Firefighters suing for being forced to attend gay pride parade.

[Moonbeam]

Firemen at a gay parade need to prepare to be harassed because it's only natural they will be. They have the biggest hoses.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's arguably a different case, as maintaining public order at a legal public rally (assuming the KKK got permits, etc.) is clearly among a police officer's official duties. However, it's not at all clear that appearing in a parade is among a firefighter's official duties such that they can be compelled to attend. A more similar example would be firefighters being compelled to respond to a fire at a gay bar (which hopefully none of them would take issue with).

According to the article, the firefighter's presence in the parade is part of their official duties so to speak, because every parade needs a firetruck for some odd reason.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

Completely different scenario, but the flip side of that coin is that if the firemen acted in an inappropriate manner by making gestures or lude comments to the heterosexual single woman, I can guarantee you that the fire chief would not hesitate to discipline them for it.

I just hope this guys can recover from their scars and get on with their lives. Hopefully non of these gestures stuck and have turned any of these straight men into gays.

Well you could apply this argument to any sexual harassment case. If someone, as part of their official duties or job description, is compelled to work in a sexually hostile environment, is that not the very definition of sexual harassment.

Again, some of you see no problem with this because the "victims" are heterosexual male firemen.

Do I really need to point out the difference between black policemen in their official job capacity providing security at a KKK rally and firemen attending a parade on a float?

Well it is somewhat difficult to come up with a comperable scenario of sexual harassment at a parade, or any form of harassment at a parade for that matter.

OK, here is another go at it. A group of female firefighters are riding a firetruck during the St. Patrick's Day parade, and contend with sexual harassment from a largely drunk and belligerent male crowd of attendees...would society treat this case differently...I think so.

 

[PrinceofWands]

When I was in the navy I faced captain's mast for attending a gay rights rally...this is the same kind of bs, only in reverse. You can no more tell someone that they must attend something than you can tell them they can't attend something. Had I been a ff in her chain of command I would have told her to go blow herself, and if any punitive actions were taken against me I would have sued her and the city into bankruptcy. This ridiculous idea of doing something wrong and then suing after is disgusting.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

That's arguably a different case, as maintaining public order at a legal public rally (assuming the KKK got permits, etc.) is clearly among a police officer's official duties. However, it's not at all clear that appearing in a parade is among a firefighter's official duties such that they can be compelled to attend. A more similar example would be firefighters being compelled to respond to a fire at a gay bar (which hopefully none of them would take issue with).

According to the article, the firefighter's presence in the parade is part of their official duties so to speak, because every parade needs a firetruck for some odd reason.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

Completely different scenario, but the flip side of that coin is that if the firemen acted in an inappropriate manner by making gestures or lude comments to the heterosexual single woman, I can guarantee you that the fire chief would not hesitate to discipline them for it.

I just hope this guys can recover from their scars and get on with their lives. Hopefully non of these gestures stuck and have turned any of these straight men into gays.

Well you could apply this argument to any sexual harassment case. If someone, as part of their official duties or job description, is compelled to work in a sexually hostile environment, is that not the very definition of sexual harassment.

Again, some of you see no problem with this because the "victims" are heterosexual male firemen.

Do I really need to point out the difference between black policemen in their official job capacity providing security at a KKK rally and firemen attending a parade on a float?

Well it is somewhat difficult to come up with a comperable scenario of sexual harassment at a parade, or any form of harassment at a parade for that matter.

OK, here is another go at it. A group of female firefighters are riding a firetruck during the St. Patrick's Day parade, and contend with sexual harassment from a largely drunk and belligerent male crowd of attendees...would society treat this case differently...I think so.

You missed my point. In once instance the police/firemen are acting within their duty/job description. In one they are there for show, not to protect anyone.

As to your second example, if any of those women firefighters said to their boss, I don't want to be in this parade, the drunk men always treat us like crap, it makes me uncomfortable and I don't want to do it, then the situation would be essentially identical, and if the woman was forced to attend anyway, she'd probably have a case.

PrinceofWands has it right, if they seriously objected they should have simply not gone and sued for wrongful termination if fired, which would never have happened.

 

[zinfamous]

that's odd. I thought that only firefighters were at pride parades. at least that's what I see when it rolls by the neighborhood....

