San Diego Firefighters Forced To Attend Gay Pride Parade

griff, the guys did not want to go and requested that the boss send someone else...they were given the order to go to the parade anyway, and that is when they proceeded to cry.
after their fellow fireman made jokes at their expense.....

they felt that others should have gone and the higher ups didn't.
nice and simple.
they can quit and go work at mcdonalds or something....

hopefully this case gets tossed out or they get a judge that is not a homophobe...i really will hate to see any type of reward given to these jerks

Originally posted by Boondock78
hopefully this case gets tossed out or they get a judge that is not a homophobe...i really will hate to see any type of reward given to these jerks

I can only imagine what kind of precident will come out of this if they do.

I'm still wondering why it is the fire department or the city's fault that these men were harrassed by civilians not related to the fire department nor the city (other than being citizens of the city)?

I wonder what the difference would be if these guys were ordered to attend Mardi Gras. Would they still be whining?

Originally posted by Griff
I wonder what the difference would be if these guys were ordered to attend Mardi Gras. Would they still be whining?

of course not....read the complaint linked in the first article of the first post or read the bolded parts i put up.

it was clearly stated that they made it known they didn't want to go but if given an order, they would...they stated that.
so, the boss gave them an order.
i am thinking they thought that their making it known they didn't want to go would make the boss want to send others and when it didn't happen, they got pissed. but, they only got mad after their fellow fireman started to make fun of them.

they stated in the complaint they have never had to attend a parade of this 'type' before and they were subjected to humiliation and it has tarnished the fire dept.

thats all a buncho crap.

translation=
they didn't want to go but had to. their buds started to make fun of them and in return, they started to feel emasculated(cause they are homophobes) and then they got to the parade and they saw 'the gays'..since they were in uniform, there 'might' have been people in attendence that would witness them taking a remark from a 'gay' and in return, what would their friends think of them?

thats what i think...i think they are homophobic and i think they got ticked when they didn't get their way and when their buds started to make fun, they really got their feelings hurt.

as to mardi gras, i think they'd be volunteering for that one seeing as lotsa ladies show the bedlums....
that kind of display is fine though..

*this is all my opinion and speculation but after reading the article and the comlaint, that is what i believe at this time

Originally posted by Boondock78
*this is all my opinion and speculation but after reading the article and the comlaint, that is what i believe at this time

I'd say, you're probably right. Why does it even mention the teasing in the complaint? Is that suppossed to be part of the harrassment also? If not, why? That's more harrassment in my book than having to do your job.

Oh, really? That's what you've "tended to find", is it? Well, hell, why didn't you say so before - that makes you an expert on the subject and on my motives.

Well who tweaked your nose hair mate, get a grip and read the qualifying addendum which basically says that might not be the case with you.

And yeah having experienced some of the oh so varied levels of discrimination and bigotry, covert and overt, I've come across over the years I think it does make me a bit more of an expert than you. Crappy people make a lot of excuses for their crappy behaviour.

Originally posted by ubermunche bigotry, overt,

2 key words....it's all over in this thread, it's just written in cryptic ways. i think all of us, in our heart of hearts know what this is really about. i mean, the complaint even says that unless they were given the order, they would not go, and they were ordered to go.

it was their job...they just made it known they didn't want to go and got all bunged up anyway when they didn't let it go down that way.
you have many people in this thread defending the fireman with all sort of far out claims and such...

one dude was asking what if you were white and got dropped off an in all black neighborhood, how would you feel and even said that 'maybe' those guys feared getting stabbed..

what kind of horse dung is this man?
these big bad fireman are emasculated by 'the big bad gays' and they don't know how to handle it....THAT is what this is all about.

people thinking just cause you are there you support it...i've been to all kinds of crap i did not support, just cause i wanted to scope it out. i was 'ordered' to go work the auto show in cleveland when i was selling cars...i didn't want to. my job was to sell cars.....i could have refused and i could have been fired.
sometimes, in the real world you have to play by teh big boy rules and when the boss says go, you don't go.
these guys went. and cried.

I'm not exactly looking forward to reading 10 pages of itty bitty information or disinformation. So can someone say please...

