San Diego Firefighters Forced To Attend Gay Pride Parade

I think the whole cty is corrupt. No wait, the whole State. My sign shows the truth:

In the event of a socialist take over, please move the capitol to CA, accept all the things that are seen as wrong every where else in the world, and kiss your rights good by.

Hmm... I can sympathise with the male firefighters. Ladies, a rough equivalent would be if some female nurses were forced to march in a "Nurse Fetish Club" parade. Gays looove firefighters! Humiliating, demeaning, embarrassing... pick your word.

Like I've said before. Why is the fault of the firedepartment or the city that some citizens couldn't behave? It's not like the firechief was showing her genitals.

If I'm on a job site and a woman flashes her breasts at me, can I turn around and sue my employer for sexual harrassment? Nope. So why should these guys? Because it was gay men that did it? Who have no ties to the department nor the city.

OK, I have read the report pdf. It does appear they were ordered to take part in (not supervise on standby) a gay pride parade.

I think that is out of order. Unless it is in their contract that they may be asked to drive and parade in various official parades organised by and for the city of San Diego.

If it is in their contract then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Their claim is the employer put them in a position where the employer knew they would be subjected to sexual harrassment comments by non-employees.

I think they haven't got a hope of winning that case, because they have to prove the fire department **knew** they would recieve sexual harrassment. If there is one consolation for the homophobes it is that this action will ensure that firemen will not be ordered to attend gay parades in the future. And any that want to attend will maybe have to sign a waiver.

Well first of all let me state that my brother is a retired Captain from the San Diego Fire Department after serving 37 years. I'm going to have to send him the PDF law suit for his look see. I know he worked at 5's along with many other stations in and around San Diego and more than likely knows the Captain, Engineer, and Hose Men on the Lawsuit. Don't ever call any fireman or police a crybaby or pussy. My brother happened to serve in the United Sates Marine Corps in Vietnam as have many police and fireman who became public servants. I know of many case where Bob was burned fighting brush and residential fires to save your lives or propertys. If you know anything about the fire department shift schedules and can read the lawsuit you can see the shift was changing 24hrs on 24hrs off and this shift was getting off in otherwords it was Overtime duty. The Captain or any officer in any duty situation has a responsibility to his men to voice a complaint. They depend on each other for their lives and therefore they are a tight knit group. The real issue is whether anyone should be forced to do something against their own morals and values, thats the bottom line. All the other comments are crap. I also worked for an extremely large company that had Diversity shoved down our throats and my question always was "what about my rights". Who was on my side during the equal rights era of the 60's and 70's when I was a white, vietnam era veteran and I couldn't get a job. This is all about the special interest groups sounding off on their podiums again. Let sleeping dogs lay .

Originally posted by spacecaseThe real issue is whether anyone should be forced to do something against their own morals and values, thats the bottom line. All the other comments are crap.

No, you're wrong, although you are right in that this is the underlining pretext of all of this.

I say you are wrong because there is only 1 issue in the lawsuit, that the men were put into a position where the employer knew before hand that they would be sexually harrassed. That is the only official "issue" here.

You are right, in that the firemen are using this as an excuse because they simply were homophobic and did not want to take part in the parade. Thus they were forced (or ordered) to take part in something that they held to be morally wrong.

To answer your question " should people be forced to do something against their own morals and values " If it is part of their job description (contract) that they have to do certain things then yes they should have to do them. If the thing that they find to be morally wrong is not illegal - then it is de-facto "accepted" by the community and the state and cannot therefore be given as an excuse for an empolyee not to do that task.

Wig,
I had to go get a dictionary to look up the word Homophobic. Its under Homophobia. It's not been a part of my vocabulary until now, there never has been a need to use it until now. I disagree with you or anyone else about this so called "contract" that fireman have to sign outlining every single description pertaining to their Job. I also was a fireman in my youth, just a hoseman, in other words the grunt. An engineer is one step up. He drives the rig and operates the pump. The captain is in charge of it all and also fights the fires along with the hosemen or enters the burning buildings. It's not like getting a job that you are hired for a specific job function and therefore sign a contact between you and the person hiring you. There's no job contract for washing the rigs, sweeping the floors, making your bunks, raking or mowing the firehose lawns, cooking and preparing meals or anything else. A fireman is a fireman and you're paid according to the title you have. It's run almost like the military, except its the civilian military. Orders are given and orders must be obeyed from the top down to the bottom. I still believe this thread is all about rights. Gay rights versus these firemens rights. I would not expect an engine company that was predominently from Protestant Northern Ireland (The Orange) to parade in St. Patricks Day Parade(Catholic Green) and be ordered to do so by a superior. It should never come up and be made an issue. Oh, I sent pdf lawsuit file to my brother so he could have a good laugh.

