SD Firemen forced to Participate in Gay Parade
January 7, 2009
Technorati Tags: World Net Daily,Christian Firefighters,2007 San Diego Pride Festival,Gay Parade,Freedom of Speech,Compelled Speech,Chuck LiMandri,Thomas More Law Center
The story is shocking. Especially for anyone who lives in San Diego.
Check out these sites for the story:
Kingfisher: Fire Fighters Ordered into Gay Parade Are Back in Court
Beetle Babee: Harassment on Parade
Entry Filed under: Marriage is the Heart of Society. Tags: 2007 San Diego Pride Festival, Christian Firefighters, Chuck LiMandri, Compelled Speech, Freedom of Speech, Gay Parade, Thomas More Law Center, World Net Daily.
1.
Pearl | January 7, 2009 at 8:25 am
Hooray for comments! I’m so glad you’ve turned on this function, PA, because I have often wanted to comment on your brilliant posts.
Anyway, as far as this firefighter thing goes, it has really shaken me up. I cannot believe that this is really happening and that jurors are not seeing right through this. Those firefighters were forced to choose between their jobs and their consciences, something that Americans should be loath to be privy to without some sort of uproar! Unfortunately, there has been none because the main stream media won’t cover the story without bias (as is fairly typical of them these days).
And did you see Kingfisher’s picture that accompanies their post on this subject? I commented a little about it there, but I’ll say it again here. After seeing that picture, I decided to do a Google image search for San Diego Pride Festival pictures and the results were alarming, disgusting, perverted, twisted, just so, so wrong in so many ways. I really hope America wakes up from its slumber, wakes up and remembers the necessity of morals and values.
2.
rubyeliot | January 7, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Pearl! I’m excited about comments.
I was reading some stuff last night, and I did see that the fire department changed it’s policy after the firemen’s lawsuit. But I think it is the right thing for them to continue with their lawsuit. I’m going to do a post about it tonight probably
3.
Jesurgislac | January 7, 2009 at 7:37 pm
If the firefighters were sexually harassed at the San Diego gay pride march, the appropriate people to communicate with are the march organisers.
In my experience, people who run Pride marches take their responsibility for community safety for all march participants very seriously, and would not tolerate any sexual harassment of any march participants.
What a couple of the firefighters report is not that they were offended by what they witnessed on the parade, but that they were upset by being taunted about it at work afterwards. Obviously this highlights a problem in the San Diego fire service, but it’s not a problem with the firefighters being required to man an engine in a city parade: it’s a problem with homophobic bigotry in the fire service.
If it’s customary for the fire service to be represented in city parades, fairly obviously, it should not be a problem when firefighters are required to attend just because it’s LGBT. LGBT people are citizens of San Diego.
4.
Pearl | January 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“If the firefighters were sexually harassed….”
There is no “if.” They were.
“…the appropriate people to communicate with are the march organisers.”
Oh, I’m sure the march organizers have been notified. But the “appropriate people” to notify in this case are the superiors who forced their employees, against their will, to walk in a parade for which their professional services were not required.
“What a couple of the firefighters report is not that they were offended by what they witnessed on the parade, but that they were upset by being taunted about it at work afterwards.”
Yes, and what another couple of firefighters report is the experience all four had while walking in the parade. I mean, I assume that cat calls and lewd gestures did not fall on deaf ears or blind eyes just three firemen away. They have pictures, for goodness sake!
“Obviously this highlights a problem in the San Diego fire service….”
Yes. Tracy Jarman. Lesbian fire chief forcing the acceptance of her beliefs on her employees.
“it’s a problem with homophobic bigotry….”
Ah yes, here we go again. Those with religious convictions against homosexual acts are always “homophobic bigots.” What a tired, flawed assertion.
“If it’s customary for the fire service to be represented in city parades, fairly obviously, it should not be a problem when firefighters are required to attend just because it’s LGBT.”
City parades celebrate events and holidays, not personal sexual orientations. And city parades do not boast nudity, licentiousness, lewdness, and irreverence. Obviously there was something wrong with the requirement since San Diego City has since changed their policy regarding public safety figures walking in the Pride Festival.
“LGBT people are citizens of San Diego.”
Of course they are. And their parade is still allowed to occur each year. No one is contesting their citizenry. It is not anyone’s right, however, to compel a person to represent a cause he/she does not believe in by forcing them to walk in a parade celebrating that cause. Compelled speech is illegal in California. No one should have to choose between job security and conscience/religious convictions.
5.
rubyeliot | January 7, 2009 at 8:25 pm
j.slac,
thanks for your comment.
according to the article, the firemen were harrassed during the parade:
“Ghiotto, a captain at the time, said he suggested to supervisors that volunteers be used for the parade, but instead officials ordered him to take a crew.