Were they there on duty just like there would be police & ambulance crews there?

Or were they ordered to march in the parade?

There was a similar case in the UK this year, firefighters or police refused to attend a gay parade, they were heavily diciplined for their refusal.


I think all sensible people can agree that if they were there in attendance on duty as firefighters then it is absolutely right that they should be ordered to attend, and ceding their requests for someone else to go would have been wrong, and IMO if they requested not to attend because of homophobia that would make me more determined to send them there.

However if they were ordered to march in the parade that would be wrong.

Has this question been answered yet?

Originally posted by Boondock78
i could have refused and i could have been fired.
sometimes, in the real world you have to play by teh big boy rules and when the boss says go, you don't go.
these guys went. and cried.

Ok...the firemen were "ordered" to go, if not, they were in direct violation of a superiors order. And since a lot of the members on this board like to produce outlandish "what-if" scenarios to create some sort of equivalent relation to this event in their own lives and how they would handle it (yes, great 20/20 hindsight...), I will do the same.

"What-if" the firemen declined to attend? What would the people on this board say then? I guarantee that members on this board would be saying that they didn't attend because they were "homophobic" or "bigots" and that they should treat everyone with respect. But the firemen went, quite humbly, and did the they receive respect during the parade? NO.

Herein lies the true dilemma. A double-edge sword as could call it. Either way, the firemen are discriminated against. They choose not to go, it would have cause trouble. They chose to go (which they did), you see what happens to them at the parade. You people are not getting the point here. They were told to "participate" in the parade, not just sit on the sidelines. In previous years, this choice was not forced upon them.

I will not go to far into it, but forcing an agenda on someone doesn't work to well...be rational people.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by douglas2k4]

Originally posted by Wig
Or were they ordered to march in the parade?

There was a similar case in the UK this year, firefighters or police refused to attend a gay parade, they were heavily diciplined for their refusal.

However if they were ordered to march in the parade that would be wrong.

To answer your question, yes--they were on duty. And you prove my point in my previous post about the so-called "double-edge sword" conflict. The similar case you mention in the UK is what would have happened here (probably more harshly in the U.S.) if they would have refused to go. Thank you for mentioning that.

This thread has become such of a self-righteous echo chamber, it's ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if soon the firefighters are blamed for not having gay sex on gay pride day, just to get into the spirit of the whole thing. The smug self-righteous, self-proclaimed "tolerance" displayed here comes at the expense of the rights of others, no matter how blind to that fact the participants are. These men were not rude to a gay coworker. They didn't refuse to save a gay person from a fire. They simply didn't want to attend an extracurricular activity that they had no interest in, but were forced to and as a consequence became an object of public curiosity and scorn when they refused to pander to the gay attendees of the parade. Even the lesbian fire chief agrees:

San Diego fire chief Tracy Jarman, an open lesbian, said she apologized to the men, according to a statement. Jarman said any kind of sexual harassment is "unacceptable, and is never tolerated" in the department.

"I am deeply concerned and troubled by the allegations that have been made. I take them seriously," Jarman said in a statement.

Anyone who fails to see that this is indefensible is, at best, totally naïve.

In my opinion the city will settle out of court for this, since they haven't a legal leg to stand on here.

To be honest with you, as a gay man I'd rather they didn't go. Who wants people there that don't approve of you, like spectres at the feast. I think there reasons for not wanting to attend are skewed and based on prejudice but that's there problem not mine. Making martyrs of them only adds fuel to the fire. This wouldn't have been news if it was a Xtian fireman being forced to attend Mardi Gras or the Beach Babe parade and I suspect there is a huge level of hypocracy operating at some level but let 'em have it. It's all grist to the homo haters mill and I say hate instead of homophobia because that's essentially what it is, mean miserly hatred. Some people don't like queers and look for any spurious reason to vent that.

The world as it is. Thank you.

Originally posted by ubermunche
To be honest with you, as a gay man I'd rather they didn't go. Who wants people there that don't approve of you, like spectres at the feast.

