It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Diego Firefighters Forced To Attend Gay Pride Parade

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:
Wig

posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Your simple mind does not see my points

1. If they could not forsee it, how can they expect their employer to forsee it?

2. Everyone can forsee danger to a toddler riding an ATV with or without a helmet (ROFL - he is 3 years old remember). (I understood the negligence part perfectly) The point is not everyone can forsee sexual abuse at a gay pride parade - You just agreed to that. No-one could forsee that without a fully functional crystal ball. Which is why your example does not even come close.




posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wig
Your simple mind does not see my points

Keep it cool, Wig. Let's not start with the barbs, OK?


Originally posted by Wig
1. If they could not forsee it, how can they expect their employer to forsee it?

Past experience. Once again, if you research the complaint, you would see that past experience with those groups were not pleasant experiences.

Also, the "reasonable person" test applies. What would a reasonable person know, or be expected to know, about the situation.


Originally posted by Wig
2.The point is not everyone can forsee sexual abuse at a gay pride parade - You just agreed to that. No-one could forsee that without a fully functional crystal ball. Which is why your example does not even come close.

Once again: there is no requirement to foresee any action. But past experience with this parade had resulted in objectionable behavior, so there was precedent. The supervisors should have known that sexual harassment was a possibility.


Wig

posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Keep it cool, Wig. Let's not start with the barbs, OK?

I withdraw my 'barbs' I took your previous comment about my not understanding negligence as a 'barb' as you call it.



Also, the "reasonable person" test applies. What would a reasonable person know, or be expected to know, about the situation.

Are not the employers here "reasonable persons" it was unforseeable?



Once again: there is no requirement to foresee any action. But past experience with this parade had resulted in objectionable behavior, so there was precedent. The supervisors should have known that sexual harassment was a possibility.

Point 2 was to show you how your example of a toddler riding an ATV did not come close to this case.

In any event

The supervisors should have known that sexual harassment was a possibility.


That will be for a court to decide, it would also have to be a high possibility and that they would have been *expected* to know this. Or possibly because of the way the legislation is worded (lawyer's letter to fire dept). It may be that the court will have to prove that they actually "knew" sexual harrassment would occur not that they "should" have known.

In anycase it is for the court to decide, I think they will lose, you think they might win, I would like to know the final outcome, but I don't suppose I will ever findout. Arguing any further here on what the court will or will not decide is not going to interest me any further, so I'll say goodbye, or see you later.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
This is what happens when someone jumps into a debate without knowing anything at all about the case.

^ ^ ^
You mean this is what happens when you dine on too many IHateU TV dinners and then post replies. So lots of luck chuckles...shallow debates are readily transparent, so go fool yourself.


Pope soap on a rope for institutionalized mindsets!

[edit on 12-8-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

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.




talking to some of you guys is like pulling teeth with a pipe wrench man...

another far off reaching comparison..


parent/child/motorized vehicle that you need to be 16 to ride
adult/boss/order/CRYIN



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I just hope some gay firemen are paying close attention to this. Especially when they are ordered to attend a christian function or Mardi Gras. I hope these guys do win. If I were a gay firemen, I'd be rich after this and ordered to do my job.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The supervisors should have known that sexual harassment was a possibility.


is sexual harassment a possibility anytime they leave the firehouse?
technically, didn't the harassment start first, at the firehouse?
sounds like it to me...in the complaint, it talks about how as soon as the other fireman found out(you know, their good friends) they started to make fun and say things....


your arguments are so weak.....the supervisors should have known eh?
the *possibility for harassment is there anywhere, by any sex, towards any sex...
you're just reacching like your argument with the atv and every other damn thing you toss out to defend these jerks.

it's stupid to even let things like this divide us



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wig
In anycase it is for the court to decide, I think they will lose, you think they might win, I would like to know the final outcome, but I don't suppose I will ever findout. Arguing any further here on what the court will or will not decide is not going to interest me any further, so I'll say goodbye, or see you later.

Well, check in here from time to time, and if there's an update I'll post it for you to read.

Adios.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Troll Alert!


Originally posted by Regenmacher
You mean this is what happens when you dine on too many IHateU TV dinners and then post replies. So lots of luck chuckles...shallow debates are readily transparent, so go fool yourself.

Two posts from you, and zero substance in them. Feel like trolling, Regenmacher? Take it somewhere else, please.


Wig

posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, check in here from time to time, and if there's an update I'll post it for you to read.

Adios.


Thank you, I'll look for this in my subscriptions in 6 months and 12 months time.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Be a man and get out there and DO YOUR JOB. And stop being a baby and ??? questioning your sexuality.