EDIT: wait...are *assless chaps part of regulation uniform for firemen? hmm....

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dahunan
Can someone tell us what is the reason for the firefighters being at any of these events?

What is their purpose? It surely isn't to put out fires or arrest people...

Well it sounds like there were legitimate flames at this parade......


I kid, I kid

you beat me to it.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
LOL. Nice WND link, I think what the link is trying to tell everyone is:

San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman is an open lesbian (so good they had to say it twice)

And how in God?s name can this be considered sexual harassment? Did Jarman harass them? The people in the crowd certainly don't fall under the criteria for a harassment case. These homophobes need to grow thicker skin.

That said, they should not have been forced to attend unless as with many parades, these guys were part of a mandated fire/police presence, which would make it part of their job, it does not sound like every firefighter in the county had to attend so I am led to believe firemen need to be there and I guess it just sucks to be them (in their opinion) that they were picked. If that is the case, I don't think as a fireman who is paid to do a job you should be able to pick and chose what fires to put out or what parades to work.

why are the firemen homophobes? they were forced to attend a rally that goes against their beliefs and morals. they felt like side show freaks when they didn't respond to the crowds lewd comments and behavior. when the firemen didn't respond to those lewd comments and behavior the crowd turned hostile towards them. im sure there are plenty of gay firemen in San Diego why not ask for volunteers?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Can someone tell us what is the reason for the firefighters being at any of these events?

What is their purpose? It surely isn't to put out fires or arrest people...

well not the kind of fires you are thinking of anyways..lolol

 

[Starbuck1975]

As to your second example, if any of those women firefighters said to their boss, I don't want to be in this parade, the drunk men always treat us like crap, it makes me uncomfortable and I don't want to do it, then the situation would be essentially identical, and if the woman was forced to attend anyway, she'd probably have a case.

Given that the San Diego fire chief is a lesbian, I doubt very highly that the "opt out" option was career viable for these firemen...similarly, most sexual harassment situations occur because the victim does not have an avenue for removing themselves from potentially hostile environments without facing other career repercussions that are even harder to prove.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Firemen at a gay parade need to prepare to be harassed because it's only natural they will be. They have the biggest hoses.

Too funny!!!!

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

Interesting how the pendulum of political correctness swings depending on the demographic in question.

Here is another scenario...police are forced to provide security at a KKK rally, and some of the officers in uniform are African-American...these officers experience taunts, racial slurs and other forms of harassment from those participating in the rally...would these officers have a valid complaint of their job placing them in a hostile environment?

Or how about those Naval Aviator conventions from a few years back, which were dens of sexual harassment against female aviators...the public certainly sided on behald of those who faced harassment.

I understand that the gay rights movement shifted to rather flamboyant tactics as a means of raising public awareness and demonstrate solidarity...for those of you who have witnessed a Gay Pride parade, they are rather interesting events, although I cannot imagine another group in America being able to get away with the sometimes inappropriate behaviors that happen during them...either on the floats themselves, or within the crowds they tend to draw. You won't see Irish men covered in glitter and wearing green g-strings engaging in stripper pole dance routines during the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

That being said, homophobia may be the motivating factor of the firemens' complaints, but I don't agree with the chief's decision to make attendance mandatory...and I do think they have a valid complaint given the lude nature of the taunts they received.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

How is that relevent?

People ascribe to certain morays and beliefs. It was obvious that these firemen do not condone public homosexual lewdness. The article never states they disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, just the lewd acts they had to endure. Why is it such a crime that the firefighters don't want to be involved in that? Are we to push aside all of our principles in the name of tolerance and diversity?

It was just a counter example to the KKK parade that Starbuck was using. I'm not saying they don't have a right to what they approve of or disapprove of but their employer mandated that they go to a community event and they felt that they were harassed when they clearly were not. My example was just meant to show that the firemen would likely not feel sexually harassed by a woman flashing her breasts whereas somehow a man grabbing his crotch is sexual harassment. They're using sexual harassment as an excuse for their personal close-mindedness.

Edit: By the way, tolerance should probably be one of the primary principles everyone adheres to and should rarely be trumped by anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

Interesting how the pendulum of political correctness swings depending on the demographic in question.