“While moving down the parade route we were subjected to verbal abuse, (show me your hose, you can put out my fire, give me mouth to mouth, flick you fireman) sexual gestures, (showing their penis, blowing kisses, grabbing their crotch, rubbing their nipples, tongue gestures, flipping us off),” Ghiotto reported in a statement.”
6.
Secular Heretic | January 8, 2009 at 4:21 am
It is an abuse of power for the Fire chief to order employees to take part in such a controversial event as this. Perhaps the fired department should also take part in the “walk for life” event to protest against abortion. Instead of celebrating “sexual orientation” they could celebrate life.
7.
Jesurgislac | January 8, 2009 at 10:35 am
. I mean, I assume that cat calls and lewd gestures did not fall on deaf ears or blind eyes just three firemen away.
Yes, and if those cat calls/lewd gestures upset the firefighters at the time, the Pride stewards (or whatever the trained volunteers are called in San Diego) should have been notified – in fact, the firefighters should have been specifically told by their supervisors that Pride personnel, who would have been identified by an official t-shirt or brassard, were the people to get in touch with for on-the-spot help to get the people causing offense to quit it. Pride is supposed to be a grand day out for all, and no one should spend it feeling harassed/upset.
If the firefighters were not aware where they should seek help, that was primarily the fault of their supervisors, who ought to have ensured that they knew how to call for response.
If the firefighters became upset after the parade because they were taunted by their co-workers, that is a problem at work, not primarily with the parade.
It is not anyone’s right, however, to compel a person to represent a cause he/she does not believe in by forcing them to walk in a parade celebrating that cause.
If any firefighters in San Diego do not believe that LGBT people in San Diego are the equals of straight people, they shouldn’t be working for an emergency service: they might at any time be called out to save an LGBT person. If they think LGBT people are inferior, they might not react properly. So if any firefighter was reluctant to attend Pride because the cause of Pride – celebrating the diversity and equality of all citizens regardless of sexual orientation – is one they do not believe in, they should quit the service.
8.
Pearl | January 8, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“If any firefighters in San Diego do not believe that LGBT people in San Diego are the equals of straight people, they shouldn’t be working for an emergency service: they might at any time be called out to save an LGBT person. If they think LGBT people are inferior, they might not react properly.”
Jesurgislac, this is illogical. You’ve jumped from people disagreeing with a lifestyle to “think[ing] LGBT people are inferior.” The two are not synonymous. And being forced to walk in a licentious parade is absolutely different than performing lifesaving services on an injured victim. You are reaching here.
It sounds like you agree that the firefighters shouldn’t have been harassed, but you are also unwilling to admit that they have a legitimate right to live their conscience. In an effort to defend this forced participation and its resulting harassment and humiliation, you are attempting to smear the firemen by falsely accusing that they hate all gay people, which is just simply not true. Many people love homosexuals while disagreeing with their choice of sexual orientations.
It is so hard for the homosexual community to relinquish the title of victim, even when (especially when) they have factually become the perpetrator.
9.
jesurgislac | January 8, 2009 at 10:26 pm
You’ve jumped from people disagreeing with a lifestyle to “think[ing] LGBT people are inferior.” The two are not synonymous.
Actually, in the instance we are discussing, they are.Afirefighter on duty, obeying the legitimate commands of their superior, has no business “disagreeing with a lifestyle”: that is a matter for their personal life.
Further, many people – including you – use the euphemism “disagreeing with a lifestyle” when they do, in fact, consider LGBT people to be inferior: as you have argued yourself in your blog, on frequent occasions, though you are as afraid to let me disagree with you there as you are of coming over to my blog and arguing your case with me there.
And being forced to walk in a licentious parade
They weren’t “forced to walk in a licentious parade”. They were ordered to staff their fire engine on a Pride parade. Do try to stick to the facts.
It sounds like you agree that the firefighters shouldn’t have been harassed
Of course I do – at their workplace, or at the parade. It sounds as if for at least two of the firefighters it was harassment in the workplace that caused problems, not anything that happened to them at the parade.
but you are also unwilling to admit that they have a legitimate right to live their conscience.
Absolutely they have a legitimate right to live their conscience, and no one should prevent them from resigning from the fire service if they find it against their conscience, when on duty, to treat all San Diego citizens equally regardless of sexual orientation.
“Having a legitimate right to live your conscience” does not mean that you are entitled to refuse legitimate orders to perform a normal part of your job – in this case, representing the fire service on a civic parade.
you are attempting to smear the firemen by falsely accusing that they hate all gay people, which is just simply not true
Not at all.
