We’re Gay: You Must Celebrate Us, Or You’re Fired!
This gem of “Gay PC Silliness” comes via The Corner.
San Diego Firefighters Forced To March in Gay Pride Parade – FOX News
[John] Ghiotto and three other firefighters filed a sexual harassment complaint against the city’s fire department last week after being forced to attend the parade in uniform despite objections they made to superiors.
“I don’t want anybody else to go through this. This is a whole different ball game. I think our officials up above need to look at this,” Ghiotto said.
The firefighters claim parade attendees made obscene gestures, uttered inappropriate remarks and displayed lewd behavior that made them uncomfortable. They also demanded a work environment without discrimination and harassment.
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.
If the men refused to follow the direct order, they could have been suspended on the spot and stripped of any chance for a promotion, according to their manual, Ghiotto said. It was Ghiotto’s first direct order.
Ghiotto, engineer Jason Hewitt and firefighters Chad Allison and Alex Kane filed the complaint, which includes detailed descriptions of their allegations. Their fire station is along the parade route.
“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some type of sexual gesture,” Ghiotto said in the complaint. “The experience left me feeling humiliated, embarrassed and offended by this event.”
“While I was sitting there waiting for the parade to start, I felt that I was forced against my will to be at the Gay Pride Parade and forced to see men in tight shorts dancing provocatively and other men kissing and hugging wearing sexually suggestive material on T-shirts with writing ‘Girth and Mirth,’ ‘Suit Up Before You Dive In,’ according to the complaint.
“I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in, my reputation, my character, my integrity, my morals, and my religion,” the complaint says.
Ah, tolerance and respect is only legitimate when it is directed toward gay people. But disrepect and outrageous behavior from gay people is just “having fun”, I guess?
Imagine, if you will, that a gay firefighter was forced to march in a Christian Coalition parade? God forbid.
As always, it would be nice if the Human Rights Campaign or Log Cabin (Republicans) stood up for the firefighters and blasted this forced acceptance and workplace harassment. (*crickets chirping*)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
66 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Or that women would be forced to attend an event and endure sexual gestures and behavior against their will with the threat of negative consequences at work if they did not.
Comment by Synova — August 7, 2007 @ 5:13 pm - August 7, 2007
If the firefighters were there in an official capacity, that would be one thing, but I don’t think people should be forced to participate in an event, if they aren’t comfortable in that atmosphere.
Comment by just me — August 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - August 7, 2007
We Demand the Right to Repeat the Mistakes of Othe…
The interesting paradox of the French Revolution is that it began with the toppling of the autocratic Bourbon monarchy in the name of freedom, democracy, and liberty…..and then, a mere decade later, signed away all three to the even-more autocratic…..
Trackback by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2007 @ 6:17 pm - August 7, 2007
As always, it would be nice if the Human Rights Campaign or Log Cabin (Republicans) stood up for the firefighters and blasted this forced acceptance and workplace harassment.
But they won’t, because the San Diego fire chief is a Democrat lesbian.
This is not the first time these gay leftist organizations have shut up when confronted with proven examples of sexual harassment and discrimination by Democrat lgbts.
Especially since, in that case, said lgbt, who had openly demanded sex of subordinates, had harassed those who rebuffed her advances and sabotaged their careers, and had wantonly discriminated against straight people and men, could not be fired…..because under Minnesota’s ENDA law, virtually identical to the Federal one they’re pushing, she could have sued and gotten her managerial job back anyway because she’s a lesbian.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2007 @ 6:23 pm - August 7, 2007
I would be surprise to read that either the ‘Homo R’us Camp or the Mary Todd Lincoln Brigade will take a stand. I’ve experienced that they start fires, salvage what they want and then expect them to just smolder. Where the cinders land, or who else gets burned is far too UN-emotional or far too common for their concern. They’re both consumed with the idea of power for power’s sake.
As a gay man, I find the actions of the ‘lesbian fire chief’ reprehensible. It’s as though her actions were to say, ‘I can emasculate anyone I want.’
The price of tokenism, in this case, is highly inflated.
Comment by Shawmut — August 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - August 7, 2007
Although I have been reading this site for over a year now, this is the first time I have felt compelled to post. I agree completely with you, Gay Patriot.
I have many friends in Fire Companies, Rescue Squads and Police forces, and I am a member of the Civil Air Patrol. All four of these organizations make it policy to march only in parades that are ‘patriotic’ or don’t have a particular issue behind them. I have sported my uniform on Fourth of July, Christmas, Easter and “4-H” style parades. We are forbidden from doing anything other than that while in uniform, although members could march in a parade such as this if they were not wearing any CAP regalia. I know the same standard applies to all my friends in the above organizations as well.
It is reprehensible to think that a public service company should march in any parade that is not simply for the community, state, or nation’s morale. The fireman have every right to file a complaint, and the battalion chief should be suspended. The first rule of leadership is to take care of your subordinates. This did not happen.
Comment by Flier1701 — August 7, 2007 @ 8:54 pm - August 7, 2007
“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some type of sexual gesture,” Ghiotto said in the complaint.
Sounds like a cookout at the Kennedy compound….
While Vera has always been a fan of parades, celebrations, and anything to do with baton twirling majorettes, forcing straight firemen into gay pride parades is like wearing fur at a PERA protest; you just know the crowd is going to become unhinged at the very sight of it.
Who issues a ‘direct order’ to public employees to participate in a gay pride parade?
Next you’ll be telling me they’re handing out condoms to grade school kids and banning the mention of God at graduations…
Fire Chief Tracy Jarman should hope her undies are made of asbestos; it’s about to get a lot hotter in San Diego.