Here is another scenario...police are forced to provide security at a KKK rally, and some of the officers in uniform are African-American...these officers experience taunts, racial slurs and other forms of harassment from those participating in the rally...would these officers have a valid complaint of their job placing them in a hostile environment?

Or how about those Naval Aviator conventions from a few years back, which were dens of sexual harassment against female aviators...the public certainly sided on behald of those who faced harassment.

I understand that the gay rights movement shifted to rather flamboyant tactics as a means of raising public awareness and demonstrate solidarity...for those of you who have witnessed a Gay Pride parade, they are rather interesting events, although I cannot imagine another group in America being able to get away with the sometimes inappropriate behaviors that happen during them...either on the floats themselves, or within the crowds they tend to draw. You won't see Irish men covered in glitter and wearing green g-strings engaging in stripper pole dance routines during the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

That being said, homophobia may be the motivating factor of the firemens' complaints, but I don't agree with the chief's decision to make attendance mandatory...and I do think they have a valid complaint given the lude nature of the taunts they received.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

How is that relevent?

People ascribe to certain morays and beliefs. It was obvious that these firemen do not condone public homosexual lewdness. The article never states they disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, just the lewd acts they had to endure. Why is it such a crime that the firefighters don't want to be involved in that? Are we to push aside all of our principles in the name of tolerance and diversity?

It was just a counter example to the KKK parade that Starbuck was using. I'm not saying they don't have a right to what they approve of or disapprove of but their employer mandated that they go to a community event and they felt that they were harassed when they clearly were not. My example was just meant to show that the firemen would likely not feel sexually harassed by a woman flashing her breasts whereas somehow a man grabbing his crotch is sexual harassment. They're using sexual harassment as an excuse for their personal close-mindedness.

Yup, the sad fact about bigotry is that the bigot thinks his bigotry is objective because he just knows it's true, since he just feels it to be, and being unconscious of his feelings, he can't trace their origin. To him they just are like his skin.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
When I was in the navy I faced captain's mast for attending a gay rights rally...this is the same kind of bs, only in reverse. You can no more tell someone that they must attend something than you can tell them they can't attend something. Had I been a ff in her chain of command I would have told her to go blow herself, and if any punitive actions were taken against me I would have sued her and the city into bankruptcy. This ridiculous idea of doing something wrong and then suing after is disgusting.

Actually you can force public servents to go to things, especially if it is determined to be part of their official duties... and public relations can be called that.

Who knows though. Whether they can be forced or not it sucks if they were harrassed and steps should be taken so they aren't in the future. In addition, they sound like stupid homophobes.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
When I was in the navy I faced captain's mast for attending a gay rights rally...this is the same kind of bs, only in reverse. You can no more tell someone that they must attend something than you can tell them they can't attend something. Had I been a ff in her chain of command I would have told her to go blow herself, and if any punitive actions were taken against me I would have sued her and the city into bankruptcy. This ridiculous idea of doing something wrong and then suing after is disgusting.

I think people can be "forced" to attend many things. Jury duty is something that people are forced to do. If there was another draft for the military, people would be forced to attend. You can still choose not to attend but I doubt that you'd be able to sue for the consequences of your absence. In a work environment, aren't people mandated to attend meetings all the time? Not too many things are optional when it comes to your employment.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

Interesting how the pendulum of political correctness swings depending on the demographic in question.

Here is another scenario...police are forced to provide security at a KKK rally, and some of the officers in uniform are African-American...these officers experience taunts, racial slurs and other forms of harassment from those participating in the rally...would these officers have a valid complaint of their job placing them in a hostile environment?

Or how about those Naval Aviator conventions from a few years back, which were dens of sexual harassment against female aviators...the public certainly sided on behald of those who faced harassment.

I understand that the gay rights movement shifted to rather flamboyant tactics as a means of raising public awareness and demonstrate solidarity...for those of you who have witnessed a Gay Pride parade, they are rather interesting events, although I cannot imagine another group in America being able to get away with the sometimes inappropriate behaviors that happen during them...either on the floats themselves, or within the crowds they tend to draw. You won't see Irish men covered in glitter and wearing green g-strings engaging in stripper pole dance routines during the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

That being said, homophobia may be the motivating factor of the firemens' complaints, but I don't agree with the chief's decision to make attendance mandatory...and I do think they have a valid complaint given the lude nature of the taunts they received.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

How is that relevent?