Originally posted by spacecase
. Don't ever call any fireman or police a crybaby or pussy.

^^^^why? this fireman was/is in fact, a big ass friggin baby. IMO


They depend on each other for their lives and therefore they are a tight knit group.

^^^if they are so tight, then why is this guy CRYING about as soon as the others found out, they started to make fun? i already made the argument fireman are tight and no doubt bust each others balls all the time..ALL the time....only different this time, is the fireman have a phobia and it burned em up...IMO...
and they did voice their opinion. the one made it clear he would not go unless ordered...so, he was ordered.


All the other comments are crap. I also worked for an extremely large company that had Diversity shoved down our throats and my question always was "what about my rights".

^^^...shoved it down their throats

Originally posted by spacecase
I disagree with you or anyone else about this so called "contract" that fireman have to sign outlining every single description pertaining to their Job.

^^EE me too. i thats why asked for the manuel they get, but no link yet..it probably, like every other job does not give specifics, or, it does but at the end contains something else to the effect of 'or whatever the super deems needed.....blah blah whatever".....reasons like this are why there are not specifics for everything...


It's not like getting a job that you are hired for a specific job function and therefore sign a contact between you and the person hiring you. There's no job contract for washing the rigs, sweeping the floors, making your bunks, raking or mowing the firehose lawns, cooking and preparing meals or anything else.

^^^exactly...along with all you mentioned, they do a whole lot more..



Orders are given and orders must be obeyed from the top down to the bottom.

^^^^

.....thats exactly what happened


I would not expect an engine company that was predominently from Protestant Northern Ireland (The Orange) to parade in St. Patricks Day Parade(Catholic Green) and be ordered to do so by a superior.

uhhhh, they work in diego. the march was in diego. they probably live in diego....so where is the comparison?
you bring up an example of people that have been physically fighting for years, over a whole damn lot at this point, to phobic hetero's not being able to tolerate being around homosexuals....THAT is what this is about, imo...


all these comparisons...why the division still?
how many people don't agree cause of religious principles?


maybe one day, people will get the hint that we're all just here trying to live....
anything to cause a divide though...

Originally posted by Wig
If the thing that they find to be morally wrong is not illegal - then it is de-facto "accepted" by the community and the state and cannot therefore be given as an excuse for an empolyee not to do that task.

That is not really true, especially because the fire department is part of the government. The establishment and free exercise clauses of the U.S. First Amendment now applies to all branches and levels of government, so if they can say supporting homosexuality is against their religion, then their constitutional rights were violated since the government prevented their free exercise of religion.

Likewise, the freedom of speech clause also applies. The government can't force you to express or support an opinion you don't agree with. By making these men march in a parade, the government was making them endorse homosexuality against their will. Another constitutional violation.

Not that they wouldn't have a case also if this was a private employer, but since it's the State, that makes the case much, much, much stronger.

[edit on 8/11/2007 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by ubermunche
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.

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.

Any point taken to it's extreme will reveal bizarre behavior. I'm not advocating taking prejudice to it's extreme, I'm just pointing out it's benefit.

Originally posted by ubermunche
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.

I knew that I worded that poorly and that it would be misinterpreted. Mea culpa.

What I mean is that the sexual instinct is one of the strongest. Society has never accepted homosexuality 100%, and it never will, simply because of the strength of that instinct.

It will be tolerated to varying levels of degrees, but never accepted.

Originally posted by ubermunche
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.

Pederasty has also been accepted by some societies, but never by all societies. I feel comfortable making the same prediction about it.

Originally posted by ubermunche
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.

I don't agree with your conclusion that they are idiots. Not when we are talking about basic human instinct. You cannot determine that one level of response is appropriate for everybody.

Originally posted by Wig
I think they haven't got a hope of winning that case, because they have to prove the fire department **knew** they would recieve sexual harrassment.

Not so. If I allow a 3 year old child to ride an ATV without a helmet, and he gets hurt, simply saying "I didn't know he would get hurt" isn't a valid defense.

Originally posted by Wig
If there is one consolation for the homophobes it is that this action will ensure that firemen will not be ordered to attend gay parades in the future. And any that want to attend will maybe have to sign a waiver.

Well, I certainly hope that it is also a consolation to clear-thinkers who understand the issues but are not homophobes.

As far as the waiver, if you research the complaint, you will see that the firemen had volunteers willing to attend the parade and drive the truck in their place. Management turned them down, and instead chose to force the issue and the agenda.