Exactly. I have no idea why anyone would want to force someone who doesn't like you to your party, or someone outside of your religion to your church. Or anything else like that.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jsobecky
face the fact that gays are not universally accepted, and will never be. Forcing the issue only tends to make their case weaker and their opponents more stubborn.

Who's the one being transparent here. All I'll say. BTW, you got nerve. To sit there and argue with someone who has said they agree with you takes balls.

Why am I transparent? Because I said gays will never be universally accepted? Well, if it hasn't happened yet, chances are it never will happen.

Not being transparent, just realistic.

Originally posted by Boondock78

Originally posted by jsobecky
If your boss told you to attend one of these lovefests or else face suspension, I'd say you had a pretty good case of sexual harassment going for you.

^^^there you go again...true colors coming out? it was not a love fest, it was a march....silly head

I was addressing ubermunche with that post. Try to keep up. And it's very difficult to read your posts when you don't use the Quote tags properly.

Originally posted by Boondock78
all your little cryptic type paragraphs reveal much about you my friend...thats cool though.

Boondock, you have a real problem holding a discussion. You want to make this personal. You want me to state my personal feelings about gays. That way, it will give you something to try to attack, since you don't seem to be able to address the issues.

It won't happen. I've seen lame tactics like yours a million times.

I've said it before:

You're gay. That's fine.

You want to have a parade to tell the world you're gay. That's fine, too.

Go outside now, and have your parade.

But don't whine and call people crybabies just because they don't want to be in your parade. That's just bad manners.

How can I make it any clearer to you?

i just want to know the real reasons behind supporting the fireman.
so far, i have heard that it is illegal, it was a political agenda, the city had low resources, etc etc...
imo, those are but excuses

Final time, just for you: it is a case of sexual harassment. It is actually a perverted use of the 1st Amendment in reverse. I don't expect you to understand that, but that's what it was.

In creating an atmosphere of sexual harassment, other laws were broken, including using taxpayer time to promote a political agenda. Whether the parade can be classified as a political march is questionable, and will have to be proven in a court of law. But I have no doubt that the elements are there; what else could it be?

Negligent conduct charges could stem from the fact that Station 5's truck was used to march in the parade despite a shortage of resources in the city. To you that is just someone talking silly, but I assure you, if the truck were stuck in a crowd with no pre-planned escape route when an emergency happened across town, the victims would not share your amusement. That, however, is the job of mature adults - to create a safe environment where people can have the luxury of laughing at their efforts while they make sure the city is safe.

And finally, I'll state what is really bothering you. Quite possibly, these firemen simply do not care for gays, for whatever reasons.

They don't need to explain themselves to you. And all your name-calling won't change anyone's mind. All it does it to show that you need to resort to that because you cannot debate the issues.

You can't buy love, you can't legislate morality, and you can't change people's instincts. Accept it and move on.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by ubermunche

Oh, really? That's what you've "tended to find", is it? Well, hell, why didn't you say so before - that makes you an expert on the subject and on my motives.

Well who tweaked your nose hair mate, get a grip and read the qualifying addendum which basically says that might not be the case with you.

The old "That's an ugly shirt but it sure looks good on you" line, right?

Originally posted by ubermunche
I think there reasons for not wanting to attend are skewed and based on prejudice but that's there problem not mine.

Can you acknowledge that prejudice is a normal and necessary part of life? It is a basic instinct that ensures survival. Without prejudice, we would exercise indiscriminate choices in every endeavor, which is not healthy.

[Originally posted by Wig
I'm not exactly looking forward to reading 10 pages of itty bitty information or disinformation. So can someone say please...

Were they there on duty just like there would be police & ambulance crews there?

Or were they ordered to march in the parade?

They were ordered to participate in the parade. Iow, to show support for the gay/lesbian agenda.

Originally posted by Boondock78

Originally posted by ubermunche bigotry, overt,

2 key words....it's all over in this thread, it's just written in cryptic ways.

To sum up what you have said in this thread:

"So-and-so doesn't share my feelings for gays. Therefore so-and-so is a homophobe and a bigot and a crybaby".

Examine yourself. How much more bigoted can a person be?