People ascribe to certain morays and beliefs. It was obvious that these firemen do not condone public homosexual lewdness. The article never states they disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, just the lewd acts they had to endure. Why is it such a crime that the firefighters don't want to be involved in that? Are we to push aside all of our principles in the name of tolerance and diversity?

It was just a counter example to the KKK parade that Starbuck was using. I'm not saying they don't have a right to what they approve of or disapprove of but their employer mandated that they go to a community event and they felt that they were harassed when they clearly were not. My example was just meant to show that the firemen would likely not feel sexually harassed by a woman flashing her breasts whereas somehow a man grabbing his crotch is sexual harassment. They're using sexual harassment as an excuse for their personal close-mindedness.

Well no shit sherlock, of course sexual harassment is subjective. If you went up to a female co-worker and grabbed your crotch, you'd be fired for sexual harassment, rightly so. Of course that could be considered sexual harassment, just because their gay doesn't mean that get a free pass.....

Go do that to a female co-worker and then when you're in your bosses office getting fired, just explain to him that your co-worker is just being close minded, I'm they'll understand. :roll:

 

[piasabird]

Could be considered Sexual Harassment.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Firemen at a gay parade need to prepare to be harassed because it's only natural they will be. They have the biggest hoses.

:laugh:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
When I was in the navy I faced captain's mast for attending a gay rights rally...this is the same kind of bs, only in reverse. You can no more tell someone that they must attend something than you can tell them they can't attend something. Had I been a ff in her chain of command I would have told her to go blow herself, and if any punitive actions were taken against me I would have sued her and the city into bankruptcy. This ridiculous idea of doing something wrong and then suing after is disgusting.

Actually you can force public servents to go to things, especially if it is determined to be part of their official duties... and public relations can be called that.

Who knows though. Whether they can be forced or not it sucks if they were harrassed and steps should be taken so they aren't in the future. In addition, they sound like stupid homophobes.

That's merely the difference between what is right, and what is legal (or required). People should always do what is right...that doesn't always mean it's legal (or going to keep them their jobs). The proper way to do things is to request that people participate, and if they have a moral objection against it (or simply cannot attend) then back off of them. If someone tells them they must and they don't believe in it they should refuse, and if negative actions are taken against them they should sue. Enough lawsuits will bankrupt the business or city and force positive change. That's simply the logical (and moral) way to handle things. Again, do what's right, not what's legal or required.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

Interesting how the pendulum of political correctness swings depending on the demographic in question.

Here is another scenario...police are forced to provide security at a KKK rally, and some of the officers in uniform are African-American...these officers experience taunts, racial slurs and other forms of harassment from those participating in the rally...would these officers have a valid complaint of their job placing them in a hostile environment?

Or how about those Naval Aviator conventions from a few years back, which were dens of sexual harassment against female aviators...the public certainly sided on behald of those who faced harassment.

I understand that the gay rights movement shifted to rather flamboyant tactics as a means of raising public awareness and demonstrate solidarity...for those of you who have witnessed a Gay Pride parade, they are rather interesting events, although I cannot imagine another group in America being able to get away with the sometimes inappropriate behaviors that happen during them...either on the floats themselves, or within the crowds they tend to draw. You won't see Irish men covered in glitter and wearing green g-strings engaging in stripper pole dance routines during the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

That being said, homophobia may be the motivating factor of the firemens' complaints, but I don't agree with the chief's decision to make attendance mandatory...and I do think they have a valid complaint given the lude nature of the taunts they received.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

How is that relevent?

People ascribe to certain morays and beliefs. It was obvious that these firemen do not condone public homosexual lewdness. The article never states they disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, just the lewd acts they had to endure. Why is it such a crime that the firefighters don't want to be involved in that? Are we to push aside all of our principles in the name of tolerance and diversity?

It was just a counter example to the KKK parade that Starbuck was using. I'm not saying they don't have a right to what they approve of or disapprove of but their employer mandated that they go to a community event and they felt that they were harassed when they clearly were not. My example was just meant to show that the firemen would likely not feel sexually harassed by a woman flashing her breasts whereas somehow a man grabbing his crotch is sexual harassment. They're using sexual harassment as an excuse for their personal close-mindedness.

