F*** Tolerance. You. Must. Conform.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

San Diego Firefighters File Complaint for Being Forced to Attend Gay Pride Parade

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292442,00.html

[BamaGrad03 0]

That's the world we live in now isn't it? Not only is accepting enough. You have to actively APPROVE AND PARTICIPATE in behaviors that you find morally bankrupt...otherwise youare chastised and accused of being full of hate.

What I don't understand, homosexuals want the mainstream to approve and accept their lifestyle, yet even taking the same sex issue out of the equation...their outward actions are that of a culture that is absent of any moral fiber. Not only are you gay, but you have to be gay in everyone's face. And if I don't like it, then I'M the biggot? Please.

San Fransisco is the embodiment of what is wrong with this country. It's full of people who's life principals deal in situational ethics. Here you have a city of people who care more about trees than people.

This article is just another indication of where our country is headed.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It's like the Gay Brownshirts or something. They don't want to just be left alone, they want you to affirm them, even if they have to coerce or threaten it out of you.

[otterinbham 0]

It used to be the love that dare not speak its name. Now it's the love that won't shut up.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Thank goodness there is no abundance of mud-riders here in the south. Most of them keep a low profile 'round here.

[CCTAU 3,342]

I think Lex Luther had a great idea. Damn Superman messed it up.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

It's like the Gay Brownshirts or something. They don't want to just be left alone, they want you to affirm them, even if they have to coerce or threaten it out of you.

That's a bit of an overstatement, based on the known facts. I agree that no one should be forced to participate in ANY parade they don't believe in-- (working the event in the case of law enforcement would be another matter.)

What isn't at all clear from this Fox article is whether the men even expressed their objection to participating and then were directed to do it over their objections. The language is very legalistic in terms of their claims:

The four men allege they were ordered by a battalion chief to attend last month's parade and feared consequences for failure to do so, since refusing to follow a direct order constitutes disciplinary action.

What the Fox article also fails to mention is that the department had originally committed to be in the parade with firemen who had volunteered, but had to cancel at the last minute:

Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the fire crew was chosen because its fire Station 5 on Ninth Avenue in Hillcrest is in the community where the parade took place. Luque said another crew had volunteered, but bowed out for personal reasons, including a family death, the day before.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/2...-1m7parade.html

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which, due to a prior departmental commitment, someone called these guys at the last minute, told them to do it, they didn't express objections, and then ended up being embarassed. Not a good situation, but not necessarily sinister or indicative of an expectation that all San Diego firemen are expected to celebrate homosexuality or lose their jobs.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

It's like the Gay Brownshirts or something. They don't want to just be left alone, they want you to affirm them, even if they have to coerce or threaten it out of you.

What do you mean "like" the Gay Brownshirts? The original Brownshirts were a hotbed (excuse the pun) of homosexuals: Link

[DKW 86 7,440]

It's like the Gay Brownshirts or something. They don't want to just be left alone, they want you to affirm them, even if they have to coerce or threaten it out of you.

What do you mean "like" the Gay Brownshirts? The original Brownshirts were a hotbed (excuse the pun) of homosexuals: Link

great point!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It's like the Gay Brownshirts or something. They don't want to just be left alone, they want you to affirm them, even if they have to coerce or threaten it out of you.

That's a bit of an overstatement, based on the known facts. I agree that no one should be forced to participate in ANY parade they don't believe in-- (working the event in the case of law enforcement would be another matter.)

What isn't at all clear from this Fox article is whether the men even expressed their objection to participating and then were directed to do it over their objections. The language is very legalistic in terms of their claims:

The four men allege they were ordered by a battalion chief to attend last month's parade and feared consequences for failure to do so, since refusing to follow a direct order constitutes disciplinary action.

What the Fox article also fails to mention is that the department had originally committed to be in the parade with firemen who had volunteered, but had to cancel at the last minute:

Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the fire crew was chosen because its fire Station 5 on Ninth Avenue in Hillcrest is in the community where the parade took place. Luque said another crew had volunteered, but bowed out for personal reasons, including a family death, the day before.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/2...-1m7parade.html

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which, due to a prior departmental commitment, someone called these guys at the last minute, told them to do it, they didn't express objections, and then ended up being embarassed. Not a good situation, but not necessarily sinister or indicative of an expectation that all San Diego firemen are expected to celebrate homosexuality or lose their jobs.