Many people love homosexuals while disagreeing with their choice of sexual orientations.
No, none at all. Anyone who claims to express “love” for a person while failing to respect who they are and telling them that they “chose” to be lesbian, gay, b isexual, is being a hypocrite: if you despise someone and lie about them, as these people do, obviously you don’t love them.
It is so hard for the homosexual community to relinquish the title of victim, even when (especially when) they have factually become the perpetrator.
That comes oddly from a member of the anti-marriage movement, which tried to present themselves as the victims even after they won Proposition 8.
10.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 12:16 am
Jesu, you are so fun.
11.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 12:40 am
They weren’t “forced to walk in a licentious parade”.
Let’s see. The parade was a disgusting display of licentious behavior, speech, and illegal acts of public sex as documented with photographic evidence. And, they were forced to walk in it, despite of the presentation of a perfectly reasonable alternative for the recruitment of volunteers. (Admission of wrong-doing is evident in the city’s now-altered policy regarding the mandating of public safety personnel to walk in the Pride Festival). So, yes, they were forced to walk in a licentious parade. Fact.
“It sounds as if for at least two of the firefighters it was harassment in the workplace that caused problems, not anything that happened to them at the parade.”
Again, you are splitting hairs to give your argument the appearance of validity. It is an illusion. The four firefighters together initially objected to participation in the Pride Festival. If harassment in the workplace ensued as a result of forced participation in the parade against previous objections, then the source for distress is the circumstance around which the harassment is taking place. They have a very real right to move forward with their complaint against the city’s fire department for their workplace and parade harassment because if not for their superior’s orders, the firefighters would never have been subjected to it. I do not blame the parade either, we are fighting in agreement here on that point. But I do cast blame toward those who refuse a reasonable compromise when one is presented. It should not have been the “walk in the parade or face disciplinary action” ultimatum that it was.
12.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 12:42 am
Sorry, that “Let’s see….” paragraph is mine. Somehow I managed to make it italicized too. Oops.
13.
beetlebabee | January 9, 2009 at 12:46 am
It is surprising that anyone would try to defend what happened to these men. It is unconscionable. Pornographic pictures of this event abound. It’s not unknown what kind of circumstance they were being ordered into, it happens every year just the same.
14.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 12:53 am
Okay, then. Where did I leave off. Oh yes. You said,
“Absolutely they have a legitimate right to live their conscience, and no one should prevent them from resigning from the fire service if they find it against their conscience, when on duty, to treat all San Diego citizens equally regardless of sexual orientation.”
And here we see the uncompromising and unreasonable nature of the beast that is the homosexual movement. The cry is for acceptance or dismissal! Those firefighters were not “on duty” as you suggest. They were not responding to an emergency call. They were not there to monitor the crowd in order to give assistance should life-saving procedures have been necessary (though I have no doubt they would have). Their presence in the parade was merely a matter of aesthetics and politics. This is evidenced by Tracy Jarman’s repeated assertions that the parade is merely a “fun event” in which her employees are “encouraged” to participate. No official capacity there. You are inventing that for the benefit of your argument against the “discriminating,” “homophobic” firefighters.
15.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 1:14 am
Oops, somehow I missed one.
“Afirefighter on duty, obeying the legitimate commands of their superior, has no business “disagreeing with a lifestyle”: that is a matter for their personal life.”
Again. Not on duty. Not a legitimate command (though considering your sympathies, I understand your opinion would be in favor of Jarman’s mandate). What you suggest, that disagreement with a lifestyle is only acceptable at home, is ludicrous. In your world, we are all to become two-faced in order to soothe the hurting ego of the homosexual movement. Moral at home; immoral at work (or shut up and keep it to yourself). Religious at home; secular at work. Homosexuals can flaunt their sexual orientation and the rest of the world is subjected to it with hands bound behind our backs by ridiculous anti-discrimination laws and tongues tied by ridiculous hate speech laws – all designed to pander to the homosexuals. Let’s be sure not to hurt anyone’s feelings (psst…as long as we’re talking about our feelings and not those religious freaks’). People can still save the lives of those they do not religiously agree with, Jesurgislac. Policemen save murderers, firemen save child abusers, and both regularly save drug addicts from themselves. It IS possible to love those you disagree with. It just doesn’t seem possible for you.
16.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 1:16 am
Okay, moving on. I said that you were attempting to smear the fireman by falsely accusing that they hate all gay people. You responded,
“Not at all.”
So I ask, then, what is your purpose in falsely accusing them of hating all gay people?