Well no shit sherlock, of course sexual harassment is subjective. If you went up to a female co-worker and grabbed your crotch, you'd be fired for sexual harassment, rightly so. Of course that could be considered sexual harassment, just because their gay doesn't mean that get a free pass.....

Go do that to a female co-worker and then when you're in your bosses office getting fired, just explain to him that your co-worker is just being close minded, I'm they'll understand. :roll:

I never said that they should get a free pass. How does one complain that a public group of people acting in a lewd fashion is sexual harassment only when it's from a gay crowd? If it was a group of good looking women acting in a lewd fashion, it's no longer sexual harassment but wanted attention? How about fat, ugly women acting in a lewd manner? Is that now sexual harassment again? I'm just saying that their complaints that the attendees of the gay parade were sexually harassing them with lewd comments and actions was more likely based on their personal prejudices than from a legitimate feeling of being harassed.

Imagine if there were a few gay firemen in that crew. Would that group not feel harassed while the straight firemen did?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
When I was in the navy I faced captain's mast for attending a gay rights rally...this is the same kind of bs, only in reverse. You can no more tell someone that they must attend something than you can tell them they can't attend something. Had I been a ff in her chain of command I would have told her to go blow herself, and if any punitive actions were taken against me I would have sued her and the city into bankruptcy. This ridiculous idea of doing something wrong and then suing after is disgusting.

I think people can be "forced" to attend many things. Jury duty is something that people are forced to do. If there was another draft for the military, people would be forced to attend. You can still choose not to attend but I doubt that you'd be able to sue for the consequences of your absence. In a work environment, aren't people mandated to attend meetings all the time? Not too many things are optional when it comes to your employment.

Everything is optional, you just have to accept the consequences. Also there's a BIG difference between attending a work meeting and attending a gay pride rally. One is treading on personal beliefs pretty heavily, and whenever ANYONE attempts to force personal beliefs they should be heavily punished by the government. You can't force people to attend KKK rallies, you can't force people to protest abortion clinics, and you can't force people to support homosexuals. Any attempts to are wrong and should be severely punished. It doesn't matter if the cause is right or wrong, the attempt to force coercion should be a serious criminal act. Always.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

I'm guessing you meant to say NOT compulsory. But "chill out" how? Getting a lawyer is the American way , don't ya know?

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: ryan256
LINK


This sickens me. I hope these firefighters get a substantial award from this suit. The fire chief had NO right to force her agenda on these men and order them to attend.
Had the firefighters simply shown up and been offended, too bad. Just leave. But they didn't have that choice.

Ryan, please define "agenda"? To me that means you think she is trying to promote a homosexual lifestyle to the firefighters, which in my opinion is not the case... Tolerance or feeling a sense of community unity may have been her misguided intentions by forcing some of them to attend, but I don't think it has anything to do with forcing an "agenda" upon them.

Haha, if you forced gay employees to participate in a religious or Family Values parade, I guarantee you'll hear the word "agenda" (among many other).

Originally posted by: umbrella39

And how in God?s name can this be considered sexual harassment?

-snip-

Aww common, we've all seen plenty cases where sexual harassment is claimed (and upheld) when women have complained about Playboy pinup pictures in the morkplace, and there are certainly plenty about "lewd or suggestive remarks". Am I the only one that remembers Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearings?

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: dahunan
Can someone tell us what is the reason for the firefighters being at any of these events?

What is their purpose? It surely isn't to put out fires or arrest people...

I am not sure why they would need to be at THIS parade, but I can hear the cries of people if two cars in the parade colided, caught on fire, and it took a fire truck 20 minutes to get from the station, through the traffic, through the crowd and put out the fire. That is probably why the lawyers for any city would suggest, even mandate their presence at these kinds of events.

As a person in charge of large Labor Day parades a couple of times in the past, I must say we don't rely on firetrucks in the parades to do "offical work" as you describe. Once a fire truck is in a parade line, it's to logistically difficult to get to turn around or go backward etc to respond to an emergency. No, we have "on duty" fire trucks (and other emergency personnel) stationed at various locations. We then keep some side street running parallel to the parade route clear of trafic so that they can travel down it to get to the correct block for the mergency.

