Guinness Opts Out of NYC’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade Over Anti-Gay Policy

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


That was only a minor section of over 2000 studies showing the genetic link - search PubMed, there's extensive data on there.

He's a Patron Saint. It's a public holiday. I'm from the UK, I live in a part where signs on buildings used to read 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' just a few decades ago - so for a celebration of Irish heritage and 'the struggle' to exclude people at the spear of 'the struggle' is plain stupid. Especially when Paddy was famous for wearing dresses and hanging round exclusively with guys and spoke.

It has nothing to do with maintaining Catholic tradition - though shall not kill is one of the central tenants, yet terrorist funding groups were allowed to openly march. People drink alcohol despite it being an abstinence only event. There's even cocktails called 'Irish car bombs' and 'black & tan' - celebrating mass slaughter of civillians that are openly sold and no one bats an eyelid.

All the organisers are doing is cherry picking which parts to believe in order to single out and exclude a group - if they applied it uniformly than I wouldn't have much of a problem.

Sorry but when you have such backwards, hate filled views, I'm not going to pretend I respect your point of view or take the time to be polite - it's groundless bigotry, hatred and ignorance and deserves to be tackled in the strongest terms.

Al the marches around here allow rainbow flags and no one cares. People wear rainbow sashes and badges and you really have to strain to notice - there's none of this walking round in leather chaps, dry humping each other in front of kids nonsense people are spouting.

The rest of the world jokes that you can't have St Paddy's day without a bit of Gaelic - the Church and Clergy have largely grown up and realised there are far more pressing problems in the world and their own organisation to tackle then spouting hatred and condemnation at adults who are in love. I thought the US was meant to be obsessed with upholding the constitution and first amendment rights?

reply to post by markosity1973

Or maybe the gay community just wants to say, "we love St Patty and we celebrate his day too." Did you ever think of that? Why is it when we want to take part in something, everyone persecutes us for 'trying to take over'

St Patrick's day goes off in gay pubs and there is more than a few kegs of guiness shared by all FYI

Everyone was allowed to participate in the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Anyone of any creed was encouraged to join and march and to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. The problem arose when the gay folk wanted to march along with all their signs and political statements. Why did the gay community demand a special privilege? Why didn't they simply march along with everyone else as the parade organizers had planned? I have no sympathy for that community in this regard.

All the gay community accomplished was publicity of their perceived discrimination. Which was probably the goal all along. They didn't care about the holiday. They didn't care about the people that wanted to celebrate the holiday in peace. All they cared about was their own agenda and they used the St. Patrick's Day Parade to promote and exploit it. Pathetic behavior.

reply to post by markosity1973

Both of them say who they are and are non offensive in my opinion and I would not take issue with either. The real truth is that people want to keep the gay hidden away in some apartheid state.

You are wrong about that. No one wants to keep gays hidden away as you claim. The difference between the two groups you compared is not as simple as you imply. One group is declaring their sexuality in their march as if that is somehow important to the rest of the world. To march simply for the sake of your sexuality is trivial and does not compare. That aspect is why people oppose that sort of expression. No one cares what your sexuality is or who you are attracted to. Other groups or organizations march for the beliefs and actions of that particular group; sexuality has nothing to do with why they march. Why does that band have to declare their sexuality to the world? What relevance does their sexuality have to do with the music they produce? Or the city of Charlotte? Why must they also make a political statement?

That there is the major difference between the two groups. One has ulterior motives for their march and the other does not. Which is why the parade organizers wisely decided to refuse preferential or special treatment for any particular group. No one was stopping gays from participating except the gays themselves. I mean the gay community calls for fair and equal treatment yet when they are treated such they cry foul and shout discrimination. Ironic isn't it?

My_Reality


That there is the major difference between the two groups. One has ulterior motives for their march and the other does not. Which is why the parade organizers wisely decided to refuse preferential or special treatment for any particular group. No one was stopping gays from participating except the gays themselves. I mean the gay community calls for fair and equal treatment yet when they are treated such they cry foul and shout discrimination. Ironic isn't it?

Any evidence for this or is it all based on assumption?

In every other march they march behind a banner with the name of the group on, just like every other group does and what the rules state every group is allowed to do (rainbow flags were banned). All news reports state they wanted to march behind a banner, nothing more. It wasn't special treatment, purely equal treatment, denial of equal treatment seems like discrimination to me.

If they were demanding they be given the right to break the rules then it'd only be fair to refuse the request, but I can't find a single report that states they wanted to do anything other than have a banner with the group name on.

