New York St Pats Parade - Gays need not apply

[MagickMan]

Ok, since I responded to your point to begin with, what political signs were you referring to?

The ones they weren't allowed to bring so they left them behind. Since they did abide by the rules and left them at home, they were allowed to march. Fancy that? :\

 

[mikeymikec]

The ones they weren't allowed to bring so they left them behind. Since they did abide by the rules and left them at home, they were allowed to march. Fancy that? :\

How were the signs political? Do you know what they said?

 

[MagickMan]

How were the signs political? Do you know what they said?

If they left them at home, obviously they were suspect, since non-political signs were allowed.

 

[mikeymikec]

If they left them at home, obviously they were suspect, since non-political signs were allowed.

So you don't know what they said, you believe that they were political in nature.

The odd thing is, I haven't seen a single news article that mentions LGBT groups wanting to bring political signs. Pretty much every one says what the OP's article said, being:

"Both parades have policies under which sexual orientation is not allowed to be displayed, meaning marchers are not able to hold signs or wear shirts identifying themselves as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender)."

Do you have a reputable news source which agrees with your understanding of what happened?

 

[bshole]

So you don't know what they said, you believe that they were political in nature.

Actually you got me curious now. Does anybody know what they said or have an image of them? It is hard to come down on either side of this absent that information.

 

[MagickMan]

So you don't know what they said, you believe that they were political in nature.

The odd thing is, I haven't seen a single news article that mentions LGBT groups wanting to bring political signs. Pretty much every one says what the OP's article said, being:

"Both parades have policies under which sexual orientation is not allowed to be displayed, meaning marchers are not able to hold signs or wear shirts identifying themselves as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender)."

Do you have a reputable news source which agrees with your understanding of what happened?

If they left them behind there was obviously something wrong with the signs, the parade rules say nothing about orientation, just politics. So there's also something wrong with your source.

 

[mikeymikec]

If they left them behind there was obviously something wrong with the signs, the parade rules say nothing about orientation, just politics. So there's also something wrong with your source.

Please cite your sources then.

I've just googled for it, here's what I found:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/guinness-pulls-out-new-yorks-st-patricks-day-parade
"Organisers of St. Patrick’s Day parades in New York and Boston, among the most liberal-leaning cities in the United States, have come under increasing criticism in recent years for banning openly gay marchers.Parade organisers argue that to do so would conflict with their Roman Catholic heritage. The Catholic church contends that homosexual activity is immoral."

The Daily Mail FWIW:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pectators-including-gay-protesters-route.html
"Parade organizers in New York and Boston, two of the most liberal U.S. cities, have long excluded openly gay marchers, saying that doing so would conflict with the group's Roman Catholic heritage."

BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26616985
"Parade organisers said gay groups are not prohibited but may not carry identifying banners."

Crisis Magazine, FWIW:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/gay-activists-target-st-patricks-day-parade
"Why? Because the parade’s organizers have for two decades steadfastly refused to allow gay and lesbian organizations to march under banners trumpeting their sexual orientation"

Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-usa-boston-st-patricks-idUSBREA2F0HY20140317
"The move came on the same day that Boston's Irish-American mayor skipped that city's St. Patrick's Day parade after failing to hammer out a deal with organizers to allow a group of gay and lesbian activists to march openly."

 

[MagickMan]

None of that talks about signs, but they were in the parade, so obviously they were allowed to participate. According to the rules, as long as a group isn't trying to foist an agenda off on the public or other participants, just about anyone is invited. I imagine it IS possible to actually BE gay, without banners that could detract from it first and foremost being an Irish celebration. No doubt there were folks there who strictly love BBW, but carrying large signs announcing such devotion wouldn't fit in either.

 

[mikeymikec]

Some gay people were in a parade. The rules apparently were that they were not allowed to have signs that inform people about their sexual orientation.

How many times does it need to be said in this thread that gay people were not banned from the parades and that no-one has claimed that?

There were some people in that parade that were obviously to do with the military because of their uniforms (probably signs / flags too). The same very likely applies for the W.I., and every other organisation that officially participated. But not for the LGBT community to openly march. Double standards? That's what I believe, and I'm pretty sure that's what every company that pulled their sponsorship believes, and I'm pretty sure that a large company is not going to pass up an opportunity to have their logos plastered all over an event like that unless they feel they've got a pretty good reason, as well as the mayor of NYC distancing himself from the event.

The media doesn't seem to be in any disagreement (which is pretty damn unusual, even across continents) over why the LGBT community was not allowed to openly march, I'm wondering why you're still trying to argue like it was for any other reason when you've got absolutely nothing to go on. If the organisers of the event felt like the media had painted them in a totally incorrect light I'm pretty sure they would have issued a statement with the full facts in.

 

[Zaap]

^ LOL!
I see this dummy is still spinning like a top over his faux outrage. The display of illogic is one of the worst I've seen around here, and that's saying a lot for this place.

First up, the blazing irony of saying "no one has claimed gays were banned" in a thread flamingly titled "...Gays need not apply".

Then the idiocy of demanding someone prove a negative: "What did signs THAT NO ONE HAD AT THE PARADE say?" It's like demanding to know where are all the men in the ladies' restroom.

This has gotta be one of those things that makes most ordinary, sane gay people roll thier eyes. I imagine most that had anything to do with the St. Patricks' Day parade just were there to celebrate the Irish (imagine that) and nothing to do with their sexual orientation. They probably get annoyed that a small minority of dimbulbs have to try and make everything into a "let's hijack this and shove our agenda down everyone's throat!" thing, to the point the parade organizers have had to make rules stopping morons from doing that.

