

Originally Posted by ashton (Post 778690)

For kicks, check out this news-filled website. It will have you laughing for quite some time. Pay special attention to the WND sections or WND exclusives. The National Enquirer couldn't even make this stuff up. Even the ads are crazy.


I think you will find that this is truly a resource to be valued and trusted, starting with the always present ad about flushing 15 pounds of undigested waste from your system. You then get to read through that undigested waste.

Originally Posted by GoldDustOrphan (Post 778706)

City employees should not be asked/required to march in any parade.

San Diego has since changed its policy of sending a firetruck and representatives of the fire department to every civic parade representing different communities.

Even though the fire dept. had representatives at previous parades, the firefighters in this particular case were urged by Thomas More Law Center - a conservative Christian law center based in Michigan - to sue the city for sexual harassment with the promise of cashing in. TMLC drafted them for this lawsuit to pursue its agenda of defaming gay people. The firefighters claimed that alleged catcalls had damaged them so much (physically and emotionally) that they deserved a million bucks each to survive the indignity of it all. Yes, the "TOUGH GUY FIGHTERS" described in the headline of the WorldNetDaily - another conservative-based "news" source - couldn't handle some people yelling at them from the safety of a moving firetruck. Other firefighters in the parade - and past parades - claimed their fellow firefighters were exaggerating reports. Anyone that's ever been to a Pride Parade will also tell you there's usually music blasting from every other float and firetrucks usually have sirens going - how could they really hear what was being yelled. The jury agreed and threw out their claim.

What is interesting about this case is that the testimony from the firefighters that filed the complaint makes the city of San Diego even more vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits: "I called the San Diego fire dept. when my house was burning down or my kitten was in the tree they I was treated differently because I live in a gay neighborhood or I'm gay."



Yes. If someone is a white supremist, they would object to being in the MLK parade. Native Americans or athiests might find Thanksgiving offensive to their beliefs or heritage. Here in South Boston, our St. Patrick's Day parade (which is always a blast in my book) is a constant source of public scrutiny because of the extraordinary amount public drinking, arrests for fighting, and reports of racist incidents.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell (Post 778592)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57022

Here's a story about firemen who were ordered to participate in a pride parade. Given the position that many of you took on the issue about whether or not doctors should be allowed to refuse certain types of care if it violated their conscience, do you agree with the firemen here, or do you think they should just shut up about it, and why? I'm really curious here. To me, it appears to be the same issue of personal freedom, what do the rest of you think?

Originally Posted by GoldDustOrphan (Post 778706)

Native Americans or athiests might find Thanksgiving offensive to their beliefs or heritage. Here in South Boston, our St. Patrick's Day parade (which is always a blast in my book) is a constant source of public scrutiny because of the extraordinary amount public drinking, arrests for fighting, and reports of racist incidents.

Originally Posted by Richard B (Post 778712)

Do they have the right to say, "well I don't believe in gays, so go find your own way out." I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Richard B (Post 778712)

They should be ordered regardless of their opinion. I thought the idea behind a fireman is to save lives. That's their job. If they don't like saving lives, time for a career change.

For example, what right would a fireman have if they were rescuing a person from a burning building and realized the person was gay or black or (insert whatver)? Do they have the right to say, "well I don't believe in gays, so go find your own way out." I don't think so.

Serve and protect everybody and keep your judgements at home.

Originally Posted by GoldDustOrphan (Post 778706)

. . . Here in South Boston, our St. Patrick's Day parade (which is always a blast in my book) is a constant source of public scrutiny because of the extraordinary amount public drinking, arrests for fighting, and reports of racist incidents.

Originally Posted by GoS (Post 778719)

Well, I think that this person needs to look around and start believing, I mean it is one thing to not agree, but to not believe they exist, that's just outragous. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

But really, You don't think that they could have found other people to assign, people who aren't against it? Not nesicarly supporters, but someone who won't sue you because of it. Besides, whether or not it's right, why would it be an issue? I wouldn't assume that any fireman working one of the parades was automatically gay. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell (Post 778721)

"Serve and protect everybody and keep your judgements at home." Exactly, so why does the fire chief have the right to order them to have a certain value system? Why not leave that at home?

Originally Posted by GoS (Post 778725)

The fire chief is not saying "Go be gay." Nor is he saying "support gays." He is saying make sure that none of the floats fall, catch fire and destroy the entire town (or whatever he says when he sends someone to a parade). So he should leave their duties at home? Because to me that is what is sounded like you said.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell (Post 778731)

It was a she and the firefighters were asked to be in the parade, not stand guard.

The LA Times says, "They say they were forced to drive their firetruck in the parade and were subjected to lewd comments." Also, "The four say they were ordered to drive their firetruck in the three-hour parade even though firefighters at previous parades had been subjected to catcalls and sexually suggestive comments by parade watchers", as well as, "Along with the sexual harassment contention, the lawsuit also alleges that the gay pride parade should be seen as a political event, "designed to advocate for the civil rights of homosexuals, and in recent years to promote the controversial concept of gay marriage." By forcing the firefighters to participate in the parade, the suit contends, the city was improperly recruiting them to support a political cause." Basically, it would be tantamount to you being asked to march in a McCain parade.

Originally Posted by GoS (Post 778735)

. . . Wait, why was a fire truck needed in the parade then?

Originally Posted by GoS (Post 778735)

Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe I should have read the article!:shrug:

Wait, why was a fire truck needed in the parade then?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell (Post 778738)

I'm not so sure it was. The police have had a huge problem with this too. I've been hearing for years that a lot of them also have religious objections to marching, but have to under orders from the police chief. I just see it as a civil rights issue, the gay part is a side-show. To me the issue is whether or not an employer has the right to order someone to participate in something they believe is wrong. My argument is more libertarian in that the answer would be no. We don't order pacifist soldiers to kill people, they are reassigned. I'm not sure why this is different.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell (Post 778721)

"Serve and protect everybody and keep your judgements at home." Exactly, so why does the fire chief have the right to order them to have a certain value system? Why not leave that at home?

Originally Posted by Richard B (Post 778742)

I agree. He has no right. It makes an issue of what should be a non-issue.
For living in 2008, we sure are extraordinarily conservative.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew (Post 778752)

The fact is, the San Diego fire department is always asked to participate in parades. This has been going on for years -- well before any of the firemen involved in this lawsuit worked for the Hillcrest department (Hillcrest, for the record, is at the center of the GLBT community in San Diego -- another fact those firemen had to have known).

I don't know about anyone else here, but if a job required my participation in parades and events that I didn't agree with, I would simply not take the job. There are other choices -- other areas, other departments. Unless, of course, I was hoping to cause a fuss and get awarded one million dollars for feigning humiliation.