The New York mayor is skipping the parade over the organiser’s ban of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual participants carrying banners or the rainbow colours displaying their sexual orientation.

www.irishtimes.com...

Flags other than American or Irish ones were banned, so that rules out the rainbow flag, but banners with names on were allowed for every other group apart from gay people's, despite the rules stating they had the right to do so. Hardly fair is it?

As for marching with ulterior motives - groups who fund terrorism were allowed to openly march yet LGBT ones weren't - which is the most harmful?

All other groups were allowed to march under the banner stating their indentity (i.e Irish police, cheerleaders) so why ban gay ones? Displaying the word LGBT on a sign isn't open sexualisation, engaging in sexual acts is.

reply to post by My_Reality

Wrong and wrong I am afraid. On p10 I have posted a pic of the emerald society of the NY police. They have complied with all rules and have 1 x American flag, 1 x Irish flag, but they also have several other flags as well. They also have a banner that says who they are.

The gay community were denied because they wanted to have LGBT on their banner. If we can't even call ourselves an abbreviation then it's pretty obvious that they are just being plain biased. As the emerald society were flying other flags, I cannot see why the rainbow flag would not be allowed either. The rainbow flag has no political slogans on it, and it is the symbol of the gay community and it represents diversity - we are as diverse as the colours of the rainbow. That's all, nothing sinister about that at all and it is an inclusive statement as diversity covers all of humanity, not just us.

The rules clearly state no tshirts with slogans etc and that is not what this is about. All rules were complied with. They just chose to discrimate over 4 letters on a banner.

As I have said, that is pure discrimination.

ChaosEpsilon
Homosexuality is a mental illness. It's fine to have one but not right to parade a mental illness around and show it off to people like it's the most normal thing in the world. Guinness is free to do what they want, but it won't stop me from thinking they're ridiculous.

Bravo. One of the dumbest comments on ATS to date.

Well done, for exemplifying your own stupidity to an audience of thousands.

reply to post by markosity1973


While there are particular examples of unfairness that can be demonstrated by a few private companies, what basic right are you being denied on a national level aside from the right to get married in certain states? Which if that's your one hang up, fair enough. Otherwise, I'm curious what you mean exactly as I don't share the perspective and am unaware of other basic rights you may be missing.

reply to post by GrimReaper86


I'm sorry, that question is somewhere from the left field. The topic of this thread is the denial of entry into a parade because of the term lgbt on a banner.

We are discussing this topic, not the whole arena of gay rights in the world.

As for a brief answer to your direct question, that depends upon where you live in the world. In some countries you are put to death for being gay still.

Greven

LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by bastion

 

Studies suggesting some genetic link are not the same as studies proving a "gay gene", which hasn't ever happened.

The issue is that a group was old they weren't allowed to push their agenda in a St. Patrick's Day parade.

1) Bring up proof as a rebuttal or be silent. Nobody gives a crap about your opinion in the face of actual evidence.

2) What agenda? Gay Irish groups wanted to march in a parade celebrating Irish heritage, abiding by all of the rules. Cops get to march in the parade in uniform. Military get to march in the parade in uniform. They probably aren't even all Irish. Further, in actual Ireland, gay Irish groups march with their parades and nobody bats an eye.

You can't offer proof of a negative. The simple fact is that NO study has ever located a gene that causes everyone that has it to be homosexual. There simply is no such thing. No one needs your permission to state facts.

If someone is Irish, and wanted to march as an Irish person, they were allowed to do so. What wasn't allowed was marching as a "gay" Irish person. That isn't what the parade is about. Cities in Ireland can handle things as they wish, and cities here can do the same. "You should do this because so-and-so is." has never been a valid argument.

bastion
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

That was only a minor section of over 2000 studies showing the genetic link - search PubMed, there's extensive data on there.

I have looked at various studies, including information that is seen in the studies, and later misrepresented. Searches show his to be the case. It's simply not genetic.

bastion
He's a Patron Saint. It's a public holiday. I'm from the UK, I live in a part where signs on buildings used to read 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' just a few decades ago - so for a celebration of Irish heritage and 'the struggle' to exclude people at the spear of 'the struggle' is plain stupid. Especially when Paddy was famous for wearing dresses and hanging round exclusively with guys and spoke.

There have been signs here, in decades past (quite a few at this point) that excluded people based on race. That doesn't mean, however, that every parade should have marchers for civil rights issues. There is a place for that, and a parade for an Irish "saint" isn't that place. Marching as Irish was allowed for anyone. Marching as homosexual is what wasn't allowed, and that has nothing to do with being Irish. Police march because, in many cases, the police forces were very heavily Irish in composition, so it's become a tradition.

bastion
It has nothing to do with maintaining Catholic tradition - though shall not kill is one of the central tenants, yet terrorist funding groups were allowed to openly march. People drink alcohol despite it being an abstinence only event. There's even cocktails called 'Irish car bombs' and 'black & tan' - celebrating mass slaughter of civillians that are openly sold and no one bats an eyelid.