No doubt the ACLU, HRC and other defenders of the defenseless are about to ride to the firemen’s rescue…
I’ll hold my breath until they arrive…
Comment by Vera Charles — August 7, 2007 @ 9:58 pm - August 7, 2007
Vera- on target as usual. Pour me another cocktail while I reread Flier 1701′s post again. That’s a keepa’.
Comment by Tom — August 7, 2007 @ 10:13 pm - August 7, 2007
Would you object if they were complaining about mandatory-attendance at St. Patrick’s Day or a Columbus Day Parade as part of a municipal contingent? If Gay Pride is “…just another ethnic Festival” then they shouldn’t have a leg to stand-on. At what point does uber-PC “everything’s optional” opting-out cross the line beyond common sense?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 7, 2007 @ 11:39 pm - August 7, 2007
No, I wouldn’t object if they objected.
One, parades have nothing to do with firemens’ real jobs.
Two, people have their own reasons for not wanting to participate in parades, holiday celebrations, and whatnot, and we should respect that.
Three, Federal and state laws are explicit: forcing employees to do something that is unnecessary to their job duties and responsibilities is not a good idea — particularly not if it goes against their individual beliefs, and ESPECIALLY not if there is a good possibility they will be subjected to unwanted sexual advances, attention, or images in the process.
And Gay Pride is NOT just another “ethnic festival”; being gay is not in the least ethnic, and in fact is based solely on one’s sexual preferences and desires.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2007 @ 12:26 am - August 8, 2007
There’s a little more to this story than FauxNews and Bruce care to admit. First, the crew that’s complaining is stationed in Hillcrest, San Diego’s gay neighborhood. One wonders how they suffer through the work day with all those homos around. While I think it’s bad policy to force someone to participate against their will, it sounds like this was a last minute deal when the original crew who volunteered was unable to due to a family death. And, interestingly enough, the lawyers representing the “sexual harassees” are from the homohaters at the Thomas More Center that brags of its role in “Challenging Special Rights for Homosexuals.” Nice folks those.
Considering the attitude of these firemen, it occurs to me that if I lived in Hillcrest, I’d be very skeptical of the ability of my local fire department to respond appropriately in the event of an emergency.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 12:48 am - August 8, 2007
While I think it’s bad policy to force someone to participate against their will, it sounds like this was a last minute deal when the original crew who volunteered was unable to due to a family death.
Unfortunately, there is a far simpler answer: then there should have been no fire truck in the parade, rather than to force people to participate.
Furthermore, Ian, under both Federal and California law, it is explicitly illegal to require employees to work in a situation unrelated to the business or exact requirements of their job where there is a reasonable chance that they will be exposed to sexual statements, activities, and images that may be considered lewd or offensive by them or under any other reasonable standard of judgment.
But instead, the lesbian fire chief decided that she could ignore those rules and force those men to participate in a situation, totally irrelevant to their jobs, that she knew would involve lewd and sexual statements,activities, and images.
Why? Because a) she’s a lesbian and b) she knew gays like yourself would support her doing it.
Special rights all the way.
If you truly believe sexual harassment is wrong, Ian, it should be wrong regardless of who’s practicing it.
But, as with hate crimes and everything else, what you are looking for are special rights and treatment. You and your fellow leftist gays want to be able to sexually harass whomever you want and get away with it.
But of course, you don’t want to follow those rules; you want to be allowed to force people into a situation where you can make lewd and rude comments about them and then deny them legal recourse, just because you’re gay.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2007 @ 1:37 am - August 8, 2007
One wonders how they suffer through the work day with all those homos around.
Oh and I suppose you like everybody you work wth/for? Better yet, I suppose you ASSume they all like YOU.
Considering the attitude of these firemen, it occurs to me that if I lived in Hillcrest, I’d be very skeptical of the ability of my local fire department to respond appropriately in the event of an emergency.
Good God, Ian. Is there anybody that you don’t hate and would malign at the drop of your own hat?
Actually, that’s a good idea. I wouldn’t call 911 if I were you. You might have to put your life and/or property in the hands of someone YOU don’t like. Besides, we don’t come running just because “aunt Flo” came for her monthly visit.
One thing’s for damn sure, after Katrina and the I-35W bridge collapse, you can’t put much hope in liberals helping you out.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 8, 2007 @ 3:52 am - August 8, 2007
The Fox News article that inspired this blog post is poorly written. It repeatedly says that the firemen involved were forced to “attend” the parade, when their actual complaint was that they were forced to participate in the parade.
The most important facts are absent from the article: was the firemen’s participation in the parade strictly symbolic, or was there also a public safety concern? (Perhaps along the lines of “We like to have a fire truck at every parade in our region, just in case.”)
It also matters whether there are any parades which march past the fire station which the department does _not_ provide a fire truck for.
Comment by Phil — August 8, 2007 @ 4:50 am - August 8, 2007
It was wrong to make them participate in the parade, that is all there is to it. After seeing one of these parades live once myself, I won’t come near another one.
Not to change the topic, but if you need to know what heteros are afraid of, JUST LOOK AT THE PARADE!
Comment by Good vs. Evil — August 8, 2007 @ 5:42 am - August 8, 2007
It repeatedly says that the firemen involved were forced to “attend” the parade, when their actual complaint was that they were forced to participate in the parade.
Your spin is poorly written, Phil, as it states more than once that they were forced to participate in the parade. Further, participation is what we in Emergency Management call PR. In any department I’ve ever been a part of or aware of, participation in PR events is purely voluntary.
In my first department, where I volunteered the most for PR, the PR gal and I were from station 62. I was engine company 5 and she was company 4. Most of our PR was in station 61, companies 1-3 territory. We used Engine-62 and EQuipment-62 in our PR. If we wanted to, we could get others to volunteer to drive Tower-61 or Rescue 61 out of station 1. PR can be handeled by the station in that particular area, but it doesn’t have to be.