So basically, you can't go there and fly a banner announcing anything about your sexual orientation (and why should that be part of anything?) or announcing some political agenda since it's not a political event. No one really gives a shit if you're gay, or you're a guy who iikes banging fat chicks, or if you're a lady who's into dog-sex, the parade isn't about whatever your personal sexual preferences is , and most people, gay or straight that aren't loonbags can understand that.

You also apparently can't carry signs saying "Support gay marriage" or "Vote for yes on prop whatever" or whatever else that's political in nature. Big friggen whoop, that's not persecution, that's just no one wants anyone making the parade all about their political agenda crap.

It's always the emo-twits that have to try and ruin everything for everyone else, and turn things that are fun into lame-fests. And they actually think they're advancing gay rights or anything else by being annoying, party-pooping prickbags.

 

[Zorkorist]

There is no one more exclusive than a group of people.

-John

 

[spittledip]

They need to let Italians march in red. I forgot to wear red yesterday unfortunately...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mKEyK11GRU

 

[IGBT]

save the crotch politics for the homosexual parades.

 

[mikeymikec]

^ LOL!
I see this dummy is still spinning like a top over his faux outrage. The display of illogic is one of the worst I've seen around here, and that's saying a lot for this place.

First up, the blazing irony of saying "no one has claimed gays were banned" in a thread flamingly titled "...Gays need not apply".

Zaap becomes acquainted with the fact that headlines are abbreviated versions of the story, sometimes to the point where inaccuracy creeps in unintentionally (or intentionally, to shock the reader into reading further). News at 11.

Then the idiocy of demanding someone prove a negative: "What did signs THAT NO ONE HAD AT THE PARADE say?" It's like demanding to know where are all the men in the ladies' restroom.

Because you and other people are/were claiming that they were "political" and that's why they couldn't bring them, which is based on absolutely no source/fact whatsoever, here:

You also apparently can't carry signs saying "Support gay marriage" or "Vote for yes on prop whatever" or whatever else that's political in nature. Big friggen whoop, that's not persecution, that's just no one wants anyone making the parade all about their political agenda crap.

They probably get annoyed that a small minority of dimbulbs have to try and make everything into a "let's hijack this and shove our agenda down everyone's throat!" thing, to the point the parade organizers have had to make rules stopping morons from doing that.

So basically, you can't go there and fly a banner announcing anything about your sexual orientation (and why should that be part of anything?) or announcing some political agenda since it's not a political event.

Responding to the bit in bold - why should a military organisation labelling itself as such, or the W.I., or just about every other organisation be allowed to do it? Is it relevant to the topic of St. Patrick's Day? The logic behind the other organisations being able to openly march is "we don't see a reason why not", but sexual orientation is the exception.

I imagine most that had anything to do with the St. Patricks' Day parade just were there to celebrate the Irish (imagine that) and nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

I actually started reading this thread with the idea of "I'm wondering whether the people wanting to do a gay pride parade thing here in a situation that's not anything to do with it", but of all the organisations who officially participated in the parade to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, there's only one that's not allowed to openly do it apparently. This user's post made me reconsider my initial opinion:

You ever see a float or group in a parade that wasn't identified?

And the theories as to why the LGBT community would be excluded from openly participating:

You also apparently can't carry signs saying "Support gay marriage" or "Vote for yes on prop whatever" or whatever else that's political in nature. Big friggen whoop, that's not persecution, that's just no one wants anyone making the parade all about their political agenda crap.

Which you've got no evidence to support your assertion that they wanted/planned to do that. If you don't want to cite some credible sources to aid your argument (as well as your use of hyperbolic terms like 'hijack' in this context), then I don't see what else there is to discuss, since it's pretty much the basis of your argument so far (that and flinging insults).

 

[finglobes]

Obviously the homosexual groups don't just want to simply march. They want to be ostentatious and make the parade about them. Nothing new about that. The AIDs epidemic and Act-Up taught them that bullying works. That's why the bullying movement itself is driven by bullies trying to bully their agenda while pretending to be against bullying.

 

[IGBT]

Obviously the homosexual groups don't just want to simply march. They want to be ostentatious and make the parade about them. Nothing new about that. The AIDs epidemic and Act-Up taught them that bullying works. That's why the bullying movement itself is driven by bullies trying to bully their agenda while pretending to be against bullying.

..it's crotch politics. all part of the liberal agenda.

 

[finglobes]

Catholic League president Bill Donohue has applied to march in NYC Gay Pride parade.


Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, says he has filed an application to march in the New York City Gay Pride Parade this year.



"Donohue — who is boycotting the makers of Guinness Stout, Sam Adams, and Heineken beers after they bowed to gay-rights groups and dropped their support for New York's St. Patrick's Day Parade — says he wants to prove a point.

"I went to the managing director of the Heritage of Pride Parade and ... said, listen, I want to march under my own banner, 'Straight Is Great,' in the 2014 Heritage of Pride Parade...[The gays] have rules and have a right to have their rules, which say you have to have LGBT signs, if you're a corporation sponsor — we'll take your money — but you can't have the corporation logo," Donohue said."


Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Bill-Donohue-parade-gay-straight/2014/03/19/id/560592#ixzz2wSHZICSQ

 

[Zaap]

LOL! So it turns out there are rules one needs to follow in order to march in the LGBT parade, and you can't just carry a sign that says something the organizers don't want as part of their parade. Imagine that!

It's always hilarious when loonbags want a double standard.