17.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 1:37 am
“No, none at all. Anyone who claims to express “love” for a person while failing to respect who they are and telling them that they “chose” to be lesbian, gay, b isexual, is being a hypocrite: if you despise someone and lie about them, as these people do, obviously you don’t love them.”
While it is apparent that some GLBT folks are born with attractions for members of their same sex. It is equally apparent that it is a choice for those people to act upon those attractions or not. History has shown more than a few people to have walked away from the homosexual lifestyle to live a happy and fulfilling heterosexual lifestyle. In their urgent desire for acceptance, however, practicing homosexuals will dismiss these former tenets of their lifestyle as anomalies, individuals living a pathetic life in denial of their true feelings. This assertion is generally delivered in a conclusive manner, as if gay “rights” activists have some universal claim on the inner workings of all homosexuals’ minds. So much so, in fact, that they claim more expertise than experts on the matter; or more knowledge so as to refute the individual’s own testimony as to his/her feelings.
At any rate, you’ve once again presented your opinion as fact. You believe that the choice aspect of the homosexual lifestyle is a lie. Fair enough. But choice or not, simply because you cannot fathom love for someone engaged in a deviant lifestyle does not mean that others are not capable of it. The Lord admonishes us to love everyone, even murderers. Now I do not agree with murder. Not on whit. So does my disagreement with murder make me a hypocrite when I say I still love murderers as God’s children? No. It doesn’t.
18.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 1:43 am
“That comes oddly from a member of the anti-marriage movement, which tried to present themselves as the victims even after they won Proposition 8.”
Who me? Anti-marriage? I think you mistake me for someone else. I am sorry that you are still feeling doused by my refusal to tango with you on my own blog. Truly I am. But look what fun we’re having here on PomegranatApple’s blog!
19.
jesurgislac | January 9, 2009 at 4:11 am
. If harassment in the workplace ensued as a result of forced participation in the parade against previous objections, then the source for distress is the circumstance around which the harassment is taking place.
No: the source for distress is the harassment in the workplace. No one should be harassed in their workplace for obeying the legitimate order of their superior.
. I do not blame the parade either, we are fighting in agreement here on that point.
Well, that depends. From all that’s been reported – aside from the usual wild and invariably untrue claims of “sex acts in public!” – the firefighters were, as they now claim they perceived it at the time, subjected to cat calls and gestures that made them feel uncomfortable/harassed. If what happened was out of line and stewards ought to have stepped in, then the parade was to blame: if the firefighters were registering visible distress and attempting to ask fro help, the stewards ought to have stepped in: if the firefighters were apparently registering no distress at all because they didn’t know who to ask to get people to stop, then they ought to have been told “get a steward to help”: and if they started getting distessed about the situation only back at their fire station when they were harassed by their workmates, then the fire service needs an overhaul, and more firefighters need to be told to attend the parade next year.
Those firefighters were not “on duty” as you suggest.
What, they were ordered to attend the parade on their own time, not in working hours? Well, that is legitimate cause for complaint, but I didn’t see that specified before. Where does it say they were required to do this in their time off?
What you suggest, that disagreement with a lifestyle is only acceptable at home, is ludicrous.
Actually, it’s the law.People are generally required to keep their personal objections to themselves when they are at work, whether they are dealing with their co-workers or customers or the general public.Some people might well argue it was actually moral, as well as legally required, to treat everyone with equal courtesy and decency rather than aggressively insist on broadcasting your personal opinion of their “lifestyle” all over everyone. If you work in a store and a gay couple come in with their kid to buy stuff, it’s your responsibility to treat them as you would any other family: im many places it’s the law that you must: and the shop management will generally consider you’re for not doing your job if you’re being rude or dismissive of them because your personal views mean you have to believe they’re sinners and inferior parents and their child is being brought up badly – no matter what they’re actually like. The same applies in any other situation where you might be required to interact on a professional level with lesbian, gay, or bisexual people, and their families.
So I ask, then, what is your purpose in falsely accusing them of hating all gay people?
Where, exactly, did I accuse these four firefighters of hating all gay people?
Policemen save [black people], firemen save [black people], and both regularly save [black people] from themselves.
Yes? And? So? Does this give a cop or a firefighter on duty licence to express racist comments?
20.
jesurgislac | January 9, 2009 at 4:17 am
While it is apparent that some [straight] folks are born with attractions for members of the [other] sex. It is equally apparent that it is a choice for those people to act upon those attractions or not.
True, but irrelevant. Some people do manage to live a celibate life: most people don’t, and shouldn’t be required to do so against their wishes and inclinations. Normal human sexual orientation ranges from heterosexual to homosexual. The whole “ex-gay” movement may be founded on the idea that people can force themselves away from their natural sexual orientation, but no one has ever been able to honestly claim they succeeded in making a gay person become straight.