It’s good to have PR and show the community that you are out there and a part of it. However, what this tells me is that there were officers who wanted an engine company to participate in the parade, but were far more concerned with the “feel good” PCness than their own firefighters. Perhaps a certain chief, with an agenda, is more interested in PR than anything else.
Liberals are supposed to care about feelings. These firefighters didn’t “feel” good. Therefore, the liberals should be moving heaven and earth to make them feel better. Further, would you or Ian support these firefighters if they were opposed to participating in a Klan parade?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 8, 2007 @ 5:55 am - August 8, 2007
Count on Ian to cheer for using the heavy hand of government to crush freedom of conscience.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2007 @ 7:11 am - August 8, 2007
Hey, ThatGay-
I’m not certain why you think what I wrote was “spin.” What I wrote is true: the article repeatedly says that they were forced to “attend” the parade, when the real issue was that they were forced to participate. (I didn’t write that the article never uses the word “participate,” just that it repeatedly uses the word “attend.”)
Why do you assume I’m a liberal? I consider myself moderate. It seems that a key issue here is whether a firetruck participating was strictly symbolic–what you call PR–or if there was an additional public safety concern. I share your view that employees should not be forced to engage in political speech, although I think the “sexual harassment” angle here is troubling: forcing employees to participate in a parade is a separate issue from the taunts and jibes they may experience as part of it.
Comment by Phil — August 8, 2007 @ 7:17 am - August 8, 2007
#15 Fear might be a bit much. Some of the more extreme things I’ve seen pictures of/read about (never having been to one myself) might offend the vanillas, might find repulsive (heck I’m a pretty deviant guy and there are things in my social clique I avoid). but that’s different than fear.
If they were forced to particpate, and subjected to derision based on their orientation, then she needs to be fired, no matter who her bed partners are.
Comment by The Livewire — August 8, 2007 @ 7:23 am - August 8, 2007
These firemen should thank their lucky stars that they weren’t sent to a Young Republican National Federation meeting! LOL!!!
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 11:04 am - August 8, 2007
Good God. Here we go again. I love pride parades & have attended several. But if anyone objects to attending (or participating), he or she shouldn’t be forced to do so. What the hell was that fire cheif in San Diego thinking?! No gays or lesbians were forced to attend that Justice Sunday thing. This sounds just like the “we’re here & we’re queer, get used to it!” taunt of 17 years ago (& hasn’t lost any of its repulsiveness).
Comment by Jimbo — August 8, 2007 @ 11:32 am - August 8, 2007
The Fox News article that inspired this blog post is poorly written. It repeatedly says that the firemen involved were forced to “attend” the parade, when their actual complaint was that they were forced to participate in the parade.
Is there an actually difference? They weren’t there to perform any duties. The complaints say the engine they used in the parade was taken out of service, so they weren’t actually “on duty” as far as responding to calls was concerned.
The problem here is that having an engine in the parade was a fine idea-but the solution was to look for volunteers that wanted to participate, and in a city the size of San Diego I am pretty sure they would have found some takers.
The city screwed up, and according to the sexual harrassment laws on teh books (which may be another debate altogether) it is hard to argue that there isn’t a case to be made for harrassment.
Comment by just me — August 8, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - August 8, 2007
#22:
Actually, that’s what they did but the volunteer crew had to drop out at the last minute due to a death in the family of a crew member. How convenient that FauxNews omitted that fact. It’s kind of interesting too that the F.D has been participating in the San Diego Pride parade for 15 years without a problem.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - August 8, 2007
Ian –
Whether FOX News reported this or not…. the fact you keep ignoring is that this is FORCED behavior by a superior in the workplace.
I’m going to come to your workplace and make you read the Bible!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 8, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - August 8, 2007
Then the answer was simple: there would be no fire truck in the parade.
But that wouldn’t do for the lesbian fire chief to show off, would it?
So she ordered the firemen to participate against their will in an event not even remotely related to the actual job they were hired to do and in clear violation of California and Federal statute that explicitly forbid you from threatening employees’ jobs for refusing to to work in an environment they find to be demeaning, offensive, or harassing.
And she expects to get away with it because she’s a lesbian.
And Ian supports her doing it because she’s a lesbian.
Bonnie Bleskachek all over again.
And the hypocrisy of gay hatemongers like Ian is revealed: he demands to be protected from sexual harassment at work, but he insists that he should be allowed to harass and demean anyone he wants because of his sexual orientation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2007 @ 1:43 pm - August 8, 2007
Better yet, garnish his paycheck and donate the money to the Boy Scouts. (Who are, BTW, forbidden from using city property in San Diego.)
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - August 8, 2007
Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the agency’s engines had participated in San Diego’s LGBT Pride Festival for the past 15 years and never had any complaints.
Fire engines are required to be part of parade routes for public safety. Firefighters can’t pick and chose their assignments. This case has no merit and will be thrown out.
Comment by Chase — August 8, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - August 8, 2007
After all, somebody has to clear the road and ensure their is no traffic. If it’s not the fire department, then it has to be the police department. Usually parades have fire engines or police cruisers at the front and tail of the parade to ensure traffic is indeed obstructed from the parade route. It’s a matter of public safety.
I imagine that was the case here, though the article is missing such information.
Comment by Chase — August 8, 2007 @ 4:52 pm - August 8, 2007
California and Federal statute that explicitly forbid you from threatening employees’ jobs for refusing to to work in an environment they find to be demeaning, offensive, or harassing.
