It is in your weeds and on your signs. It is around the corner and behind the vines!Â
D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N!
Don’t look now…. you might be offended at any moment by everyday life. The answer, of course, is to sue or sic the big Bad Government on the (obviously white heterosexual male) offenders.
Item Number One:Â “Men At Work” signs to vanish in Atlanta
In the battle of the sexes, women’s magazine editor Cynthia Good said this was a skirmish she had to fight.
Across Atlanta they stood, orange signs with black letters that read “Men At Work” or “Men Working Ahead.”
Sometimes, the signs stood next to women working alongside the men.
Good demanded Atlanta officials remove the signs and last week, Atlanta Public Works Commissioner Joe Basista agreed.
Score one for gender equality, Good said Wednesday.
Item Number Two: Gay Rights Group Offended By Brush-Clearing Project
Bristol City Council (UK)Â wants to prune bushes and remove cover from an area known as the Downs to improve the landscape and encourage rare wildlife.
But its own gay rights group has opposed the move, claiming that cutting back the bushes was “discriminating” to homosexual men who used the area for late night outdoor sex known as dogging.
Work on the beauty spot has been temporarily delayed while talks with gay rights groups take place to try and break the deadlock.
Oy.
Get used to it folks! Obama’s Reign of the People of The World will be all about identity politics and them vs. them. Dr. King would be so proud.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Let me see if I get it.
The state should spend lots of money because some people can’t understand what ‘men’ means in this context. So are they going to next say we should change to ‘hupeople’?
And as to our friends over the pond, isn’t outdoor shagging illegal even over there? I find it strange that they want the ‘right’ to break the law then.
Item Number Two gets even better. Here’s a link and a quote.
Did you see the nonsense about the Mr. T Snickers commercial in the UK?
2: Personally, I agree with laws that stop people from engaging in public sex and they should be arrested.
The thing I find interesting in the case of the firefighters, is when did firefighters become officers of the law? Not here and to my knowledge, not in England where the incident took place. If the local coppers were arresting these guys for public sex, then so be it. If you read the whole story (and accounts elsewhere when it happened last year), the firemen involved were possibly drunk and were doing this as a laugh and specifically meant to harass these guys. And, it seems the firemen were not punished for shining their lights on the guys, but for using publicly owned fire equipment (their fire truck) in a little jaunt that had nothing to do with their work. I’m just curious if these guys would have done the same thing if it was males/females involved in public “heterosexual” sex.
If they want to harass people, then maybe they should have done it on their own time, out of uniform and not with council owned equipment. Or, better yet, they should have called the cops to deal with the situation.
3: Why yes! And did you see the Michelle Maulkin get her knickers in a twist over Rachel Ray’s Dunkin Donuts commercial accusing Ms. Ray of wearing “terrorist clothing”?
Note how Kevin deftly sidesteps the issue about people breaking the law, and instead focuses on those who were shining the spotlight (litterally) on the lawbreakers.
Don’t you love how Kevin claims to be against public sex, but then smears and tries to get punished those who get gay people arrested for doing it?
The latter nicely contradicts the former.
6: No, I think I was very clear….if you’re having sex in the bushes in a public place, then you should be arrested.
7: Why don’t you actually read what I wrote? If the cops went and arrested these guys, I’d be in perfect agreement with it. didn’t I start off writing that? Oh, yes, there it is in the very first sentence of my post. Do you not understand written english correctly?
I dont follow the morality threads very carefully , so i have no idea if this was talked about before…
But here is the Zombietime report on the
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
This is the intro:
Up Your Alley Fair
San Francisco, July 27, 2008
Part 1
Introduction
This page features a photo essay about the 2008 “Up Your Alley” Fair — a free, open-to-the-public street festival held in San Francisco on July 27. Up Your Alley — which until recently was called the Dore Alley Fair — is very similar to the larger and more well-known Folsom Street Fair, in that they are both held to celebrate the leather and fetish scene in the gay community. While Folsom is internationally known and draws visitors from all over the world, Up Your Alley is thought of more as the fetish event “for locals,” and because of that it is smaller, has fewer retail vendors and booths, and generally flies under the radar.
However, in recent years, the original Dore Alley Fair stopped being independently produced, and became a subsidiary of the larger Folsom Street Fair nonprofit organization; the name was changed to Up Your Alley, and was it was more heavily promoted on the official Folsom Web site. As a result, as I discovered this year, Up Your Alley has become extremely popular itself, with many tens of thousands of people in attendance (at least from my guess, though I’m no expert at estimating the sizes of crowds). Now it seems to be more than just a warm-up for Folsom, but instead has grown to become a major event in its own right (some of the photos below show how crowded it was).
Why Make This Report? The Politics of Exhibitionism and Public Sex
The story behind this report has its origins last year, when I did a photo essay about the Folsom Street Fair itself. After a controversy arose in 2007 about the “blasphemous” poster (a fetishistic parody of The Last Supper) advertising the Folsom event, and about Miller Beer’s prominently visible sponsorship, I went to check out the 2007 Folsom festival to see if it really was as extreme as is detractors were claiming.
Turns out that it was. I did a lot of musing and agonizing about my decision whether or not to publish my Folsom photos; rather than repeat myself, I invite readers who never saw my original Folsom report to read my introduction to it here, because most of the arguments I made then remain relevant to this new report as well.
but heaven forbid the citizens actually take steps to protect their laws.
Vince, I did see that, as a nominal member of the leather community, I was and am appalled. Then again, I’m sure KEvin would support the cops breaking that up.
Ok, not so much.
Umm, perhaps 800-900 years or so ago, when citizens did. Possibly sooner / more.