But choice or not, simply because you cannot fathom love for someone engaged in a deviant lifestyle does not mean that others are not capable of it.
I cannot fathom how people who plainly feel no love for LGBT people manage to convince themselves that the contempt they express is “love”.
Who me? Anti-marriage? I think you mistake me for someone else.
Not at all. You’ve consistently written and argued against marriage on your blog: indeed, the comments which you were afraid to publish were arguing, as I recall, for marriage and in defense of families, made in response to your posts arguing against marriage and families.
I am sorry that you are still feeling doused by my refusal to tango with you on my own blog. Truly I am.
Heh. More accurately, I am cynically amused by your fear.
21.
jesurgislac | January 9, 2009 at 4:22 am
Oh, and while I appreciate that you are too scared to comment on my blog, Pearl, you might find this of interest: I wrote this in response to a couple of evangelical Christian posts about homosexuality.
22.
leftcoastvoter | January 9, 2009 at 5:21 am
I see a problem with Firefighters being ordered to participate in a Gay Pride parade when they do not want to.
Surely, there were Firefighters in San Diego who wanted to participate and could have been used as volunteers.
And yes, Firefighters have to respond to everyone for emergencies – Straight, Gay, Pedophile, Richard Gere, it doesn’t matter.
23.
Secular Heretic | January 9, 2009 at 5:33 am
“Some people do manage to live a celibate life: most people don’t, and shouldn’t be required to do so against their wishes and inclinations.”
Those people who do have a same sex attraction and manage to live a celibate life should be commend for their determination to live an authentic human life.
Same sex attraction is a disorder. People who suffer from it must be helped to deal with it. It is wrong to say that everything is ok and if you want you can take part in homosexual sex. Homosexual acts or disordered and are not in keeping with human nature.
24.
rubyeliot | January 9, 2009 at 6:23 am
@ j.slac
policemen save [black people], firemen save [black people], and both regularly save [black people] from themselves.
Being black is a proven immutable physical characteristic. It has nothing to do with behavior or choice.
While same-sex attraction occurs naturally, no one knows the cause, and it expresses itself in behavior.
The comparison only reveals your desperation. It’s a blatant, unfounded, emotional appeal.
But thank you for your helpful discussion points.
25.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 6:58 am
What is this, round 34? Okay, that’s okay. I’m game.
“No: the source for distress is the harassment in the workplace. No one should be harassed in their workplace for obeying the legitimate order of their superior.”
The harassment would have not have taken place on a regular, normal day at the fire station. It was elicited by an unwanted walk in the Pride Festival, therefore, the Pride Festival is the instigator. Yes, the harassing firefighters ought to be disciplined, but it does nothing to avoid similar situations in the future if you ignore the root of the problem.
“aside from the usual wild and invariably untrue claims of “sex acts in public!”
I love that even photographic evidence isn’t enough to move the one-track victim mentality of the gay “rights” machine. If photos of illegal public sex acts are dismissed as “wild and invariably untrue claims,” Jesurgislac, our society is in even more trouble than I previously thought.
“Where does it say they were required to do this in their time off?”
Let’s see. I believe I already mentioned it above, but it bares repeating, so I’ll say it again. When Tracy Jarman, San Diego Fire Chief, says that the Pride Festival is a “fun event” in which her employees “are encouraged to participate,” does that sound like they were there in an official role? No. And yet, when these four firefighters requested to abstain from participation, suggesting that volunteers be used instead, their request was categorically refused and they were ordered to suit up, or else. It doesn’t have to be in their “time off” to be unofficial. Firefighters make appearances in many unofficial functions such as children’s charities; this is just the first time firefighters were forced to make an appearance in one such unofficial function that, contrary to their religious beliefs, celebrates a deviant sexual orientation.
“People are generally required to keep their personal objections to themselves when they are at work….”
Sure, sure. I agree. But these firefighters weren’t just asked to keep their religious beliefs to themselves at work. They were asked to, on this occasion, keep their beliefs to themselves AND contradict them by lending perceived support to homosexuality with their presence in the parade. They even made special note of their humiliation that Christian parade protesters, people with whom they share religious convictions, naturally mistook them for supporters of the gay lifestyle.
“Where, exactly, did I accuse these four firefighters of hating all gay people?”