I think the real issue here, if there is an issue, is forced political speech by an employer. If the presence of the fire truck was strictly PR, then that’s a problem. If, as Chase indicates, fire engines are required to be part of a parade route in San Diego, then the issue isn’t forced political speech. Police can’t refuse an order to go into a neighborhood they don’t like, nor can firefighters.
The problem I have with the sexual harassment claim is this: how were supervisors supposed to know in advance that the environment would be “demeaning, offensive or harassing?” We’re talking about a parade where tens of thousands of people were in attendance. As the firefighters’ claim states, an individual citizen can sexually harass a public employee. But the employer isn’t responsible for that unless she had certain knowledge that harassment would take place. If the department had participated in the parade for 15 years without incident, it looks like there wasn’t strong reason to suspect that the firefighters would be harassed.
The employer also could be held responsible if he/she were notified during the time of harassment and chose not to act. But it doesn’t look like that was a possibility in this instance.
Comment by Phil — August 8, 2007 @ 5:19 pm - August 8, 2007
#26:
That’s incorrect. The B.S. have the same right to use city property as any other private group. They just no longer have the “special right” to use it on the taxpayer’s dime. Like every other private group has had to, they now pay a user fee.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - August 8, 2007
And of course, there is no taxpayer-provided support for the pride parade. /sarc.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - August 8, 2007
#29:
I have been to San Diego Gay Pride as well as others and invariably, firemen, policemen, and PFLAG garner the most cheers and applause from the folks on the sidelines. If you read the actual complaint, the “harassment” is clearly isolated apart from the insults flung by “Christians” protesting the parade. It is also clear from the complaint that these firemen were already P.O.’ed at having to drive their truck in the parade at least a day before the parade – and the “harassment”- even started so no doubt they were plotting their revenge on superiors who gave orders they resented.
It’s still an unfortunate incident; I’m leery of forcing employees to take part in something that is so distasteful to them. That said, I still have to wonder why firemen with attitudes like theirs are serving in a gay neighborhood to begin with. Seems to me some transfers are in order to safeguard the Hillcrest community and placate the firemen who are clearly uncomfortable serving that community.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - August 8, 2007
#31: The B.S. have loudly and proudly proclaimed their rights as a private organization to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and sexual orientation. Consequently, they have loudly and proudly given up any right to feed at the public trough. They made their own bed and need to learn to sleep in it.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - August 8, 2007
But if they knew the day before that they might have to be in it, then the people in charge should have been manning the phones looking for more volunteers rather than requiring guys who stated they did not want to be there to do it.
They weren’t there are part of their job.
Their truck was marked out of service-which means they weren’t there to respond to calls or do their jobs as firefighters.
The police are the ones who secure the parade route-if somebody on the police force said they didn’t want to do it, the response is “tough, it’s your job” but the firefighters in this complaint had no duty other than to drive the truck as part of the parade.
Comment by just me — August 8, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - August 8, 2007
I love these responses.
The problem I have with the sexual harassment claim is this: how were supervisors supposed to know in advance that the environment would be “demeaning, offensive or harassing?”
Because they’ve been to fifteen of them.
One would think by now they’d noticed the fact that people are making lewd and obscene gestures, catcalls, and whatnot whether the firemen ask for them or not — all of which nicely are included in the EEOC definition of sexual harassment being “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”.
Seems to me some transfers are in order to safeguard the Hillcrest community and placate the firemen who are clearly uncomfortable serving that community.
Seems to me that that would constitute employment action taken as retaliation for filing a complaint — which is also against California and Federal law.
So we have reasons for why these firemen are wrong that include a) denying that anything sexual ever takes place at Pride parades and b) that employers should retaliate against people who file discrimination and harassment complaints.
Because, heaven knows, they could never admit that a) gay people acted in a reprehensible fashion and b) a lesbian fire chief screwed up and broke the law.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2007 @ 8:18 pm - August 8, 2007
#34: Look, I’m not going to argue that it wasn’t a crappy situation but ultimately, if volunteers couldn’t be found, the choices came down to canceling the truck appearance or directing that firefighters who serve the very community where the parade took place drive the truck in the parade. A parade, I’ll remind you, where firefighters had participated for 15 years without incident. I think it’s pretty clear from the complaint narrative that these firemen were angry before the parade and any “harassment” even took place. Clearly, they have a far from gay-friendly attitude and I just have to wonder if that doesn’t adversely affect the quality of emergency service provided to the Hillcrest neighborhood.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 8:20 pm - August 8, 2007
#35:
The Hillcrest community should not have to tolerate homophobic firemen. I would also think that these firefighters would be delighted to get away from the disgusting homos they are forced to serve.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - August 8, 2007
NorthDallasThirty-
The quote I read said that they’d been to fifteen of them “without incident.”
Because, heaven knows, they could never admit that[...]
Who are “they?” I’m happy to admit that anyone yelling a sexual come-on at an uncomfortable stranger is acting in a reprehensible fashion. I’m not certain if “Show us your hose!” rises to the level of sexual harassment, but it’s a bad enough pun that someone was clearly exercising poor judgment.
I just question whether the firefighters’ superiors can be held responsible for the actions of members of the crowd, especially if the previous fifteen parades had passed “without incident.”
Comment by Phil — August 8, 2007 @ 8:47 pm - August 8, 2007
*36 You keep tossing the ‘homophobe’ insult around. I didn’t know you could see into the hearts of men so well.
I mostly react to guys flirting with me with mild amusement, but I was annoyed once when a co-worker didn’t get the ‘I’m straight, not interested’ message (even when I said ‘I’m straight, not interested.’) but I’ve never been exposed to vulgar gestures by men or women for that matter. Damn straight (pun intended) I’d be uncomfortable.