I'll admit not having followed the discussion, so I am just throwing my two cents in. I don't think that people should be forced to go to events at all, unless they are required to go in order to do their work. I wouldn't want to force a bunch of atheist firefighters to be in a Christmas parade.

With regards to how the firefighters were treated, I think that's a symptom of a disturbing misprioritization within the community itself. I have alway thought that the face that the gay community puts forth does more damage to itself and merely encourages actual homophobes. There is a separatist element in the community that frightens other people and breeds unjustifiable hate. The community needs to assess who they are and what they actually want to be if they want society to be less irrationally afraid of them. I am not forgiving idiots who hate for no reason, but it is foolish to think that this is not a two-way street.

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth


If you did so you would be the worst kind of fool. Supporting a political belief "on the clock" which you do not belive in just because your boss tells you to? Anyone who did that would have to either be SERIOUSLY mentally challenged or they are someone who doesn't actually believe their beliefs.


Vas

OR they would have to pay their rent, buy their food, and survive for another week and it would make me smarter than you, because while i was eating and living, you'd be walking around with your backpack and sleeping under a bridge.

ITS CALLED S-U-R-V-I-V-A-L.

NO, it's called acting on your beliefs. Anyone can say I believe this-or-that but when action is called for and you do nothing? Well, I guess that's the difference between you and I. I have walked out of jobs under similar situations, I have no doubt I will again.

Vas

Originally posted by Togetic
There is a separatist element in the community that frightens other people and breeds unjustifiable hate. The community needs to assess who they are and what they actually want to be if they want society to be less irrationally afraid of them. I am not forgiving idiots who hate for no reason, but it is foolish to think that this is not a two-way street.

Does this not happen in EVERY community? You have your fringe Christians, your fringe Muslims, your fringe Athiests, your fringe Democrats, your fringe etc. etc.

Rumor has it, after they spend 2 weeks at "Jezoo Camp" all their firetrucks will be blessed and only disperse holy water to wash that gay smell off.

Just saw a commercial on IHateUTV where fetid hypocrisy now on sale at Walmart....by one and get a free casting stone to bash your neighbor's head in.

Now where did I put my swastika crucifix

I agree with both djohnsto77 and jsobecky posts. I personally believe some users on this board are in fantasy land. If people would just stop the hypothetical questioning maybe we can get somewhere in the discussion.

Look, stating your opinion of what you "would have done" is irrelevant now. What's done is done. They were ordered to attend against their common objection. They have every right to do what they are doing now. It didn't have to come to this, but guess what? It HAS.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
That is not really true, especially because the fire department is part of the government. The establishment and free exercise clauses of the U.S. First Amendment now applies to all branches and levels of government, so if they can say supporting homosexuality is against their religion, then their constitutional rights were violated since the government prevented their free exercise of religion.

Likewise, the freedom of speech clause also applies. The government can't force you to express or support an opinion you don't agree with. By making these men march in a parade, the government was making them endorse homosexuality against their will. Another constitutional violation.

But note that their lawsuit doesn't go anywhere near that territory. Their lawyer has advised them against that. and advised them the avenue more likely to get results. They will still lose, but atleast they won't have to parade next year.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not so. If I allow a 3 year old child to ride an ATV without a helmet, and he gets hurt, simply saying "I didn't know he would get hurt" isn't a valid defense.

Wait and see, they will lose, your example doesn't even come close. Note, the firemen themselves did not forsee the sexual abuse, they did not say to thier captain, "We don't want to go to the parade because we fear being sexually abused" They only used that excuse for a lawsuit after the fact. Another reason why they will lose.

As far as the waiver, if you research the complaint, you will see that the firemen had volunteers willing to attend the parade and drive the truck in their place. Management turned them down, and instead chose to force the issue and the agenda.

I know that, I'm simply saying after this case there will be precedent, and a waiver may be neccessary.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Rumor has it, after they spend 2 weeks at "Jezoo Camp" all their firetrucks will be blessed and only disperse holy water to wash that gay smell off.

^ ^ ^
This is what happens when someone jumps into a debate without knowing anything at all about the case.

Originally posted by Wig
Wait and see, they will lose, your example doesn't even come close.

My example was intended to shoot holes in your "didn't know" defense. It accomplished that rather easily. I think you are having trouble following because I used negligence instead of sexual hrassment as the basis for the charge. But it still applies.

Originally posted by Wig
Note, the firemen themselves did not forsee the sexual abuse, they did not say to thier captain, "We don't want to go to the parade because we fear being sexually abused" They only used that excuse for a lawsuit after the fact. Another reason why they will lose.

It's not the obligation of the firemen to foresee sexual abuse, now is it?

Your example doesn't even make sense. Since when is it necessary to voice an objection or a fear before an infraction takes place?