I'm not even sure that the fire trucks in the parade even have their water tanks filled.

Fern

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

Interesting how the pendulum of political correctness swings depending on the demographic in question.

Here is another scenario...police are forced to provide security at a KKK rally, and some of the officers in uniform are African-American...these officers experience taunts, racial slurs and other forms of harassment from those participating in the rally...would these officers have a valid complaint of their job placing them in a hostile environment?

Or how about those Naval Aviator conventions from a few years back, which were dens of sexual harassment against female aviators...the public certainly sided on behald of those who faced harassment.

I understand that the gay rights movement shifted to rather flamboyant tactics as a means of raising public awareness and demonstrate solidarity...for those of you who have witnessed a Gay Pride parade, they are rather interesting events, although I cannot imagine another group in America being able to get away with the sometimes inappropriate behaviors that happen during them...either on the floats themselves, or within the crowds they tend to draw. You won't see Irish men covered in glitter and wearing green g-strings engaging in stripper pole dance routines during the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

That being said, homophobia may be the motivating factor of the firemens' complaints, but I don't agree with the chief's decision to make attendance mandatory...and I do think they have a valid complaint given the lude nature of the taunts they received.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

How is that relevent?

People ascribe to certain morays and beliefs. It was obvious that these firemen do not condone public homosexual lewdness. The article never states they disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, just the lewd acts they had to endure. Why is it such a crime that the firefighters don't want to be involved in that? Are we to push aside all of our principles in the name of tolerance and diversity?

It was just a counter example to the KKK parade that Starbuck was using. I'm not saying they don't have a right to what they approve of or disapprove of but their employer mandated that they go to a community event and they felt that they were harassed when they clearly were not. My example was just meant to show that the firemen would likely not feel sexually harassed by a woman flashing her breasts whereas somehow a man grabbing his crotch is sexual harassment. They're using sexual harassment as an excuse for their personal close-mindedness.

Well no shit sherlock, of course sexual harassment is subjective. If you went up to a female co-worker and grabbed your crotch, you'd be fired for sexual harassment, rightly so. Of course that could be considered sexual harassment, just because their gay doesn't mean that get a free pass.....

Go do that to a female co-worker and then when you're in your bosses office getting fired, just explain to him that your co-worker is just being close minded, I'm they'll understand. :roll:

I never said that they should get a free pass. How does one complain that a public group of people acting in a lewd fashion is sexual harassment only when it's from a gay crowd? If it was a group of good looking women acting in a lewd fashion, it's no longer sexual harassment but wanted attention? How about fat, ugly women acting in a lewd manner? Is that now sexual harassment again? I'm just saying that their complaints that the attendees of the gay parade were sexually harassing them with lewd comments and actions was more likely based on their personal prejudices than from a legitimate feeling of being harassed.

Imagine if there were a few gay firemen in that crew. Would that group not feel harassed while the straight firemen did?

I'm not sure what your point is. The person being harassed has always been the one to decide what is offensive to them. A woman flashing me would not be offensive to me, a man flashing me would be. Different things are offensive to different people, thats the way its always been.....

Why is it that you are suddenly a prejudiced homophobe just because you don't want some guy grabbing his crotch in front of you? Thats like calling someone a prejudiced homophobe because they don't want to have sex with a guy, but do want to have sex with a woman.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the difference here is that the harrassment is coming from the crowd that the fire company cannot control, vs. pinups which come from workers that you have direct control over.

Also, I think the official functions wouldn't be to put out fires at the place so much as it would be some sort of PR thing in my opinion. I really don't know what is considered official duties in this case, but in many public service jobs official duties go outside the direct performance of your primary job. (much to my dismay when I joined the navy I found out my official duties involved a lot of standing in parades, at functions, etc. urgh.)

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Agree with pretty much everything you said. It should have been a compulsory event, however these firefighters needs to chill the hell out..

Interesting how the pendulum of political correctness swings depending on the demographic in question.

Here is another scenario...police are forced to provide security at a KKK rally, and some of the officers in uniform are African-American...these officers experience taunts, racial slurs and other forms of harassment from those participating in the rally...would these officers have a valid complaint of their job placing them in a hostile environment?