I’ve friends who get hit on by the same sex all the time, even though they’re both straight. They get very annoyed at the presumption (and our laughing) but I’d call neither homophobic.
Ian, you seem to think homophobic means ‘I reject your reality and substitute my own’. In fact you’re willing to make up fears that these men who rish their lives wouldn’t do it for youm with no evidence or even hearsay.
Do you write for TNR?
Comment by The Livewire — August 8, 2007 @ 9:30 pm - August 8, 2007
I see Ian is using the word “homophobic” just as I described the other day…. it now means “You disagree with me politically and I do not accept your values, so I will label you a homophobe.”
Frankly *I* have been uncomfortable at some of the conduct I’ve seen at NY and Philly Pride Parades. So I can completely understand the firefighters’ view….
…and I really don’t think the Hillcrest neighborhood is in imminent danger of burning down.
Another red herring from our friend Ian.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 8, 2007 @ 10:15 pm - August 8, 2007
#39: If you read the complaint, you’ll see that these guys were upset at the very idea of going to the Parade. This was before any harassment took place. To get that upset suggests to me they are less than gay-friendly.
Comment by Ian S — August 8, 2007 @ 10:16 pm - August 8, 2007
I’d be upset going to the parade, it’s not my thing. Hell I get ‘upset’ in crowds. Does that make me ‘crowdaphobic’?
And you still slander the firemen by implying they won’t do their jobs and save lives.
Comment by The Livewire — August 8, 2007 @ 10:47 pm - August 8, 2007
#40: Bruce, the firemen’s complaint almost drips with antipathy towards gay people. I seem to recall a considerable amount of snarling on this blog about comments John Edwards allegedly made nearly 10 years ago about his discomfort around gay people. Now you and others here cheer-lead for a bunch of firefighters who express more emphatic distaste for gay people in the here and now even though they serve in a gay neighborhood. Seems a little inconsistent, no?
Comment by Ian S — August 9, 2007 @ 12:23 am - August 9, 2007
Seems a little inconsistent, no?
Perhaps if the firefighters were running for office with one, of many, guise that they actually give a damn about gays like the Breck Girl does.
Further, it’s clear to me that not only do you hate the military, Ian, you obviously hate the fire service too.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 9, 2007 @ 1:27 am - August 9, 2007
BTW Ian,
Using your logic and the complaint, it looks like the people don’t want to be served by the SDFD. Perhaps it would be best to “redeploy” that station out of the Hillcrest area, no?
Better yet, using liberal logic, there were 105 on-duty firefighter deaths in 2006. So far this year there have been 76. It seems that we can’t win this “civil war” against fire, therefore the logical conclusion is to shut down our nations firehouses and “redeploy” our firefighters elsewhere, say Okinawa.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 9, 2007 @ 2:03 am - August 9, 2007
I just question whether the firefighters’ superiors can be held responsible for the actions of members of the crowd, especially if the previous fifteen parades had passed “without incident.”
Yes.
Because arguing that Pride parades do not involve “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”. is roughly akin to arguing that one shouldn’t expect to see naked women at a strip club.
Meanwhile, we have Ian, a Democrat glbt like the fire chief, over here arguing that, if you won’t put up with “yelling a sexual come-on at an uncomfortable stranger”, you’re homophobic.
In other words, if a fireman objects to being namecalled, propositioned, or having lewd and lascivious statements and conduct directed at them by a gay person, glbts like Ian and the San Diego fire chief claim they’re “homophobic” and demand that they be punished, including transferring them against their will and making other adverse decisions about their employment.
It suddenly makes a lot more sense,that “without incident” — when you realize that any firefighter who reported or complained about anything of the sort risked losing their jobs.
Just like Democrat lesbian fire chief Bonnie Bleskachek.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2007 @ 2:12 am - August 9, 2007
In essence, Ian advocates using the iron fist of government to punish those with whom he disagrees, and force people to support views he favors even if it means crushing their freedom of conscience.
And he’s so caught up in his singe-minded partisan ideology that he doesn’t see anything wrong with this.
Comment by V the K — August 9, 2007 @ 5:10 am - August 9, 2007
Because arguing that Pride parades do not involve “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”. is roughly akin to arguing that one shouldn’t expect to see naked women at a strip club.
You seem to be saying that it must be taken as a _given_ that Pride parades are hotbeds of sexual harassment. Given that, isn’t it sexual harassment for any employer, ever, to require her employees to work in the parade environment? If a police chief sends a squad to break up a riot at a parade, they’ll face the same on-the-job risk of sexual harassment that the firefighters did. If a fire breaks out, the chief has a legitimate reason to send a crew to the parade. She can’t ask for volunteers in that situation, nor can she avoid sending a truck. By your logic, she’s responsible for sexually harassing her employees, because Pride Parades are de facto sexual harassment.
This logic, of course, is goofy. For public safety reasons, a fire chief may reasonably send a crew into an unpleasant atmosphere. If a fire broke out at a bathhouse for 80-year-old obese transsexuals, the chief may legitimately send her crew there, knowing full well it will expose them to the sight of naked obese trannies, even if that’s not something they want to look at.
Clearly, the issue of whether it is appropriate for the chief to require firefighters to participate in _any_ parade is a separate issue from whether she can order them into an environment which makes them uncomfortable. If the fire chief sent a crew to deal with an emergency along the parade route, the behavior of bystanders would be irrelevant to her decision.
Why does it become relevant to her decision to send them on a PR mission?
Comment by Phil — August 9, 2007 @ 7:57 am - August 9, 2007
Why does it become relevant to her decision to send them on a PR mission?