They disputed having to directly be in the parade itself, their concerns were brushed aside apparently as their original orders still held. They did do their jobs as instructed, and in extremely uncomfortable circumstances.

The Chief is a gay woman, it doesn't take an incredible intellect to hypothesize that the men were concerned about their job security had they chosen to blatantly defy orders in this instance. They acted accordingly and their lawsuit is well justified, I'm sure they will win it.

As for how all of this somehow provides an implication that they're "questioning their sexuality", is a mystery to me.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I think, as a woman, I understand their complaint. It isn't that gay people are repulsive or that one might appreciate your appearance is repulsive, but rather having unsolicited sexual advances, regardless of gender, can be more than a little disconcerting. In fact, if it's really risque or excessively descriptive advances, it can seem like a huge invasion of your personal body space. I think the repulsion isn't so much homophobia but a matter of social norm, sexual preference and consideration for the personal space of others.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by undo]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
If i saw a bunch of firefighters at a Gay Parade, i wouldnt think the firefighters were Gay. This is my morning Editorial.


I would!! YY MM CC AA!! hahaha this is hilarious... I bet thats what they were thinking lol



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I just wonder how many would be defending the firemen if the headline was "gay firemen forced to attend......". Or would they tell the firemen to shut up and do their job?

Think about it. If this had been 3 gay firemen in New Orleans who didn't want to attend Mardi Gras but were ordered to, would you guys still be defending the firemen? Or would you tell the pansy firemen to suck it up and do their jobs?

I for one, would tell them to suck it up and do their jobs. Gay or straight.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
And so, . . .another episode in the on-going soap opera of human values
comes to a close. No wait, we have to see how it pans out in court.
Yes, once again, this sue-happy society finds itself giving tax dollars to
lawyers to defend or prosecute in the name of "rights".
We've bashed the firemen and we've bashed the gays.

How terrible life is nowadays. Where we're "ordered" to do things by our
bosses at work. Where our ability to cope is so fragile that the slightest
gesture can send our inner selves into emotional turmoil. Where we
secretly harbor bigotry while expousing diversity. Where our intolerance
of others manifests.

There certainly isn't as much laughter as there once was. People
nowadays can't take a joke like they used to. Their skin has become way
too thin. They take offense to every little thing. They're offended.
Oh my, excuse me while I cry!



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You guys still don't get it. It's a case of sexual harassment. The antagonists just happen to be gay.

It's not about religion, either, even though some have tried to make that the issue. And it's not about homophobia.

Sexual harassment. The antagonists just happen to be gay.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sexual harassment. The antagonists just happen to be gay.


Would you be singing the same tune if the sexual harrassment was towards gay firemen at Mardi Gras?

BTW, the CHARGE is sexual harrassment. The VERDICT of sexual harrassment is for a court to decide.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And it's not about homophobia.


What was their excuse to not want to work that day? Oh, that's right, homophobia. Because being around gay people is more cause of alarm than pulling burning and dead children from houses.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You guys still don't get it. It's a case of sexual harassment. The antagonists just happen to be gay.



i get it. i get that the crybaby fireman are alleging they were harassed. even if they were, i don't see how that is the fault of the boss or the department.
honestly, at this point, i don't care how it turns out in court(well, i do cause of th eprecident it could set)...i just mean that my mind is made up on this fireman turd already.....learned enough about him to know i don't want to know any more about him...

i still don't see how this fireman is suing the department. the department was not the antagonist.....oh yeah, he was butt hurt cause he asked not to go and the boss told him to go anyway.
that says a lot about this guy, imo



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

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.


Well we don’t really want a society that is run in tandem with our base instincts because then thievery, rape and murder along with a host of other afflictions like slavery, bullying, become the sanctioned norm. It’s a specious argument

Society is accepting of it now for the simple fact it’s been decriminalised. You can’t pick out the knee jerk reaction of some misinformed or bigoted group of individuals and parade that as the norm It could be argued that society has covertly been accepting of Homosexuality even at the height of our repressive Judeo-Christian heyday. The main reason people still feel uncomfortable of gay people is through complete ignorance or being indoctrinated with a certain view point about what and who gay people are.





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


Yes pederasty was actually quite the done thing in many western Christian cultures when you consider that the legal age of consent for a female was twelve years old and that enforced very partially anyway.

Strange how the more enlightened we become as a society, getting rid of things like child brides, emancipation and empowerment, the more accepting it becomes of Homosexuality. I think that’s a reason for celebration.





[edit on 13-8-2007 by ubermunche]




top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join