Oh, my mistake. I apologize. You didn’t actually use the word hate. I was referring to the comment in which you claimed that “If any firefighters in San Diego do not believe that LGBT people in San Diego are the equals of straight people, they shouldn’t be working for an emergency service: they might at any time be called out to save an LGBT person. If they think LGBT people are inferior, they might not react properly.” So you are right, “hateful” was the wrong word. More accurately you describe all those who do not agree with the gay lifestyle as superior and condescending toward homosexuals. Much better.
“Policemen save [black people], firemen save [black people], and both regularly save [black people] from themselves.
Yes? And? So? Does this give a cop or a firefighter on duty licence to express racist comments?”
Oh boy, here we go. Seriously? First, skin color and sexual orientation … two very different things. One is uncontrollable; the other is not (for, as you claim, there is a broad spectrum of human sexuality from which one could choose). Second, the firefighters (not “on duty”) never “expressed [sexist] comments.” They simply asked not to be involved in promoting a lifestyle that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
“I cannot fathom how people who plainly feel no love for LGBT people manage to convince themselves that the contempt they express is “love”.”
Contempt. Hm. Interesting. I love my brothers-in-law. Very much. And my cousin. All gay. My children adore them. Something which makes me very happy because they see them for the children of God that they are rather than for the sexual orientation they have chosen. I have never expressed contempt for them. Ever. Only the lifestyle they choose to lead. I express contempt for alcoholism, but love alcoholics as children of God. I express contempt for murder, but love the murderers as children of God. What needs to be cured in the homosexual culture is the victim mentality. The old and tired cries of discrimination; the perceived sole ownership of persecution. If only those who suffer from same-sex attractions could actually absorb and process the knowledge that, just like everyone else on this planet, they are the masters of their own destiny, the captains of their own vessels! Perhaps then the cop out of blaming genetics for their adherence to a destructive lifestyle would cease. Perhaps then they would stop trying to imitate healthy relationships by attempting to appropriate institutions to which they do not now, nor ever will (in the eyes of God), belong. Perhaps then true healing could take place as joy is found in pursuing healthy activities that are not centralized around forcing public opinion to approve of their abnormal sexual orientation.
“the comments which you were afraid to publish were arguing, as I recall, for marriage and in defense of families, made in response to your posts arguing against marriage and families.”
Ah, and here you weakly attempt to slander me. That’s okay. I’m a tough cookie. The thing is, you, Jesurgislac, argue for the redefinition of marriage and family. No, scratch that. You argue in favor of a non-definition of marriage. The more the merrier – let he who wants to, be involved, no matter the long-term consequences to children, family, and society. You subscribe to a school of thought which lacks the important societal keystones of self-restraint, self-control, and selflessness; self-sacrifice for the greater good.
“More accurately, I am cynically amused by your fear.”
And I am amused, though not cynically because cynicism is not very nice, by your interpretation of my practicality as fear.
“…you might find this of interest: I wrote this in response to a couple of evangelical Christian posts about homosexuality.”
No, thank you. I have had occasion to read your blog in the past. I think I get about as much of your unique opinions and beliefs as I’d care to read while I’m out and about on pro-marriage blogs.
26.
jesurgislac | January 9, 2009 at 9:13 am
Going back to the issue of the firefighters, this article in the LA Times confirms: the firefighters were on duty – they were ordered to drive their firetruck in the parade as a public relations activity – and it appears at least some of the harassment they have received at work is because their co-workers regard them as money-grubbers trying to take advantage.
Pearl, if you’re unwilling to defend your views opposing marriage at your own blog or at mine, it seems unfair to Pomegranate to hijack the thread in this way. Same to others who want to make this discussion about their disapproval of homosexuality. My blog is open to comments, providing they are not abusive…
leftcoastvoter: I see a problem with Firefighters being ordered to participate in a Gay Pride parade when they do not want to.
Surely, there were Firefighters in San Diego who wanted to participate and could have been used as volunteers.
I think it would set a bad principle that firefighters are allowed to discriminate. It’s a part of their job to participate in parades: the nearest station house to the parade route is usually the one that supplies the firetruck and the firefighters: and any problems they have with participating should be dealt with appropriately.
27.
Pearl | January 9, 2009 at 10:10 am
“this article in the LA Times confirms: the firefighters were on duty – they were ordered to drive their firetruck in the parade as a public relations activity….”
Hmm…I could have sworn a firefighter’s duty was to save lives and put out fires. How very old-fashioned of me. I believe promoting public relations, as Tracy Jarman has specified, is not an official role of firefighters, though it was demanded of these four. Besides, I can’t imagine it takes four + to drive one truck. That would certainly look odd. Oh yes, that’s right, the rest were supposed to wave and look cheery about being in a parade for a lifestyle they oppose based on religious convictions which are federally protected in our country. But their views on the gay lifestyle are beside the point. As are mine. These firefighters were assaulted at a public parade in which they never wanted to participate and had previously requested permission to opt out of.