The harassment is a side-issue, but it does reflect badly on the gay community that they can’t be expected to uphold normal standards of decency and decorum. If gays want to be treated with respect, then they have an obligation to uphold certain standards of behavior. And, yeah, straights do the same thing at Mardi Gras and should also be held to a standard.
Second, she shouldn’t be sending them on a “PR Mission” in support of her political agenda. That’s compelled speech, and a violation of freedom of conscience. It’s different only in degree from Castro and Chavez forcing people to turn out for protests by threatening them. Of course, totalitarians like Ian are completely comfortable with forcing people to act against their consciences in the support of his agenda.
Comment by V the K — August 9, 2007 @ 9:29 am - August 9, 2007
I agree that the firefighters should not have been compelled to go to the parade, if it was simply a matter of having a presence there, as opposed to a safety concern. (If it was a matter of a safety concern, then this seems like a normal duty assignment for the firefighters, and yes, a gay firefighter should be “forced” to march in a Christian Coalition parade if it was for safety concerns.) Assuming that the firefighters’ presence at the parade was not a safety necessity, then I wonder if these persons brought their complaints to their union representative. Perhaps they could have fought for them before they had to report for this duty. But I certainly support the right of these firefighters to their complaint and fairly investigate if this was some form of workplace harassment against these workers.
However, beside the employer coersion, the complaint itself seems rather specious. It just seems odd that the same people who would tell the gay teen to toughen up when he/she is being continually harassed at school are okay with these firefighters playing the victim for *gasp* having to see men in tight shorts, kissing, and having sexually suggestive tee shirts. I could only imagine the humiliation, embarrassment, and offense, if they have ever seen a Girls Gone Wild commercial.
No, this does not delegitimize their real complaint. And if their superiors and/or fire chief wrongly forced a duty onto these firefighters, then they should be appropriately reprimanded. Any type of harassment, including harassment based on sexual orientation, should apply to ALL persons. I know Bonnie Bleskavich is brought up when this type of situation occurs. Any law that protects Bleskavich is clearly flawed and needs to be modified so that the offenders are punished no matter what their sexual orientation is.
Comment by Pat — August 9, 2007 @ 9:30 am - August 9, 2007
Why does it become relevant to her decision to send them on a PR mission?
Because it’s unnecessary.
This is an event that has been planned for upward of a year.
You are comparing it to an emergency in which seconds count and the closest responder is the one that needs to go.
That is clearly part of an emergency responder’s job. A parade in which their forced participation is the result of a) poor planning and b) arrogant disregard of employment law to make up for a) is not.
Next:
No, this does not delegitimize their real complaint.
Yes it does, Pat.
What you are doing is pretending you care while insinuating that these firemen are hypocrites and pussies for exercising their legal rights.
For those of us who feel no compelling reason to defend or tolerate the behavior of lewd, drunken faggots who treat men like pieces of meat — and stupid lesbian fire chiefs whose sexual orientation clearly interferes with their ability to follow workplace law — there’s no reason to slander or make insinuations about the firemen.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - August 9, 2007
NDT, I hadn’t noticed that, but you’re right. Implicitly, people are slamming the firemen for objecting to lewd obnoxious behavior. Implicitly, they are vindicating the people who engaged in the behavior in the first place.
There’s just something very, very wrong in society when it’s okay to behave like a lecherous pervert in public and not okay to object to it.
Comment by V the K — August 9, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - August 9, 2007
Wow! How did we get from “men kissing and hugging wearing sexually suggestive material on T-shirts” to “lewd, drunken faggots” and “lecherous perverts”. I agree, these guys should never have been forced to be in the parade or even attend it, and the reasons they were should be investigated so it doesn’t happen again. But I also think their complaint smacks of cry-baby victimhood, something we usually get from the gay left. Boo-hoo, they were “humiliated and embarrassed”. Get a spine. You’re firefighters for chrissake! It’s my understanding (from the firemen I know) that obscene gestures, inappropriate remarks and lewd behavior are commonplace around the firehouse.
I saw this story on Bill O’Reilly’s show and was struck by the way it was presented. While one of the firefighters was describing the complaint, they ran the usual footage of guys in leather jock straps and dykes on bikes, but then to my surprise, they showed lots of footage of the many normally-dressed participants in the parade (you know, the majority) and even a shot of a motorcycle cop driving down the route and high-fiving the spectators. It was a refreshing change.
Comment by Andre — August 9, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - August 9, 2007
Entirely too much work experience, V the K.
What causes most sexual harassment problems in places of employment is not that there are sexual harassers lurking under every desk and mouse pad, but that people can always find reasons for rationalizing why it isn’t really an issue and that people should just “shake it off”.
In the workplace, it’s usually loyalty and friendship, plus the fear of being made an outcast or losing your job for complaining. In the gay community, it’s the fear of being called a prude or ostracized sexually. And what abusers figure out very quickly is that, if no one is going to call you on your behavior, you can do whatever you want — and people will rationalize it by blaming the victim.
Bleskachek, as I cited above, was a prime example. She knew damn well the law, her gender, and her sexual orientation made her untouchable, and she exploited it, right up to when dimbulb mayor R.T. Rybak ignored her questionable record and put her in charge. Four-plus lawsuits, millions in settlement dollars, and innumerable complaints later, he finally found the spine to demote her — not fire her, because, under Minnesota’s ENDA (which is nearly identical to the proposed Federal version) she simply could have filed a lawsuit, invoked her sexual orientation, and had a judge restore her to her old position pending a couple years worth of trial.
And the reason this had gone on for so long? She simply played her trump cards.
“Being an out lesbian, which the mayor really wanted to push, the first openly lesbian fire chief, made me an easy target,” she said. “The sharks smelled blood in the water.”…….
“The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.”
