Should Firefighters be forced to particpate...

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

Thanks for annswering the question, Darkbeer. I appreciate it.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Some interesting comments on this news story from a lesbian board...

<a href="http://www.afterellen.com/node/20938" target="_blank">http://www.afterellen.com/node
/20938</a>

>>Wow, it appears I am in the minority when I say that I side with the firefighters. They expressed concerns ahead of time and were still ordered to attend. I don't see it as a homophobic issue, but rather one of comfort. I mean, if I were ordered to attend a gaming convention where there are 99.9% men, and they were making leud comments towards me, I'd be pretty damn uncomfortable. <<

>>Possibly, but then I know I would feel very uncomfortable if I had a bunch of scantly-clad men grabbing their crotch and making obscene gestures and comments at me.

Also, one of the firefighters mentioned seeing his uncle and partner there and how he went up and gave them hugs, etc. I'm sure homophobia did play a role with some of the firefighters, and homosexuality is something which makes some uncomfortable, but I don't feel it was the underlying cause here.<<

>>I did read the complaint and the fact that they discussed their apprehension with a supervisor beforehand does not really add nor detract to the homophobia argument. I can definitely understand men being uncomfortable at a Gay Pride parade -- I've been to enough of them to know how the men can be who are attending. Hell, they almost make me feel uncomfortable!

I do think homophobia likely played a role, but I don't think it is the main reason they did not wish to attend.<<

>>I think it was unfair to force them, and I agree with Harpy, they were fair enough to state they objected beforehand.

And I have to wonder if a different group were substituted for 'gay pride parade' some people might hold a different perspective.

I know this has done before, but substitute gay pride with Christian, and I would guess the gays offended by this story might be defending the firefighters, saying they shouldn't have been forced to attend something they objected to.

I think this issue is being treated too sensitively. It's similar to someone being 'forced' to go to a strip club for lunch (ostensibly while still on the clock) with clients, the boss, etc., because it might reflect negatively on them if they don't attend. That's not fair and it's wrong.

NOW, if these firefighters were in the role of first respondents to an emergency situation, they better leave their beliefs and issues behind and focus on the job they were trained and hired to perform. This parade however doesn't seem to meet that standard, it seems they were there in case something should happen.<<

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

WELLLLLL, if a LESBIAN agrees.........

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

<<WELLLLLL, if a LESBIAN agrees........>>

Maybe two of them... together...

;-)

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Here is a post written by a San Diego Paramedic that work closely with the crew at Station 5.

>>Lets get some facts straight about the crew, the incident and what has happened since the incident occured.

The crew of the fire engine that was used in the parade are stationed in Hillcrest. They provide emergency service to the people that live in the community of Hillcrest. They are not biased by sexual orientation, creed color or anything else like that. They put themselves into harms way on a daily bases serving the people of San Diego.

When the crew of Engine 5 arrived for duty on the date of the incident they were advised that they were going to participate in the parade. This participation was forced upon them due to the lack of volunteers from the Gay and Lesbian community that are employed by San Diego Fire Rescue Department. The captain voiced his concerns to his Batalion Chief and was ordered to participate in the parade or force disciplinary actions. The receipt of disciplinary action report goes into the personells permanent record and can have negative effects regarding promotions.

After the event the crew from Engine Company 5 had a meeting with Chief Jarman. During the meeting they exspressed concerns regarding the treatment they recieved by the department, the fact they were uncomfortable with the harassement received by members of the crowd, and the request to have clarification in regards to personell being placed in uncomfortable or precieved demeaning situations. The reaction from Chief Jarman was to be condesending to the crew members of Engine Company 5.

After making attempts to follow established procedure and being treated unfairly they went to other methods to relegate there issue.<<

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<The reaction from Chief Jarman was to be condesending to the crew members of Engine Company 5 >

<After making attempts to follow established procedure and being treated unfairly they went to other methods to relegate there issue>

Condesending may be annoying to the crew and no-one likes to be treated that way, however it's still NOT sexual harrassment and being treated unfairly is still NOT sexual harrassment.

Their "other methods" is to get a laywer for compensation.

It's clear what they really want!

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

^ We will see what the courts say...

But at least the lawyers for the crew feel that it is Sexual Harrassment, on the radio today, it stated that they should get their right to sue notices in about 10 days, and then the lawsuit will be filed. And then the courts (or an out of court settlement) will decide the matter.

 

Originally Posted By debtee

^ Well they are lucky there's no chance of me being on dury juty, as I would be pretty annoyed having to give up my day hearing a case that is a waste of everyone's time!

 

Originally Posted By debtee

^ opps jury duty.. I should not type and be on phone at same time!

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>It's clear what they really want!<<

Maybe some dignity and respect?

In the good old/bad old days before sexual harrassment was recgnized for what it is, it took some thick skinned courageous women to step forward and make it clear that they did not desire to be commented on, subjected to lewd displays, or leered at in the work place. For their pains they were told that they needed to grow up, act like big girls, and maybe find it flattering that the men found them so, so desirable.

Now these firefighters have stepped up to state that they had no desire to be commented on, subjected to lewd displays, or leered at in the work place. For their pains they have been treated with condescension, even by some people right here on this board.

The women on the AfterEllen site understand what's going on. Women (lesbians or not) have a somewhat more sensitive attitude about this issue. And, sadly, men (gay or not) don't seem to.