LOL. Sorry to refer to the same article twice, but again, Kevin, please do brush up on your English common law. You clearly need to.
Oh, but they obviously did, Kevin. Just as Livewire and NDT said: at #4 you made a passing reference to opposing public sex, but then spent the vast bulk of your argument / time knocking the citizens who were policing against it.
P.S. My defense of the firemen as citizens (thus fully entitled and empowered to make citizens’ arrests) should be read as a “final resort” defense of the firemen. For all I know, it could be that in the jurisdiction in question, they have some type of ordinary or explicit duties in law enforcement. I don’t know. And I suspect Kevin doesn’t either. I’m just saying that *even if they don’t*, they still have Common Law authority / duty and hence, don’t deserve Kevin’s campaign of sleazy insinuations against them.
#7: “The latter nicely contradicts the former.”
NDT, liberals are soooooooo predictable. We’ve certainly seen this before–liberals are physically incapable of condemning anyone’s bad behavior unless it’s a conservative, a Christian or a soldier. They claim to agree that something is wrong, illegal or evil, and then we get what I call the “equivocation dissertation.” They condemn the conduct and then go on and on for at least 20 minutes (or 20 pages) comparing it to something else that they ACTUALLY condemn, questioning the timing, or attempting to raise insidious suspicions about the innocent people involved. It’s just pure, involuntary instinct to hopelessly dug-in liberals like Kevin. It’s just the way their brain works–when confronted with the indefensible, the rusty hamster-wheels in their heads immediately start cranking out strategies for blaming anyone but the guilty. That’s how Kevin came up with these two howlers:
“And, it seems the firemen were not punished for shining their lights on the guys, but for using publicly owned fire equipment (their fire truck) in a little jaunt that had nothing to do with their work.”
“If they want to harass people, then maybe they should have done it on their own time, out of uniform and not with council owned equipment.”
You see, the absurd little gems above don’t even occur to people who can still tell the difference between right and wrong. Kevin really needs to think about WHY his first, innate instinct when he reads a story like this is to find some way, some how to exonerate the guilty party. WHY, Kevin? What on Earth happened in your life that made you think this way?
And it will be up to the people to fork over money when these guys get infected.
After reading a few articles on the Avon Fire-Rescue issue and my experiences in Fire-Resce-EMS, this was all about being PC. The issue of misusing fire apparatus is a ruse to placate tax payers. If that were the issue, the fire service wouldn’t be donating the fines to gay charities nor would the firefighters be forced to take part in an anti-discrimination conference.
In short, this was all about apologizing for “hurting the feelings” of law breakers and nothing to do with misuse of fire apparatus. That’s the cover story to ensure that no matter what, these firefighters were supposedly in the wrong.
And yes, Kevin’s making excuses just like the fire service.
I think it’s Human Rights Law in the UK now… if anyone does anything that demostrates that person still has common sense.. that that person is comitting crime against humanity.
I thought I read an, article at the time, that the station was adjacent to this park or whatever and the apparatus was returning to the station when the perps were spotted. Dunno. Can’t find the article now.
If these guys were drunk, they would not be employed at the moment. However, they probably would in a Socialist wonderland. Here in the states, they wouldn’t be employed.
Generally, apparatus can be driven anywhere within it’s assigned district anytime as long as the dispatchers are aware of it. If the issue was “misusing” the apparatus, they wouldn’t have been fined and reassigned to other stations. This is TOTALLY about making the firefighters out to be the bad guys.
How long before this happens here?
That would explain why the story ends with the firemen being punished, not the doggers.
Notice how Kevin has fled this thread? We had a ‘sting*’ operation last year here in Ohio. Nailed an english teacher from my old high school. I cheered it then.
*I use the term ‘sting’ in quotes, because well if you’re a cop and you come across a couple having public sex, did you really set them up?
21: Big difference between a police operation that is specifically geared to arrest people for illegal acts and drunken firemen who are simply gay-baiting by shining flashlights on people in the dark for a laugh. Funny, nothing mentions these guys acting to make citizens arrests, protecting the public, etc. They were acting like a bunch of drunken frat boys.
As has been shown above, the reality does not match your assertions.
Come on Kevin, condemn the up your alley festival. Agree that the cops should have been enforcing the law.
Big difference between a police operation that is specifically geared to arrest people for illegal acts and drunken firemen who are simply gay-baiting by shining flashlights on people in the dark for a laugh.
And again, the desperate liberal gay Kevin smears the firemen rather than the people who were having illegal public sex.
Notice how Kevin also says that putting a stop to gays having public sex is “gay-baiting”. Again, the lies of Kevin are exposed; he claims that public sex is wrong and that people who do it should be stopped, but he claims that stopping gay people from having it is “gay-baiting”.
NDT,
Kevin’s waiting for DNC talking points on this apparently.
The DNC supports gays having public sex. Pelosi herself has said that there is nothing wrong with either Up Your Alley or the Folsom Street Fair, even when gay and lesbian parents bring two-year-old children dressed as sexual slaves to them.
When you realize what Pelosi actually supports, her apocalyptic “Grammy Pelosi” fit over Mark Foley becomes astonishing in her hypocrisy. Put bluntly, she considers sending instant messages to seventeen-year-olds to be child molestation — but says that actually having sex with those seventeen-year-olds, as her endorsee Gerry Studds did, or taking two-year-old children dressed as sexual slaves to a public sex fair in which naked and half-naked adults masturbate and have sex in front of them and calling it an “educational experience”, is not.
“Men at Work”
I wohat the ACTUAL WOMEN WHO WERE WORKING thought of the signs?