Should Firefighters be forced to particpate...

Originally Posted By DlandDug

Why did I read this thread?

As anyone here will assume, I think these firefighters are completely justified in the action they are taking. While their motives seem rather transparent, their claims are entirely justified in today's legal climate.

The base of this issue is contained in a legal genie called "hate crimes," for lack of a better general term. One persons taunt is another person's trauma. Telling the victim of a hate crime to "get over it" is no longer acceptable.

These men had a reasonable expectation of what would happen at this parade, based on past experience. Hey, my gay friends tend to be conservative (can you imagine?). They hate Pride parades and events. They know what kind of comments and activities go on at them, and feel they do nothing more than foster the straight world's perception that gay men are lewd, lack morals, and have no sense of boundaries. It's not true, it's not fair, but there it is.

So these firefighters, after raising reasonable objections, are ordered to participate. And, predictably, they are subjected to precisely the kind of unwarranted attentions they expected. If they had refused to participate, they would have violated the regulations they have sworn to uphold. Now they are using the same regulations governing the work place environment to air their grievances.

That the Thomas More Center is using this in an opportunistic fashion seems rather clear. But in this they merely borrow a page from the NAACP, CORE, GLAAD, or the ACLU. Test cases are still legitimate cases, however odious anyone may find their source.

On a personal note, May I add that I am pleased that everyone here has been airing their views in a dispassionate manner.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"but this isnt an order being given to save a life or put out a fire. Its an order to support something that has nothing to do with being a fireman."

The type of order doesn't matter. Sworn firemen are on duty 24/7 technically. It's a military environment. They could be ordered to be cart attendants at Target for a day and they'd risk being written up for insubordination if they didn't do it. And that example isn't all that extreme. Their primary focus is community service. If their superiors felt that was the best way to serve their local community that day, then that's what they'll do.

"There is an underlying political agenda of someone high up in the firemans association here and these guys were the poor saps that got stuck in the middle of it."

How do you know? San Diego has a large gay population, especially the Hillcrest area. They've done parades for years. I'll refer back to community service for the rest. If anyone has an agenda, it could be the legal center.

"That is what should be being looked into. Misappropriation of funds and manpower."

I don't think it exists here.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

Wow, I don't see any element of hate crime here, not at all.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

As I clearly said "hate crime" was used for lack of a better general term. Sexual harrasment is, I believe, what is at issue here. But the trend toward labeling anything a "hate crime" if it makes the victim feel bad applies, as well.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"they do nothing more than foster the straight world's perception that gay men are lewd, lack morals, and have no sense of boundaries. It's not true, it's not fair, but there it is."

This is totally true. It's what I said in an earlier post. I think these events do more harm than good.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"As I clearly said "hate crime" was used for lack of a better general term. Sexual harrasment is, I believe, what is at issue here. But the trend toward labeling anything a "hate crime" if it makes the victim feel bad applies, as well."

Well, with all due respect, I'm not sure you're clear on what makes for a hate crime. It has to do with the motivation of the perpetrator, not necessarily how it makes the victim feel.

I'll use the Long Beach Halloween beatings as an example. A group of a dozen black kids were hanging out on Halloween watching people go by. A group of three white girls walks by, and racial epithets, heretofore not said to anyone else, began to be directed at them. Then, rocks were thrown and things escalated in a group beatings. If not for the statements of several of the black kids that they jumped them because they were white, and that other black people went by unmolested, no hate crime. But since race was the motivator, or in other words, no beating or no crime at all if they weren't white, it picks up the hate crime enhancement.

I also could have skipped this story and went right to Matthew Sheppard. He got strung up and killed on the fence solely because he was gay. Every black lynching that ever took place was a hate crime.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

I think what you might be going for belongs in the extended family of the eggshell plaintiff and emotional distress claims.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

Then let's just leave it at sexual harrassment, shall we?

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

But the crew did contact the Union.

From Firefighter Chad Allison's statement...