Homos were hitting on firemen..SHOCKING...lol......Who cares, they are big boys...If you dont like what someone says smash their face in with your boot. Or live with it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
They were ordered to participate in the parade. Iow, to show support for the gay/lesbian agenda.

I'm sorry but you have not been specific enough. Do you mean that a 'platoon' of firefighters were marching in the parade and they were not on duty for fire/saftey call outs, their primary function was to walk and have fun in a parade, and if there had been a safety incident nearby they would not have been the ones who were ordered to deal with that incident, that there were other firefighters on duty for safety incidents that may or may not have arisen.? Or were they there on duty, i.e. they were at the parade incase of accident, fire, injury occuring amongst so many members of the public. and they may or may not have followed the progression of the parade in their fire truck from a distance behind the parade. - had they followed the parade it would have been for safety reasons not because they were actually part of the parade.

Please provide links. Thanks.

Djohnsto77,
They simply didn't want to attend an extracurricular activity that they had no interest in

I see you think the same as jsobecky above that they were not on firefighting duty in attendance of a large public gathering. Please provide the evidence that backs this assertion up. Thanks

douglas2k4,
To answer your question, yes--they were on duty

I see you disagree with the above two posters on this point. Can you provide links? thanks


It seems to me that you guys cannot discuss this in a rational manner until you know what occured. My assumption on this thread was right, it was clear on the first page that people were not clear about What actually occurred and no-one was making any attempt to find out the truth. It is pointless to discuss this until you know for a fact what they were there for.

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Wig]

Originally posted by Wig

Djohnsto77,
They simply didn't want to attend an extracurricular activity that they had no interest in

I see you think the same as jsobecky above that they were not on firefighting duty in attendance of a large public gathering. Please provide the evidence that backs this assertion up. Thanks

The complaint makes it clear they were in an off-duty fire engine and parading in the parade, they were not there in any official duty as safety officers.

PDF Complaint


[edit on 8/11/2007 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77

The complaint makes it clear they were in an off-duty fire engine and parading in the parade, they were not there in any official duty as safety officers.

PDF Complaint


[edit on 8/11/2007 by djohnsto77]

the complaint also states, by the fireman that he went to the boss to tell em that he did not want to go and would only go if ordered to go.
then, he was ordered to go.

whats the problem?

this whole deal is so transparent it's not even funny. they got mad cause when they asked not to go, they assumed they would get their way.
when the crew found out they were going, they started to make fun.

now, if the crybaby fireman got his way and didn't have to go, do you thin khe'd be making fun of his buds that had to go?
i think...he just couldn't handle it...
couldn't handle seeing the gay people and hearing those offensive words...
fire=nothin
dead bodies=nothin
carnage=nothin
heckled by a homosexual=crushing

[quote
The old "That's an ugly shirt but it sure looks good on you" line, right?

That ones gone right over my head dear.

[Can you acknowledge that prejudice is a normal and necessary part of life? It is a basic instinct that ensures survival. Without prejudice, we would exercise indiscriminate choices in every endeavor, which is not healthy.

Yes mate of course I can acknowledge that but it's a leap of logic to then start supporting any act of bigotry or say that it's ok to be prejudiced full stop.

It can work both ways. Your car breaks down on some deserted country road abroad and a car load of Arabs roll up, see your vulnerable and kick ten rounds out of you because you're an American and look what your people have done in the middle east, or a car load of Arabs roll up see you're an American but make the moral decision that you can't be held accountable and you're a human being in need of help and deserving of basic respect. What group would you rather meet, what group would you respect as decent and enlightened.

Take your point to it's logical extreme and we just kill or keep down anyone who's different from us, yes it's a very human failing but a failing it most definately is. You seem (and I stress the word seem) to be implying that being gay means I will never be accepted and should just live with whatever occurs as that's how people are. There have been enough cultures through history that have accommodated and even lauded a gay lifestyle for me to know it's not something that is alien to the sensibilities of human nature, therefore it's not set in stone that I accept my lot as predicted by you or anyone else.

And finally sitting on a float at a gay parade is not a matter of basic human survival. It's about idiot firemen feeling threatened, fair enough they should never have been there but more because they're idiots than anything else.