A drink named after a terrorist action is simply tacky. People supporting that, as has happened, is also wrong.

bastion
All the organisers are doing is cherry picking which parts to believe in order to single out and exclude a group - if they applied it uniformly than I wouldn't have much of a problem.

What the organizers did was exclude a group that wanted sexuality to be an issue in the parade, because they didn't believe that was the place for that. Unless they allowed some other group specifically promoting their sexuality, there is no singling out of anyone. Such issues should be kept private for the most part, anyway. They are personal. People can see who a person is by their behavior, and waving "pride" signs around for ANY issue or trait is, in my opinion, silly. If someone believes they are born a certain way, why is that something to be proud of? Such actions tend to attract negative attention, and that doesn't help anyone. No matter who we are, someone will always disagree with us based on that.

bastion
Sorry but when you have such backwards, hate filled views, I'm not going to pretend I respect your point of view or take the time to be polite - it's groundless bigotry, hatred and ignorance and deserves to be tackled in the strongest terms.

It isn't "backward" to believe that homosexuality is wrong, nor is it "hate filled". It is simply my opinion. I know a lot of people that do things that aren't right, but I don't hate them for that. We ALL do things we should not. Calling some one "backward" and "hate filled" because they disagree looks like the bigotry you claim to condemn.

bastion
Al the marches around here allow rainbow flags and no one cares. People wear rainbow sashes and badges and you really have to strain to notice - there's none of this walking round in leather chaps, dry humping each other in front of kids nonsense people are spouting.

A rainbow isn't a sign of homosexuality, but a reminder of a promise from God. For the Irish, you also have the bit about a pot o' gold at the end of one. The other behavior you mention has taken place in parades before. The videos are all over the internet. Maybe that doesn't happen in the UK, but it DOES happen here. Such behavior has even been seen in a well known theme park that set aside a special day for gay patrons. That, I would bet, is the reason the parade people made the decision they did. I don't think anyone, no matter what their sexual habits, should behave like that in public.

bastion
The rest of the world jokes that you can't have St Paddy's day without a bit of Gaelic - the Church and Clergy have largely grown up and realised there are far more pressing problems in the world and their own organisation to tackle then spouting hatred and condemnation at adults who are in love. I thought the US was meant to be obsessed with upholding the constitution and first amendment rights?

edit on 20-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

That's a rather silly pun. That isn't an actual cognate, you know. Besides, it isn't hateful to prohibit sexual issues being made part of a parade. If, as is claimed, that isn't the main focus of who a gay person is, then why the focus on announcing it? Just do your thing, and keep it personal, as it should be. It might surprise you, but I have known more than a handful of gay people. A couple were neighbors of my parents, when I was in high school. We were all on friendly terms, and even had parties together. Then, no one made a big deal out of it. No one was allowed, at their home, to harass anyone that wasn't interested, no matter who they might prefer, and people didn't focus on that. They knew not everyone agreed with their choices, but it didn't matter. Who agrees with every single thing every friend they have does anyway? No one I know!

As far as rights are concerned, while I don't agree with homosexual behavior, I won't deny someone the right to state they do, and thus, obscene behavior excepted, have no problem with a parade for such a thing. That is their decision, and they have the right to state it the same as anyone else. I don't believe, though, that pushing this during an event for something else is the right way to go about it. What other controversial group was allowed to march? Any? Again, that would have been out of place, just as someone protesting homosexuality would be marching in a gay pride parade.

LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by bastion

 

You can't offer proof of a negative. The simple fact is that NO study has ever located a gene that causes everyone that has it to be homosexual. There simply is no such thing. No one needs your permission to state facts.

If someone is Irish, and wanted to march as an Irish person, they were allowed to do so. What wasn't allowed was marching as a "gay" Irish person. That isn't what the parade is about. Cities in Ireland can handle things as they wish, and cities here can do the same. "You should do this because so-and-so is." has never been a valid argument.