>>Later in the shift, my crew requested a Crisis Intervention because we were talking about the incident all day and had been bothered by it significantly. No one came out to talk to us because it was too late. We met with the Local 145 on Monday, July 23, 2007, to discuss our complaints. It was asked of us what we wanted out of this. I want to be treated as any other person with a legitimate claim of sexual harassment. We met with Linda Erwin Gallagher from the Employee Assistance Program on Thursday, July 26, 2007, and received counseling. I have heard that Assistant Chief Jeff Carle attended a meeting with the Local 145 and made us out to be a group of guys that have issues with homosexuality and that he was in the parade and did not see anything offensive. Hearing this, I feel offended that our claims of harassment are being ignored and that what I am feeling and what I saw must not have occurred because Assistant Chief Carle did not see it; that in effect I am being called a liar. I believe that a person who does not support homosexuality should not be forced to participate in such an event. However, my complaint is that I was ordered into a non-emergency environment against my will and subjected to sexual harassment as a result. I have received no consolation and no support from those in a position to effect change. I was a victim of sexual harassment and I have not been treated as such. I believe that if I was a female with a similar complaint, this would have been addressed immediately. There would be a fact-finding and discipline would result.<<

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Looks like they went to the union, and the union decided their own members didn't have much of a case. Which, considering that unions usually back their members' grievances to the hilt if they think there's any merit there, says a lot.

(Firefighter): <I was a victim of sexual harassment and I have not been treated as such.>

He really wasn't. Sexual harassment as the law defines it, AFIAK, involves not just in appropriate comment from a stranger - there must be some relationship between the speaker and speakee. Classic example is the boss who harasses an employee and makes it clear that if she speaks up she'll lose her job. There's nothing like that here.

(firefighter): <I believe that a person who does not support homosexuality should not be forced to participate in such an event.>

Ah. Here we get to the crux of it.

"Supporting" (or opposing) homosexuality is like supporting (or opposing) left-handedness. It's simply a fact of people's lives. Yet this guy thinks it's something he has every right to oppose - that's the most telling sentence in his statement.

(debtee): <I just don't see this incident as making the grade and I think it makes a mockery of the true sexual harrassment laws which are put in place to help real victims.>

Well said, debtee.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

Allison's statement, if it is indeed his own, pretty much sinks him where he stands. Even in his version, he's till not painting a colorable harassment claim, at least in the eyes of the union. He's saying that being forced to participate in a gay parade is sexual harassment.

"I believe that a person who does not support homosexuality should not be forced to participate in such an event."

But then he says:

"However, my complaint is that I was ordered into a non-emergency environment against my will and subjected to sexual harassment as a result."

As I said earlier, he could be ordered to work at Target, so his complaint about non-emergency orders falls flat. But where's the harassment? Taunts from the crowd? Did he really feel threatened? Was he in fear for his safety? he doesn't say.

But the kicker is this- His statement also includes hearsay:

"I have heard that Assistant Chief Jeff Carle attended a meeting with the Local 145 and made us out to be a group of guys that have issues with homosexuality and that he was in the parade and did not see anything offensive. Hearing this, I feel offended that our claims of harassment are being ignored and that what I am feeling and what I saw must not have occurred because Assistant Chief Carle did not see it; that in effect I am being called a liar."

He "heard" his superior "made them out" to be "guys that have issues" and now he feels like a "liar". He's admitted in his statement he has issues with homosexuality- he's against it. Where's the lie? Moreover still, where's the harassment claim? Being made ot partake in a community parade?

Where does one draw the line? Why doesn't it bother this guy to serve in a community populated by gays? Isn't he afraid protesters are going to call him a gay lover if he saves the life of one at a fire?

If this version of Allison's is accurate, sounds like he couldn't present a colorable harassment claim. More and more, I think More is using these guys.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Ya' think?

See you in about a week, ya'll.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

OK, I have seen the "Cheesecake" Calendars Firefighters use to raise money for charity, you know, the ones where the guys are in t-shirts, or maybe shirtless, posing. These guys are volunteers and are doing it on their own time.

But it sounds like this Crew felt it was going to be pieces of meat on parade for the spectators of the parade, placed in a highly sexual atmosphere.

They didn't want to do it, and the day before, when they found out they might have to do it, went to multiple supervisors and others up the chain of command and ask that they wouldn't be required to do it.

They tried to get the assignment cancelled the next morning, and once again, was ordered to become a float during the parade. They followed orders, and in their opinion got harrassed multiple times and were treated by SOME spectators like "pin-up" boys. They let their supervisors and others, such as the union, know they had issues and complaints.

