Firefighters Forced To Attend Gay Pride Parade

Memphis Slim

Superhero
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
6,996
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Firefighters forced to attend gay pride parade by lesbian fire chief

August 6th, 2007 |
'Firefighters forced to attend gay pride parade by lesbian fire chief' are suing the city of San Diego for being forced by their superiors to attend the annual “Gay Pride” parade where they endured a barrage of sexual taunts and lewd gestures.San Diego’s fire chief, Tracy Jarman, is an open lesbian who called the July 21 parade a “fun event” in which “all employees function". Four firefighters are suing the city of San Diego for being forced by their superiors to attend the important Gay parade where they endured a barrage of sexual taunts and lewd gestures.
San Diego’s fire chief, Tracy Jarman, is an open lesbian who called the July 21 parade a “fun event” in which “all employees are encouraged to participate.”
But the firefighters said, unlike previous years, they were ordered into uniform to participate in the parade in their fire truck, despite repeated their protests.
The firefighters’ legal counsel, the Thomas More Law Center, said the men were “left with the Hobson’s choice of either violating their conscience or being disciplined for disobeying a direct order.”
The firefighters, described as devoted husbands and fathers, said they were subject to the most vulgar kinds of sexual harassment.
“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some type of sexual gesture,” one said, adding, “If any crew member were to hang up pictures at the station of what we saw, we would be disciplined.”
Over the course of three hours, they heard statements such as, “show me your hose,” “you can put out my fire,” “you’re making me hot,” “give me mouth-to-mouth,” “you look hungry, why don’t you have a twinkie (from a man wearing a “Girth and Mirth” t-shirt),” and “blow my hose.”
When they refused to respond to the crowd, some in the crowd turned hostile and started shouting, “F— you firemen” and others began “flipping them off.”
San Diego area attorney, Charles LiMandri, the West Coast director of the Thomas More Law Center, insists the city should have known from past experience “the kind of offensive activities that go on at this event.”
“This was a clear case of sexual harassment in violation of state and federal law as well as the City’s own code of conduct,” he said.
LiMandri said the firefighters also were targets of sexual gestures, including exposure of genitals, blowing kisses, grabbing of the crotch, rubbing of nipples, tongue gestures and men hugging and kissing one another passionately – many wearing make-up and dressed like women.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center argued the constitutional right to free speech also protects the right not to speak.
“These men should not have to explain to their families, friends and church congregations that their presence at a celebration of lewdness and obscenity in support of theimportant homosexual agenda was because they were forced there by way of a direct order,” he said. “This is a clear violation of their constitutional rights, and the city must be held accountable. It should never happen again to any city employee.”
Jarman, the city fire chief, insisted when she was appointed that her homosexuality never been an issue at the department.
But Thompson maintained the firefighters’ ordeal was “another example of how radical homosexual activists in positions of authority force their agenda on unwilling citizens.”
“Although the local media avoided mentioning the debauchery and the obscenity that pervaded the parade, the general public should know what went on and how these firefighters were forced to participate against their will,” he said.


I hope these firefighters break the bank on this one!! Where's the frikkin' ACLU?????????? If some gay people were made to attend a church parade or something, they'd be all over this.
 
Why this is most likely another chance for Slim to continually voice his neo-con rhetoric, the firefighters should've been allowed not to march if they did not feel comfortable.
 
Why this is most likely another chance for Slim to continually voice his neo-con rhetoric, the firefighters should've been allowed not to march if they did not feel comfortable.
I agree that it should have been a choice, not an obligation for them to march.
 
Isn't this like that Chuck and Larry movie?
 
This guy cracks me up, he's essentially saying he rather scoop up burnt up bodies than attend a gay pride parade.

Hahahaha
 
Obviously joking. But I heard this on the Radio and one of the firefighters was quoted as saying he goes into buildings and car accidents to recover bodies and how he had no choice but to attend the gay pride parade.
 
In this instance I think slim is right. If they were gay members told they had to attend a church event by an overly religious fire chief, the chief would be crucified. Now I can make the same comparison with the bodies vs. going to church. And church has 48% less crotch grabbing than gay pride parades.
 
Minority rules. :o
 
You know what, I think the chief was acting within her authority. One of the major aspects of her job is community outreach. If this was a Martin Luther King Jr. Day Parade, would you care if a white fire fighter complained that they were offended? If she felt it was good publicity, then she was acting within her rights. I agree that it had more to do with her sexual orientation...but again, community outreach is a part of her job..so yeah.
 
In this instance I think slim is right. If they were gay members told they had to attend a church event by an overly religious fire chief, the chief would be crucified. Now I can make the same comparison with the bodies vs. going to church. And church has 48% less crotch grabbing than gay pride parades.


There is a bit of a double standard here.....but the bottomline is........ it should have been their choice, not a requirement.
 
In this instance I think slim is right. If they were gay members told they had to attend a church event by an overly religious fire chief, the chief would be crucified. Now I can make the same comparison with the bodies vs. going to church. And church has 48% less crotch grabbing than gay pride parades.

The major question is, in what capacity of the church is it? If she made them go to a service, yeah, I could see the outrage...but if the church was having a festival with a parade and the religious chief said "ok, good publicity, go."...then, yeah, I don't see a problem with it.
 
The major question is, in what capacity of the church is it? If she made them go to a service, yeah, I could see the outrage...but if the church was having a festival with a parade and the religious chief said "ok, good publicity, go."...then, yeah, I don't see a problem with it.

It still should be their choice to attend or not.....
 
There is a bit of a double standard here.....but the bottomline is........ it should have been their choice, not a requirement.

Should hospitals not be allowed to force doctors into annual community service? If it was part of a community outreach agenda, then the manditory nature would be acceptable. It comes with the territory of a job like that. My only thought is, the parade organizers, not the tax payers should be forced to reimburse the fire department for the use of their trucks and pay the fire fighters overtime pay for the use of their time.
 
From what I heard on the news, I though I recalled, one of the firefighters state out of the so many years of service, this is the first time he was "ordered" to do something.
 
Why this is most likely another chance for Slim to continually voice his neo-con rhetoric, the firefighters should've been allowed not to march if they did not feel comfortable.
Well said.
 
I agree about the community outreach, and the MLK Parade is a good comparison, but shouldn't any community outreach be done within the confines of government run events such as schools, homeless shelters, etc. Since the parade is run by independent groups wouldn't that show favoritism and be a conflict of interest? Wouldn't the whole station being required to show up in government uniform show governmental support for that independent group? Even if it's a worthy charity there's seperation issues there that kinda cross the line.
 
I think there are instances in the media where someone that doesn't agree with any facet of the homosexual lifestyle is demonized, unfortunately. Not spewing venom about it, but saying they don't support it suddenly turns them into monsters.
 
Rescue-Me-Season-3.jpg

:p Someone had to. :o
 
John Amaechi said apparently you can still get fired in 30 states for being gay!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"