I never said anyone needs my permission, only saying that nobody cares about your mere opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary. Where's the proof of this fact you claim? It cannot be a fact if there is no proof. Further, P->Q, ~Q :. ~P is a perfectly valid form of logic. Your assertion that you can't offer proof of a negative is utterly wrong and attributed to a hack named James Randi. This entire website is based on debunking misinformation like that spouted by James Randi. Based on evidence that we do have, scientific opinion leans towards various things. We have evidence that trans and gay individuals are biologically different from straight individuals. We do not have evidence contrary to this as of yet, save for your assertion since you offer no evidence to the contrary, or it would be published in journals and we'd go back to not knowing what causes these things.

The parade is about Irish heritage, and people of Irish heritage were excluded from openly marching as everyone else does. It might not be unconstitutional or illegal for the organizers to do such a thing, but as other groups of people (who weren't necessarily all even of Irish descent) were able to openly march with their banners, it seems discriminatory. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

LadyGreenEyes
SNIP

Well that's a load of nonsense - how do identified genetic markers have nothing to do with genes? Where's your evidence it has nothing to do with genes, considering it's the established scientific consensus on the matter. Link me to all these papers you've studied proving there is no genetic link whatsoever and state the qualifications you have to evaluate the data.

Rainbow flags have nothing to do with LGBT and are instead a promise from god? Please tell me you're joking.

No they specifically singled out and stopped gay people from marching behind a banner. That is pure discrimination. What's sexual about a banner with words on? Absolutely nothing. If they'd applied the rules uniformly or abided by Catholic values to have a traditional parade I wouldn't have a problem but neither of those things happened.

Sorry but it is backwards to cast a negative moral judgement on consenting adults' sexuality and to lie about the role genes play. It has absolutely nothing to do with you and is none of your business. If you genuinely feel being homosexual is wrong then at least have the decency to keep your archaic opinions to yourself.

Like I said before terrorist funders were allowed to openly march, LGBT people weren't - if that doesn't set alarm bells ringing I don't know what will.

No company wants to be associated with bigots and idiots. Being on the wrong side of history is never a good thing. In the end people will look back at things like this and find it hard to believe that things like this even had to happen. Much like people look back at whites only water fountains.

Just found this out

Why Guinness is less Irish than you think

Arthur Guinness, who founded the brewery in Dublin in 1759, might have been surprised that his drink would one day become such a potent national symbol. He was a committed unionist and opponent of Irish nationalism, who before the Irish Rebellion of 1798 was even accused of spying for the British authorities. His descendants continued passionately to support unionism—one giving the Ulster Volunteer Force £10,000 in 1913 (about £1m, or $1.7m, in today’s money) to fund a paramilitary campaign to resist Ireland being given legislative independence. The company was alleged to have lent men and equipment to the British army to help crush Irish rebels during the Easter Rising of 1916, afterwards firing members of staff whom it believed to have Irish-nationalist sympathies.

Even in terms of branding, the company was considering disassociating itself from its Irish reputation as recently as the 1980s. Worried about the impact on sales of the IRA’s terrorist campaign during the Troubles, Guinness came close in 1982 to re-launching the brand as an English beer brewed in west London. But as Northern Ireland’s situation improved in the 1990s, the company’s marketing strategy changed again towards marketing the beer as Irish, aiming its product at tourists in Ireland and the estimated 70m people of Irish descent living around the world. Now the Guinness Storehouse, part of the original Dublin factory which was reopened as a tourist attraction in 2000, promotes Guinness to tourists as an Irish beer once again.

Source

For those of you who are offended by the rainbow flag, I suggest you do some reading. It's not something that is exclusive to the gay community by far.

Rainbow flag

When you arc up in protest over it, you are protesting against diversity. I think that says something in itself really.....

The discrimination goes even further: The police is now going after heter osexual activity in connection with St. Patricks Day.

Greven
I never said anyone needs my permission, only saying that nobody cares about your mere opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary. Where's the proof of this fact you claim? It cannot be a fact if there is no proof. Further, P->Q, ~Q :. ~P is a perfectly valid form of logic. Your assertion that you can't offer proof of a negative is utterly wrong and attributed to a hack named James Randi. This entire website is based on debunking misinformation like that spouted by James Randi. Based on evidence that we do have, scientific opinion leans towards various things. We have evidence that trans and gay individuals are biologically different from straight individuals. We do not have evidence contrary to this as of yet, save for your assertion since you offer no evidence to the contrary, or it would be published in journals and we'd go back to not knowing what causes these things.

The parade is about Irish heritage, and people of Irish heritage were excluded from openly marching as everyone else does. It might not be unconstitutional or illegal for the organizers to do such a thing, but as other groups of people (who weren't necessarily all even of Irish descent) were able to openly march with their banners, it seems discriminatory. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

edit on 9Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:09:53 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: (screwed up tags)

edit on 9Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:10:18 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: (spelling)

edit on 9Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:12:26 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: clarification

There is no evidence of a gene for homosexuality. Some studies claim (and others dispute this) that there might be something genetic that might cause a person to lean in that direction. That's a long way from a gene that flat out causes it.