Actually, they did tell their boss they didn't want to participate:

According to the complaint filed with the city, the firemen of Engine 5 told their chief they did not want to appear in the parade but were told the morning of the parade that they were under orders to participate.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070806b.html

The firemen that filed the complaint got wind of it the day before and expressed their desire not to participate. That desire was reiterated the morning of the parade. They were given a direct order to attend, which carries with it heavy consequences for disobedience. The full complaint is here:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/i...irefighters.pdf

The things these guys were subjected to are beyond the pale.

I think the brownshirts comparison is apt. And this is hardly the only example of this type of pressure and coercion with regard to homosexuality these days.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Yeah, I read the legal paper...I think they were fairly clear with their hopes to avoid the parade.

Texas, why must you ALWAYS blindly come to the rescue of any and all criticism of the left? Regardless of how left it is?

Is there no liberal policy in the history of quasi-socialism that you've EVER disagreed with?

[AU_tiger_2000 0]

Yeah, I read the legal paper...I think they were fairly clear with their hopes to avoid the parade.

Texas, why must you ALWAYS blindly come to the rescue of any and all criticism of the left? Regardless of how left it is?

Is there no liberal policy in the history of quasi-socialism that you've EVER disagreed with?

Not as long as his welfare checks keep rolling in.

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

I just had to throw in my $.02 here. I just hope y'all don't think this is indicative of the whole gay community. My girlfriend's(and soon to be fiancee) uncle is a gay man. He basically took her in as a daughter after she moved here to Atlanta because her father has been absent from her life since she was about 22/23. I've become very close to him and his partner and they are two of the nicest, most genuine people I've ever met. I've met many of their gay friends who are business men, lawyers(one soon to be a judge), Dr's, etc who are the same way. There are many gay men who feel the parades, while needed, are just over the top and ridiculous. They feel they are needed because they are discriminated against and this is a way for people who have been afraid the be their true selves for the majority of their lives are able to "come out" and feel ok about it and not be judged and ostracized. That being said, the parades have taken the minority of them who are complete freaks and put them in the spotlight. There are just as many straight people who do just as many "morally bankrupt" actions in the mainstream -i.e. college spring break, etc. but that never raises the same kind of outcry. I realize the point of the thread was about the firemen who were forced to attend the parade, which I agree is wrong - they shouldn't be forced to attend if they don't want to. I just feel like I had to say something about the perceived generalization of the gay community. I may be wrong about that, but anyway.....$.02 over.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

It's like the Gay Brownshirts or something. They don't want to just be left alone, they want you to affirm them, even if they have to coerce or threaten it out of you.

That's a bit of an overstatement, based on the known facts. I agree that no one should be forced to participate in ANY parade they don't believe in-- (working the event in the case of law enforcement would be another matter.)

What isn't at all clear from this Fox article is whether the men even expressed their objection to participating and then were directed to do it over their objections. The language is very legalistic in terms of their claims:

The four men allege they were ordered by a battalion chief to attend last month's parade and feared consequences for failure to do so, since refusing to follow a direct order constitutes disciplinary action.

What the Fox article also fails to mention is that the department had originally committed to be in the parade with firemen who had volunteered, but had to cancel at the last minute:

Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the fire crew was chosen because its fire Station 5 on Ninth Avenue in Hillcrest is in the community where the parade took place. Luque said another crew had volunteered, but bowed out for personal reasons, including a family death, the day before.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/2...-1m7parade.html

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which, due to a prior departmental commitment, someone called these guys at the last minute, told them to do it, they didn't express objections, and then ended up being embarassed. Not a good situation, but not necessarily sinister or indicative of an expectation that all San Diego firemen are expected to celebrate homosexuality or lose their jobs.

Actually, they did tell their boss they didn't want to participate:

According to the complaint filed with the city, the firemen of Engine 5 told their chief they did not want to appear in the parade but were told the morning of the parade that they were under orders to participate.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20070806b.html

The firemen that filed the complaint got wind of it the day before and expressed their desire not to participate. That desire was reiterated the morning of the parade. They were given a direct order to attend, which carries with it heavy consequences for disobedience. The full complaint is here:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/i...irefighters.pdf

The things these guys were subjected to are beyond the pale.