“Pearl, if you’re unwilling to defend your views opposing marriage at your own blog or at mine, it seems unfair to Pomegranate to hijack the thread in this way.”
I am perfectly happy and willing to stand by my views in defense of traditional marriage and family on my blog. But I am also perfectly happy continuing our conversation here. The degenerative nature of the homosexual lifestyle is most definitely relevant to this conversation about the firefighters as they were subjected to its filth against their will and conscience. However, for the most part I think we’ve done a good job sticking to the story line and I see no reason to migrate. I do not hear Pomegranate Apple complaining, just you.
“It’s a part of their job to participate in parades.”
Again, I thought firefighters fought fires and saved lives. I do not for one second believe that this was an official part of their job description; not when San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman “called the parade a ‘fun event’ in which ‘all employees are encouraged to participate.’” Encouraged v. ordered. Two very different words with very different meanings. And with the new policy change, it would seem someone recognized the error in ordering public safety personnel to engage in an activity that normally only warrants “encouragement.”
28.
rubyeliot | January 9, 2009 at 10:17 am
J.slac–you are welcome to comment on this blog, however do not attempt to boss other welcome commentators. Also, please do not misrepresent facts or twist words in your favor (either because of sloppy reading or manipulative purposes).
and it appears at least some of the harassment they have received at work is because their co-workers regard them as money-grubbers trying to take advantage.
Actual quote from the article:
Aguirre, in a brief, suggested that if the firefighters are feeling harassed, it is because of the negative reaction their lawsuit has garnered from the public and colleagues, including allegations the four are “money-grubbers.”
Aguirre is the city attorney. He is on the defensive. And this is only his “suggestion.”
Also, this claim by the city attorney has nothing to do with the parade. It references harassment after the filing of the suit–which is meaningless to this discussion.
29.
Secular Heretic | January 10, 2009 at 1:22 am
There had been lots of discussion about these guys being forced to take part in a parade. They should never have been forced. The Fire chief should have got volunteers. Perhaps no one wanted to volunteer. What are they doing in a parade anyway, aren’t they supposed to be putting out fires?
30.
jesurgislac | January 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Pearl: I am perfectly happy and willing to stand by my views in defense of traditional marriage and family on my blog
No, you were not.
Ruby: J.slac–you are welcome to comment on this blog, however do not attempt to boss other welcome commentators.
I wasn’t attempting to “boss” Pearl: just pointing out that she’s scared to let disagreement with her anti-marriage views appear on her blog, and scared to disagree with my pro-marriage views on mine. However, I apologize for threadjacking, as Pearl’s views on marriage are not relevant to this thread.
Also, this claim by the city attorney has nothing to do with the parade. It references harassment after the filing of the suit–which is meaningless to this discussion.
Depends what impelled the firefighters to file the suit. Two of the firefighters reference harassment at work because they went on the parade. Clearly if they were harassed at work because of going on the parade, this does explain (a) their reluctance to go (b) why they feel no firefighter should have to go. But given that it’s part of a firefighter’s job to do PR for the service (you will not find any fire service disagreeing with this) it’s clearly unacceptable that firefighters can be harassed at work for taking part in a parade instigated by a group that some firefighters have bigoted feelings about.
A firefighter who can’t set aside their homophobic feelings when they come to work has no buisness being in the fire service: they’re required to treat every member of the public the same.
31.
jesurgislac | January 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Actually – followup – I think we’re just going over the same ground. Until the case goes to court, there won’t be any additional public evidence one way or another. So I’ll bow out of this thread, but thanks for allowing me to comment, Ruby.
32.
Pearl | January 10, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“No, you were not.”
I have no doubt this is our discussion (on your blog, I might add) about the practicality (not fear) of my decision to revoke your comment capabilities on my site. I do not need to click on the link to remember how vehemently you accused me of being afraid and in the wrong when I was quite simply swamped with work and family duties and didn’t want to leave your plethora of ridiculous assertions unanswered on my own pro-marriage blog. Seems reasonable to me. Obviously you disagree. That is your prerogative, but your assertions (regarding our conversation and this firefighter situation) continue to lack credibility.
Now, the true hijacker of this thread is you, Jesurgislac, for you keep attempting to draw readers away from this firefighter conversation to your own blog, tangentially introducing our personal disagreements into this discussion.
“A firefighter who can’t set aside their homophobic feelings when they come to work has no buisness being in the fire service: they’re required to treat every member of the public the same.”
And now you’re slinging the H-word. Since they do not agree with the lifestyle, they must naturally be homophobic. It would be to your benefit to read Beetle’s post Homophobe.