The parade is about St. Patrick's Day, not about anyone's sexuality. Nothing of that sort should be in such a parade. That some might have had things related to terrorism in the past doesn't mean you allow this now. The two aren't related.

bastion

LadyGreenEyes
SNIP

Well that's a load of nonsense - how do identified genetic markers have nothing to do with genes? Where's your evidence it has nothing to do with genes, considering it's the established scientific consensus on the matter. Link me to all these papers you've studied proving there is no genetic link whatsoever and state the qualifications you have to evaluate the data.

Rainbow flags have nothing to do with LGBT and are instead a promise from god? Please tell me you're joking.

No they specifically singled out and stopped gay people from marching behind a banner. That is pure discrimination. What's sexual about a banner with words on? Absolutely nothing. If they'd applied the rules uniformly or abided by Catholic values to have a traditional parade I wouldn't have a problem but neither of those things happened.

Sorry but it is backwards to cast a negative moral judgement on consenting adults' sexuality and to lie about the role genes play. It has absolutely nothing to do with you and is none of your business. If you genuinely feel being homosexual is wrong then at least have the decency to keep your archaic opinions to yourself.

Like I said before terrorist funders were allowed to openly march, LGBT people weren't - if that doesn't set alarm bells ringing I don't know what will.

edit on 21-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

You snipped out the entire quote? Why not simply hit "reply", instead?

The facts speak for themselves, and there is no evidence for a "gay gene". I actually did some searching around online, and there isn't anything. At most, you might find discussion of possibilities, but even those aren't certain. Mostly, what you see is that nothing of that sort has been found. In any case, the issue here isn't that, but what should and should not be in a parade.

No one was told they could not participate. What was stated was that banners promoting "gay pride" or whatever weren't allowed. That is obviously related to sexual practices. Pretending it isn't isn't being honest.

Now, frankly, I really don't care if you like my opinions or not. I will still state them. They aren't "archaic", either, and are shared by the majority of the country. If that wasn't the case, a good 85%, roughly, wouldn't vote against the "gay marriage" issue. Archaic? No; that's simply a label you use to try and diminish the opposing point of view. It's a lame tactic.

If you feel my opinions are wrong, then keep that to yourself. How does that she fit?

LadyGreenEyes

Now, frankly, I really don't care if you like my opinions or not. I will still state them. They aren't "archaic", either, and are shared by the majority of the country. If that wasn't the case, a good 85%, roughly, wouldn't vote against the "gay marriage" issue. Archaic? No; that's simply a label you use to try and diminish the opposing point of view. It's a lame tactic.

There are opinions, and there are facts.

Here are some facts:

from Citation - Polls on Attitudes Toward Homosexuals and Marriage Equality March 2013

Americans are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians in politics. Around 7 in 10 now say they would vote for a well-qualified gay or lesbian American for president.

Sixty-nine percent reported in a recent NBC/WSJ poll that they personally know someone who is gay or lesbian. In 1992, 22 percent told interviewers that they had a friend or close acquaintance who was gay.

Americans continue to be divided over whether people are born gay or choose to be so. In November 2012, 45 percent told Gallup pollsters that being gay or lesbian is something you are born with. Thirty-six percent said it is due to factors such as upbringing and the environment.

In the latest Gallup poll, 53 percent say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. Forty-six percent said they should not. Other more recent polls align with this finding.

Support for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is slipping. At the same time, a plurality of Americans told National Journal/United Technology pollsters that they would prefer if each state decided whether to permit or ban same-sex marriage, instead of constitutional amendments either permitting or prohibiting same sex-marriages at the national level.

In a March 2012 Public Religion Research Institute poll, 54 percent favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.

Gallup July 2013 - In US, 52% Back Law to Provide Marriage Equality

Pew Research July 2013 - Should Homosexuality be Accepted - 60% of Americans say Yes

... and so on ...

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


So you wantr others to not reply to you If they disagree?
NOPE...If we see Ill informed archaic outdated views on a subject it is our right (as it is yours) to speak against those views.
How old are you btw? I just see your view as old and wrong...good job it is a dying view and good riddance.

Oh and also your stats are way off.

Here in the UK 68% of people agree with gay marriage and that will rise as the older generations die off.
So I would get with the times and evolve your feelings eh? I mean it isn't like two gay people getting married effects you one tiny bit.