I think the brownshirts comparison is apt. And this is hardly the only example of this type of pressure and coercion with regard to homosexuality these days.

Thanks for posting the links to the legal complaint. As I said before, I don't think anyone should be required to be in a parade that celebrates anything they don't wish to celebrate. The Fox article, as well as the others I looked at, strangely failed to address the key question as to whether the firemen had voiced their objections beforehand.

However, I still think that most analogies to Nazi Brownshirts, from the left and right, tend to be over the top.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Thanks for posting the links to the legal complaint. As I said before, I don't think anyone should be required to be in a parade that celebrates anything they don't wish to celebrate. The Fox article, as well as the others I looked at, strangely failed to address the key question as to whether the firemen had voiced their objections beforehand.

However, I still think that most analogies to Nazi Brownshirts, from the left and right, tend to be over the top.

That's fair.

[AUChizad 0]

Reminds me of a great South Park episode.

Death Camp Of Tolerance

Essentially the message is there's a difference between "Tolerance" and "Acceptance".

To me, you ARE a bigot if you refuse to treat a homosexual as a human being. I know I'll catch hell on here for this, but my boss is openly gay, and he's a great guy. I don't have to ACCEPT homosexuality as morally correct, and neither should you if you don't believe it to be so. I do, however, TOLERATE that that's the way that some people live their lives. It's really none of my business.

Remember how these KSU fans are coming on here with their broad brush stereotypes about the south, and it was obvious that they had never actually spent time here? At best, they may have driven through Slapout or some other really bad example that perpetuates the stereotype. The same can apply here. If I had to guess, alot of you who flat out HATE gay people in general have never actually met one. At best, you may have ran into some throw-it-in-your face type wearing assless chaps, but that's not a fair representation.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

To me, you ARE a bigot if you refuse to treat a homosexual as a human being. I know I'll catch hell on here for this, but my boss is openly gay, and he's a great guy. I don't have to ACCEPT homosexuality as morally correct, and neither should you if you don't believe it to be so. I do, however, TOLERATE that that's the way that some people live their lives. It's really none of my business.

You won't catch hell from me about it. I have virtually the same story. The best boss I ever had was gay. But he was brilliant and creative and he did a great job of striking a balance between giving guidance on my job and pushing me to use my own judgment and "own" the position myself. He gave input but he didn't do my job for me nor did he want to. His partner was a super nice guy too. We had a few talks about it and he knew my views on it, but we didn't let it be the end all/be all of things.

My only purpose in posting this is that there is a sizable element, which unfortunately is also the most vocal and politically active element, of the homosexual community that isn't content with tolerance, "live and let live" or any of that stuff. They want affirmation. They want complete acceptance and the want those who don't conform to that notion to be cowed and silenced. And I liken the situation to the one we have with the Muslim community...the good folks in the community are way too quiet in allowing the bozos to dominate the conversation.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Thanks for posting the links to the legal complaint. As I said before, I don't think anyone should be required to be in a parade that celebrates anything they don't wish to celebrate. The Fox article, as well as the others I looked at, strangely failed to address the key question as to whether the firemen had voiced their objections beforehand.

However, I still think that most analogies to Nazi Brownshirts, from the left and right, tend to be over the top.

That's fair.

But was your comment fair?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Thanks for posting the links to the legal complaint. As I said before, I don't think anyone should be required to be in a parade that celebrates anything they don't wish to celebrate. The Fox article, as well as the others I looked at, strangely failed to address the key question as to whether the firemen had voiced their objections beforehand.

However, I still think that most analogies to Nazi Brownshirts, from the left and right, tend to be over the top.

That's fair.

But was your comment fair?

Do you not have a history of blindly defending the left...even in cases when you don't REAAAAAAAAALLLY believe what you are saying...just for the sake of bringing "balance"?

I gave you credit for your response after you clarified. Tried to be gracious.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Thanks for posting the links to the legal complaint. As I said before, I don't think anyone should be required to be in a parade that celebrates anything they don't wish to celebrate. The Fox article, as well as the others I looked at, strangely failed to address the key question as to whether the firemen had voiced their objections beforehand.

However, I still think that most analogies to Nazi Brownshirts, from the left and right, tend to be over the top.

That's fair.