Again, they were not there in an official capacity, fighting fires and saving lives. According to Tracy Jarman, they were “encouraged to participate.” The problem is that someone at the fire department doesn’t know the difference between encourage and order – thus the lawsuit.
“Actually – followup – I think we’re just going over the same ground.”
I must say, I am surprised it took you to 31 comments to realize the cyclical nature of this conversation.
33.
Pearl | January 10, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Hmm…so sorry, Ruby (et. al.), I have once again mismanaged my html end tag. Apologies.
34.
jesurgislac | January 10, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It would be to your benefit to read Beetle’s post
*shrug* I don’t read blogs which do not permit civil disagreement. Beetle doesn’t.
35.
Pearl | January 10, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“I don’t read blogs which do not permit civil disagreement. Beetle doesn’t.”
That is untrue and all anyone need do to confirm the false nature of that claim is visit the blog and check out the multitude of conversations which include a variety of dissenting opinions. Keep *shrugging,* Jesurgislac, but lies will get you nowhere. Perhaps you have been banned from Beetle’s blog as well? That would explain the animosity…and the determination to malign those who refuse to print your ridiculous assertions.
36.
Pearl | January 10, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Still hijacking.
37.
rubyeliot | January 10, 2009 at 9:59 pm
@J.Slac– You are welcome back any time as long as you:
a. stay on topic
b. present sincere and reasonable arguments (see below)
c. refrain from making yourself look ridiculous/self-promoting by bringing up past issues with other commentators (which include links to tangential material).
Two of the men complaining of harassment after the parade does not discount the complaint (and experience) of the other two men.
Also, believing homosexual acts are immoral does not make someone homophobic.
Otherwise, thanks for bringing up some good issues. It will be interesting to see what happens. Have a great Sunday!
38.
jesurgislac | January 11, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Also, believing homosexual acts are immoral does not make someone homophobic.
No. But attempting to enforce your private belief on others, or harassing or insulting others because they don’t share your belief, does. A person who thinks homosexual acts are immoral and who is not homophobic, will keep their private belief to themselves.
The proper thing for someone who believes homosexual acts are immoral is to refrain from them. It has absolutely no bearing on firefighters thinking they should be exempted from carrying out a legtiimate order to take part in a parade.
39.
Pearl | January 12, 2009 at 1:22 am
“No. But attempting to enforce your private belief on others, or harassing or insulting others because they don’t share your belief, does. A person who thinks homosexual acts are immoral and who is not homophobic, will keep their private belief to themselves.”
First you use words such as “enforce” and “harass” and “insult” to define a Homophobe, then you swing in another direction altogether to assert that it is someone who believes homosexual acts are immoral and speaks out against them. The idea is “Sure, have your beliefs, but keep your mouth shut and stay out of our way.” Jesurgislac, you have to admit sometime that the entire world does not have to sit down and conform to your beliefs. They don’t. And just because they don’t, doesn’t mean that they are Homophobic. Speaking out is not “harassing” and “insulting.” It is speaking out. And speaking out (in this instance) is not aimed at the individual, but the act.
“The proper thing for someone who believes homosexual acts are immoral is to refrain from them.”
Yes, and if they believe homosexual acts are wrong and destructive, the proper thing is to educate others; not shut up and sit down.
“It has absolutely no bearing on firefighters thinking they should be exempted from carrying out a legtiimate order to take part in a parade.”
If you keep insisting on claiming they were “on duty” and being asked to respond to a “legitimate order,” I will simply keep quoting Lesbian Fire Chief Tracy Jarman who called the festival a “fun event,” one in which her employees were “encouraged to participate.” (Encouraged, not ordered – and herein lies the lawsuit for while she claims it was not mandatory, these four were, nevertheless, subjected to it against their objections).
40.
rubyeliot | January 12, 2009 at 4:09 am
The firefighters were in no way “attempting to enforce [their] beliefs on others.”
The firefighters were in no way “insulting others because they don’t share [their] beliefs.”
It seems it was the other way around. The firefighters were insulted and harassed because of their beliefs. And it was Tracy Jarman who attempted to enforce her beliefs on her employees.
41.
Secular Heretic | January 12, 2009 at 4:25 am
That fire chief aught to be sacked for exposing those men to harassment like they did. Imagine how you would feel parading down the avenue with oddly clad men in front and behind and to the sides of you while they touch each other in ways no normal man would ever do. Passers by might actually think that you support this behavior, that would be the greatest humiliation.
42.
rubyeliot | January 12, 2009 at 5:28 am
They mention that humiliation in their complaint.