Then they felt as their problems were not listened to, so they took the other option available to them, the legal system.

Since the request for the Right to File a lawsuit has been filed, the Fire Chief has issued an apology, and has stated she is working with the Union to make sure it doesn't happen again.

But those things came out after the legal paperwork was filed, which does show that the original complaint was basically ignored.

Now the issue will go thru the legal system, and a decision will be made if the crew had a valid complaint, and that is how the legal system is set up to work.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>Where does one draw the line? Why doesn't it bother this guy to serve in a community populated by gays?<<

Maybe it does. And to me, his statement opens up the possibility that maybe, just maybe, if he were fighting a fire at a gay bar, perhaps he might not try 'quite' as hard to control the blaze. It just opens him and his department up to that sort of speculation.

And should police officers who don't support homosexuality be forced to work crowd control at such events? How about a Martin Luther King Jr. parade, if someone is oppossed to that holiday? Should a gay fire fighter be forced to be in a parade that features Boy Scouts of America?

It gets to be a real mess real fast. That said, it is unfortunate that those parade goers who hurled offensive comments project such a rotten image on the gay community at large. Perhaps they could be cited for public indecency for such garbage in the future.

 

Originally Posted By peeaanuut

<<And should police officers who don't support homosexuality be forced to work crowd control at such events? How about a Martin Luther King Jr. parade, if someone is oppossed to that holiday? Should a gay fire fighter be forced to be in a parade that features Boy Scouts of America?>>

Working an event and being a display in the event are 2 different things. If these guys were ticked because they had to respond to a fire/fight/injury in relation to the event than that is wrong. But they were not doing their job there. They were being someone puppet to show that firemen are gay friendly.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

And participating in any parade should be volunteers, so the answer should be NO in the Boy Scout example.

On the other hand, handling crowd control, medical assistance and other regular duties of a Firefighter should be required.

The crew that filed the legal paperwork work at Station 5, which is located in the Hillcrest community of San Diego, a very gay-friendly part of town. There isn't one complaint that they haven't performed their duty while stationed there, and I presume they deal with alternative lifestyle folks all the time.

If these guys refused to assist a spectator that needed medical assistance, or if for some reason, a fire broke out, then they should be disciplined, and harshly. But that isn't the case here, they are complaining about be put on "Display" in a parade that some spectators treat as a very sexual event.

And yes, I think the parade spectators should be told to behave while in a PUBLIC setting where kids are around. A dress code should be enforced, as should inappropriate behavior.

Now, once the spectators head to a private location, such as a Convention Center Hall, a Bar/Dance Club, etc. they can get a bit more loose, but still should abide by the law, such as no overt sexual acts, those should be done in private, as the law requires, no matter whom and whatever sexual preference they have.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"And participating in any parade should be volunteers, so the answer should be NO in the Boy Scout example.

On the other hand, handling crowd control, medical assistance and other regular duties of a Firefighter should be required."

They can be ordered to do just about anything, up to and including being in a parade.

Please explain the Boy Scout answer. You don't want gay firefighters near a Boy Scout parade?

 

Originally Posted By peeaanuut

wow SPP, your good at twisting words around. What he said, is that they shouldnt be forced to participate in that parade. Not that they shouldnt be allowed to participate. There is a difference.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

I asked for clarification. I'm not sure what he said, as he didn't answer the question directly.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Kar2oon Man asked in post 70...

>>Should a gay fire fighter be forced to be in a parade that features Boy Scouts of America?<<

As I have stated prior to the question, for ANY parade, only off duty volunteers should be used to be part of the entertainment (marching/driving down the parade route) or related activities. So the answer to K2M is no, the firefighter should not be forced to participate in the parade.

On the other hand, if he/she wished to volunteer their time, then yes, they should be treated like any other firefighter.

So it is OK for a commander to gather up a group of Female Firefighters and make them drive down the street on a Fire engine for filming an Adult themed movie, that is getting assistance from the city film board. (The firefighters in their standard uniform, but with topless movie stars around the engine).

I would say no....

But here we have firefighters driving down a parade route, where other participants (Dykes on Bikes) are topless, with just a small piece of tape covering their nipples, and I presume that some of the spectators are similarly dressed. Is this attire appropriate on a public street, in view of everyone, including kids?