But was your comment fair?

Do you not have a history of blindly defending the left...even in cases when you don't REAAAAAAAAALLLY believe what you are saying...just for the sake of bringing "balance"?

I gave you credit for your response after you clarified. Tried to be gracious.

You have a history of making that claim without supporting it. And of overreacting when you haven't taken the time to read what someone has said. If you had taken issue with anything I said, dispute it factually and logically. You just ranted and added nothing to the discussion. And then think you're the arbiter of what's "fair."

I didn't actually defend anyone in the post you got all pissy over. First of all, I was responding to Titan because he is capable of rational, civil discourse. I graciously ignored your first post rather than giving it the type of comment it deserved. I thought this thread was quickly over the top in a very predictable way. You, for example, added to your long history of ranting uncontrollably and grossly overstating. Based on the known facts, these guys were told to do something they didn't want to do. It is not at all clear that they were called bigots for not embracing homosexuality, as you ranted about. It still sounds as if it were mostly a case of the Fire Dept. feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they had to have representation in this parade as they had for the last 15 years. It also sounds, now that we have more facts, like the higher up instructing them to participate was pretty indifferent and thoughtless in regard to how they felt about participating. That was wrong, if what they allege in the complaint is true.

My post didn't really need clarifying in regard to your comment. My "clarification" was mostly a reiteration of my first post which stated clearly:

I agree that no one should be forced to participate in ANY parade they don't believe in

In the interest of fairness, however, I did point out:

What isn't at all clear from this Fox article is whether the men even expressed their objection to participating and then were directed to do it over their objections.

Also, in the interest of fairness, I pointed out a POSSIBLE scenario that may have been far less sinister than the one you had assumed.

Titan graciously provided the key information missing from the article, I thanked him for it, and reiterated my position that they should not have been forced to particpate. No one on this thread has ever disagreed with that point, including me.

Your pissy attack on me was out of place. If you were truly gracious, you would have simply apologized.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I don't owe you an apology. Especially not now. My saying "That's fair" was my concession. I'm not going to get on my knees and beg for your forgiveness. Your unyielding condescending nature doesn't deserve it.

My initial response came from my exposure of things of this nature. And frankly I'm tired of it. I also read the legal release before I posted, thus inciting more of my frustration.

No I'm not an arbiter of what's fair. But you seem to have a monopoly on being a prick. Let me translate my "That's fair"..."oh ok, I see your point...that's cool".

My initial reaction to YOUR post stemmed from your history of being blindly liberal in your opinions...to such an extreme, that it is obvious you are doing so just to be dissenting.

I tried to be civil and not jump down your throat like everyone else does around here. But noooooooo that wasn't enough for you. In your mind, you're so much better than me that I owe you an apology for my OPINIONS and observations?

Must be nice going around thinking you are better than everyone else huh?

And my "That's fair" is more of a civil concession than you've ever shown here.

Your pissy attack on me was out of place. If you were truly gracious, you would have simply apologized.

Guess you are an arbiter of what's out of place huh?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Also, show me what was soooo out of place with my initial response to you. You do come to the defense of liberals...constantly. I didn't accuse you of being a republican, or a Bama fan. It's not like you have a history of being critical of the left here. Big deal.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Also, show me what was soooo out of place with my initial response to you. You do come to the defense of liberals...constantly. I didn't accuse you of being a republican, or a Bama fan. It's not like you have a history of being critical of the left here. Big deal.

What your post shows is how inclined you are to argue with me and be unnecessarily combative even when we agree on the main points of an issue. Again, your comments to me served no other purpose. That's okay, doesn't make you unique-- just have the self awareness to recognize it.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

I tried to be civil and not jump down your throat like everyone else does around here.

Interesting spin on what you consider "civil."

[BamaGrad03 0]

Also, show me what was soooo out of place with my initial response to you. You do come to the defense of liberals...constantly. I didn't accuse you of being a republican, or a Bama fan. It's not like you have a history of being critical of the left here. Big deal.

What your post shows is how inclined you are to argue with me even when we agree on the main points of an issue.

It wasn't clear that we agreed until after your secondary clarification...after said clarification, I conceded agreement.

Then you had to get all high and mighty on me...after I conceded your point. Way to go.

You think you're better than everyone else...we get it. It's charming, really.