Yeah. Hers.
But have you seen the leftist brigade pushing ENDA, the very law that created this problem and this mentality, saying anything about it?
Nope.
With the San Diego incident, I am more and more convinced that ENDA is less about discrimination against gays than it is legally codifying gays’ right to discriminate against whomever they please without penalty.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2007 @ 1:43 pm - August 9, 2007
And thank you, Andre, for providing an excellent example.
I agree, these guys should never have been forced to be in the parade or even attend it, and the reasons they were should be investigated so it doesn’t happen again.
Perfectly stated.
But, as so often happens in these cases, you couldn’t keep your mouth shut.
But I also think their complaint smacks of cry-baby victimhood, something we usually get from the gay left. Boo-hoo, they were “humiliated and embarrassed”. Get a spine. You’re firefighters for chrissake!
The first is completely negated by the second.
After all, why would this need to be investigated, if it’s nothing but them being crybabies and making up stories?
Furthermore, if it’s part of their job to be sexually harassed and to be forced to parade as pieces of meat for gays to make lewd catcalls and gestures about, why would it need to be prevented?
Problem is, Andre, that you can’t admit that gays behaved inappropriately. Instead, you try to blame the firemen for not shutting up and taking it and instead choosing to exercise their right to not be forced into doing things they find wholly objectionable that are completely outside their job description.
Which is a protection that you and your fellow lefty gays are demanding as part of ENDA.
What this makes quite clear you have no problem with sexual harassment or firemen being forced to take it, as long as it’s gays that are doing it and a lesbian fire chief that is ordering it.
And if you don’t want to say that, then stop making nasty insinuations about the firemen as retaliation for their exercising their legal rights.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - August 9, 2007
From Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.bogpost.com
Pride Parade Sets Back Gay Rights
When will gays learn that they are only hurting their cause for mainstream acceptance by participating in lewd Gay Pride parades, in which they themselves conform to all of the most negative stereotypes about them?
What’s worse, when you force other people to attend, like four San Diego firefighters who are now suing the San Diego Fire Department for sexual harassment.
I think the fire fighters are being a little mellow dramatic (maybe something they picked up from the drag queens) when they say, “I’ve dealt with finding bodies in burning buildings, traffic accidents with kids, but I’ve never been so stressed out before until this incident,” nonetheless no one should be forced to attend any function against their will.
In forcing these men to attend the Pride Parade, the San Diego Fire Department has only surrendered another PR coup to the Christian Right who are now running pieces like this.
Comment by Elizabeth Schmitz — August 9, 2007 @ 2:19 pm - August 9, 2007
Pat, not sure I get that.
1) What is the referent of “the same people who would tell…”? Did someone on this blog (which I missed) say a gay teenager being abused at school should just toughen up?
2) Also, isn’t the firemen’s objection, not that the men in tight shorts are sexually suggestive and lewd to each other, but that the men in tight shorts are sexually suggestive and lewd *to the firemen*? (And it’s not an emergency situation, the firemen were forced to be there, etc.)
I.e., isn’t the objection here to the obvious double standard, and the ill-will it implies? I haven’t followed this whole thread, so sorry if I missed something.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - August 9, 2007
Sounds like forced exposure to workplace sexual harassment, to me.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2007 @ 2:47 pm - August 9, 2007
Sort of off-topic, but it looks like Chase and Ian’s pals at DailyKostard have responded to one of their own being caught in stock scam by resorting to gay-baiting.
Gotta love those liberal, tolerant left-wing Dems.
Comment by V the K — August 9, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - August 9, 2007
Here’s the real problem.
There WAS a complaint after last years parade by a female fire captain. It was ignored by the fire department. That’s where they made the mistake. They knew there was a problem, so they threatened these guys with discipline if they didn’t participate.
This parade is overtly sexual in nature and uniformed public safety personnel should have never been forced to participate. But the department knew that and took the risk anyway.
The firefighters were correct to retain legal counsel.
Comment by ILoveAmerica — August 9, 2007 @ 11:37 pm - August 9, 2007
Yes it does, Pat.
What you are doing is pretending you care while insinuating that these firemen are hypocrites and pussies for exercising their legal rights.
Pretending? NDT, we’ve been down this road before. I know I’m supposed to just say that the firefighters were treated wrong, and stop there. And if I was in an official capacity regarding this situation, I would have. However, this is a forum, and besides expressing my opinion on the coersion of the employers, I also addressed the other issues that were brought up in the post. Since the behavior of gay persons at pride parades has been brought up, I’ll address that later as well.
Anyway, I’m not sure what I’m “pretending” here. I care for these firefighters as much as I care for anyone of us who has been told by a supervisor to perform a function at a job when a supervisor shouldn’t have. And sometimes we fight the supervisor’s order, or just do it, because it’s not worth fighting about, or perhaps for fear of losing one’s job. If the firefighters were wrongly coerced to perform this duty, then I support their right to fight it, and their supervisors should be reprimanded for it. This is my opinion, despite my issues with the firefighters handling of the complaint. So I am in no way insinuating that these persons are hypocrites and “pussies” for exercising their rights. In fact, since I believe they still should pursue this despite my issues with the irrelevant parts of the complaint, should bolster my claim. If you still believe differently, then I’ll accept that you believe I’m lying regarding this, and there is no need to further discuss this issue.
My problem with the firefighters is that included in their complaint are the behavior of the persons they either encountered or simply observed at the parade. Frankly, it’s completely irrelevant to the complaint. Yes, I understand the firefighters had, in their view, negative expectations of the event. And because of that, they did not want to participate. That’s where their complaint should have ended. Or better yet, simply state that they were wrongfully coerced to attend this event and cite any relevant bylaws. If it turned out instead that all the gay persons they encountered wore three piece suits, showed no obscene gestures, PDAs, and were all nice to the firefighters, still doesn’t change whether they were originally wrongfully coerced or not.