Or how about those Naval Aviator conventions from a few years back, which were dens of sexual harassment against female aviators...the public certainly sided on behald of those who faced harassment.

I understand that the gay rights movement shifted to rather flamboyant tactics as a means of raising public awareness and demonstrate solidarity...for those of you who have witnessed a Gay Pride parade, they are rather interesting events, although I cannot imagine another group in America being able to get away with the sometimes inappropriate behaviors that happen during them...either on the floats themselves, or within the crowds they tend to draw. You won't see Irish men covered in glitter and wearing green g-strings engaging in stripper pole dance routines during the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

That being said, homophobia may be the motivating factor of the firemens' complaints, but I don't agree with the chief's decision to make attendance mandatory...and I do think they have a valid complaint given the lude nature of the taunts they received.

Do you think the firemen would've had a problem with attending a parade predominantly composed of heterosexual single women who may act in the same manner as the gays in this parade?

How is that relevent?

People ascribe to certain morays and beliefs. It was obvious that these firemen do not condone public homosexual lewdness. The article never states they disagree with a homosexual lifestyle, just the lewd acts they had to endure. Why is it such a crime that the firefighters don't want to be involved in that? Are we to push aside all of our principles in the name of tolerance and diversity?

It was just a counter example to the KKK parade that Starbuck was using. I'm not saying they don't have a right to what they approve of or disapprove of but their employer mandated that they go to a community event and they felt that they were harassed when they clearly were not. My example was just meant to show that the firemen would likely not feel sexually harassed by a woman flashing her breasts whereas somehow a man grabbing his crotch is sexual harassment. They're using sexual harassment as an excuse for their personal close-mindedness.

Well no shit sherlock, of course sexual harassment is subjective. If you went up to a female co-worker and grabbed your crotch, you'd be fired for sexual harassment, rightly so. Of course that could be considered sexual harassment, just because their gay doesn't mean that get a free pass.....

Go do that to a female co-worker and then when you're in your bosses office getting fired, just explain to him that your co-worker is just being close minded, I'm they'll understand. :roll:

I never said that they should get a free pass. How does one complain that a public group of people acting in a lewd fashion is sexual harassment only when it's from a gay crowd? If it was a group of good looking women acting in a lewd fashion, it's no longer sexual harassment but wanted attention? How about fat, ugly women acting in a lewd manner? Is that now sexual harassment again? I'm just saying that their complaints that the attendees of the gay parade were sexually harassing them with lewd comments and actions was more likely based on their personal prejudices than from a legitimate feeling of being harassed.

Imagine if there were a few gay firemen in that crew. Would that group not feel harassed while the straight firemen did?

I'm not sure what your point is. The person being harassed has always been the one to decide what is offensive to them. A woman flashing me would not be offensive to me, a man flashing me would be. Different things are offensive to different people, thats the way its always been.....

Why is it that you are suddenly a prejudiced homophobe just because you don't want some guy grabbing his crotch in front of you? Thats like calling someone a prejudiced homophobe because they don't want to have sex with a guy, but do want to have sex with a woman.

I guess my problem is in the fact that sexual harassment is entirely based on a subjective opinion like you initially mentioned. It just seems awkward to have a law based on protection from being offended.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the difference here is that the harrassment is coming from the crowd that the fire company cannot control, vs. pinups which come from workers that you have direct control over.

Also, I think the official functions wouldn't be to put out fires at the place so much as it would be some sort of PR thing in my opinion. I really don't know what is considered official duties in this case, but in many public service jobs official duties go outside the direct performance of your primary job. (much to my dismay when I joined the navy I found out my official duties involved a lot of standing in parades, at functions, etc. urgh.)

But the fire company could have controlled it, by not forcing people to attend. Try holding your next company meeting at a strip club, force everyone to attend, and see how many sexual harassment complaints you get. Just because you might call it an "official function" doesn't mean that you can force people to do whatever you want. But yea, these guys should have refused to go, then sued if they got fired.

Anyways, if they were forced to be there for safety then yes, they should have to go. But they should not be forced to be there to take part in a parade. I think that should hold true across the board. If a Jewish firefighter doesn't wan't to be part of a Christmas parade he shouldn't have to either.