But what did they write in their complaint? That they saw men kissing each other, that they wore tee shirts with “girth and mirth” and apparently others with double entendres. I don’t believe this makes the firefighters hypocrites. Now maybe some of the other behavior they witnessed was lewd and clearly inappropriate. But some of what they wrote in the complaint does make them look oversensitive to me.
NDT, I hadn’t noticed that, but you’re right. Implicitly, people are slamming the firemen for objecting to lewd obnoxious behavior. Implicitly, they are vindicating the people who engaged in the behavior in the first place.
V the K, speaking for myself, I am not vindicating anyone who engaged in lewd, obnoxious behavior. But what was the lewd behavior? Men kissing and hugging? Some gay men wearing tee shirts showing preference for fat people? Now I don’t know what the obscene gestures and inappropriate remarks were, but the fact that they complained about being forced to see men kissing strikes me as oversensitive, and I have to question whether the behavior they witnessed was really lewd and offensive to begin with. But no, I won’t vindicate or excuse lewd, obnoxious behavior, especially if the behavior is illegal.
1) What is the referent of “the same people who would tell…”? Did someone on this blog (which I missed) say a gay teenager being abused at school should just toughen up?
Sorry, the paragraph and that sentence you referred to was poorly constructed. I have seen/heard arguments from people in the past, and I believe on this blog or other blogs, that the taunting, harassment, etc., of gay teens is just part of school, and they should stop being victims and toughen up. And it seems to me that the same people who have this belief are sympathetic to the firefighters for having to witness the behaviors at the parade. I don’t know if anyone who have posted on this thread belongs to this category, and I haven’t seen any post in this thread that teenagers should toughen up in this thread.
2) Also, isn’t the firemen’s objection, not that the men in tight shorts are sexually suggestive and lewd to each other, but that the men in tight shorts are sexually suggestive and lewd *to the firemen*? (And it’s not an emergency situation, the firemen were forced to be there, etc.)
I.e., isn’t the objection here to the obvious double standard, and the ill-will it implies?
I just assumed that the behavior was not directed towards the firefighters. I would think that the complaint would have made that clear if it was directed at them, but perhaps not. If they were directly harassed, I can certainly understand they’re being offended, and perhaps seeking recourse from police. Would this be workplace sexual harassment? I don’t know the laws regarding this, and not sure who would be responsible for it.
I don’t believe I’m applying a double standard here. First, I have more sympathy for a child than I would for an adult in a professional public sector job as a firefighter. But I still believe that no one should be sexually harassed by anyone, including these firefighters. But if these firefighters are offended by seeing two men kiss, they lose sympathy points from me.
But as I said above, this is irrelevant to the original complaint. If the firefighters were wrongfully coerced to attend the parade, then I support them in this complaint.
Comment by Pat — August 10, 2007 @ 12:24 am - August 10, 2007
My husband is a FF with SDFD. It is appalling what happened to these guys. Not so much about the gay pride parade but the fact that these men were threatened with disciplinary action if they did not drive the Firetruck in the parade. That means no option to promote for the next two years amongst other reprimands. One of the men is on the promotional captains list. He would be taken off it and not able to test for another 2 to 3 years. I only want to clarify that these people do a damned good job in their community of Hillcrest and do not deserve the ultimatum they were given. Yes, it is NICE to have the fire dept. and police dept. in parades, yet it is NOT a safety requirement. At least in this case (and others in San Diego). They are there for PR only. Sure, many people can call these FF’s “gay haters” and whatnot, but that isn’t the case. They were forced into a situation that they were uncomfortable with. I can’t imagine my boss telling me “you better do this or you’ll be docked pay and…….” Think about it. It isn’t so much that the firefighters don’t “like” the gay community as it is about them being wrongly strong armed by their superiors for what? PR?
Comment by CJSDFD — August 10, 2007 @ 2:02 am - August 10, 2007
#60:
And what exactly is offensive about a “girth and mirth” tee shirt? It seems to me that these guys were straining to find something “offensive” to include men kissing and “girth and mirth” tee shirts as “sexual harassment.” Based on the complaint’s description of the firemen’s attitudes prior to the actual parade, I suspect that there are two possibilities: either the men already had problems with their management and saw the harassment complaint as a means to screw their superiors or, two, these guys truly are homophobic, in which case, I don’t understand what they’re doing serving in a gay neighborhood such as Hillcrest. In any event, I too welcome the investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
Comment by Ian S — August 10, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - August 10, 2007
Ian, I agree. I think there is a lot of missing information here to make any conclusion, and my opinions, based on what I’ve seen thus far, may change depending on what really happened, and what the rule is regarding the duty the firefighters felt wrongly compelled to perform.
I don’t know whether these guys are homophobic or not. Even if they were, they may not have had a choice as to which neighborhood of San Diego they had to serve. But even if they made that choice, their complaint is obviously valid if they were wrongfully compelled to go to the parade.
Comment by Pat — August 10, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - August 10, 2007
I don’t see why anyone needs to be slobbering over anyone else in public anyway, homo or hetero. I guess I’m just a prude.
Comment by V the K — August 10, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - August 10, 2007
65, V the K, my partner feels the same way as you (and he’s somewhat more to the left than I am). So you won’t see PDAs by us, even in a gay neighborhood. However, I’m guessing these firefighters wouldn’t have been offended if it was opposite sex people kissing or hugging (or perhaps if it was two women).
Comment by Pat — August 13, 2007 @ 8:18 am - August 13, 2007