So suck it up, guys and gals! If some man exposes himself to you while shouting a lewd invitation, take it as... a compliment.

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<So suck it up, guys and gals! If some man exposes himself to you while shouting a lewd invitation, take it as... a compliment.>

You are the one treating this with condescension.

No one is saying what happened should be taken as compliment, I'm saying it's not worthy of a lawsuit with compensation as that's about money, not dignity and respect.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"For their pains they have been treated with condescension, even by some people right here on this board."

Don't be so coy. Name names.

"So suck it up, guys and gals! If some man exposes himself to you while shouting a lewd invitation, take it as... a compliment."

Normally you don't go this route. debtee is correct, no one said anything about "lewd invitations" being taken as a compliment. Moreover, the more I read this thread the more I think it's about disapproval over homosexuality, period. I've been around enough police and fire to know that they're some of the most bigoted, intolerant, macho infused bunch you'll ever find. Had these guys been "forced" to participate in a "regular" parade, where women would have been audibly swooning, they would have thoroughly enjoyed it AND gotten phone numbers. To say they felt "harassed" reeks more and more of manure.

Additionally, there are PLENTY of other competent lawyers who could have brought this who aren't associated with groups like the Thomas More Center. Don't anyone think that won't hurt them in San Diego.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Thomas More is well known in San Diego, they helped keep the Mt. Soledad War Memorial (when the ACLU wanted it removed), and they also just recently helped get the Muslim policy at Carver school changed to prevent school prayer while in class.

Is Thomas More similar to the ACLU, yes, but they do have a Christian slant.

So should only liberals have something like the ACLU?

Or shouldn't everybody have their rights protected, including Christians?

I also presume that the Firefighters are getting their lawyers at little or no cost to them.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>You are the one treating this with condescension.<<
No, not really.

From post #6: >>We can only hope that the firemen who were so traumatized by this horrible, HORRIBLE experience will one day be able to carry on again.

The poor, poor men.<<

Post #16: >>Geez the poor darlings how ever will they cope with the trauma?... Get over themselves!<<

Post #30: <<If they weren't so prejudiced, they might not have felt so humiliated.<<

Post #41: >>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.<<

Post #45: >>This is what these laws were put in place for..... not a bunch of firemen that had their feeling hurt!<<

Post #67: >>But where's the harassment? Taunts from the crowd?<<

Post #89: >>Had these guys been "forced" to participate in a "regular" parade, where women would have been audibly swooning, they would have thoroughly enjoyed it AND gotten phone numbers.<<

As far as looking on the behavior of the parade crowd as a "compliment," that was in reaction to this in post #30: >>I've got lots of straight male friends who would have found the attention flattering, a little embarrassing, totally mystifying, and lots of fun.<<

>>Moreover, the more I read this thread the more I think it's about disapproval over homosexuality, period.<<
Yeah, I was waiting for someone to play the homophobe card. No response to the many, many thoughtful arguments that have been advanced. Just call 'em names and move on. That's why, frankly, I really don't spend time around here anymore.

>>Don't be so coy. Name names.<<
Asked and answered, many times. I prefer discussing ideas rather than naming names. But this discussion was nice while it lasted. Really. As I said back in post #57:
>>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


>>Moreover, the more I read this thread the more I think it's about disapproval over homosexuality, period.<<

"Yeah, I was waiting for someone to play the homophobe card. No response to the many, many thoughtful arguments that have been advanced. Just call 'em names and move on. That's why, frankly, I really don't spend time around here anymore."

Just where, exactly, do you see the homophobe card being played. This was lifted almost word for word from one of their statements. If you don't want to further the civil debate, say so. Don't create insults out of thin air and then act offended. And frankly, many likely don't give a damn whether you've graced us with your presence around here lately.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

Moreover, Doug, you comment about the civlity of the thread but then proceed to list over half a dozen posts you found condescending. When someone else calls you condescending (not me doing it for change), you then let us know it wasn't so civil after all.

So if this isn't about disapproving of the lifestyle, which the firefighters expressly said it was, then what is it? Where in legal precedents are employers liable for the acts of independent third parties, or more to the point, when is a city liable for comments made, however lewd, by its public?

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Well, the city did know PRIOR (based on past history) to the event that the Firefighters would be subject to overt sexual behavior and taunting, and that the employees (firefighters) also knew what was going to happen, as they were told by other firefighters that have been part of the event in the past.

The employees asked to not be placed into this hostile environment (in the opinion of the firefighters), but the city told them they had to be part of the parade, and be a "float" just as much as the float of the Chippendale style dancers, basically on "show" to the spectators.

There was no pressing need or requirement for that to happen. The Senior Fire staff could have either told the parade staff they had to cancel the fire engine due to lack of volunteers, or the senior staff who were already participating by walking the parade could have been on the fire engine instead of the crew assigned.

It is the act of forcing "employees" into that environment that is at issue and is the basis of the upcoming lawsuit.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>It is the act of forcing "employees" into that environment that is at issue and is the basis of the upcoming lawsuit.<<

Well, it is, and it isn't, based on the statements the firefighters in question made about "not supporting homosexuality." I think that statement adds fuel to the argument that these firefighters have a different agenda.

They'd have been better off, I think, if they'd have remained focused not on their personal beliefs about homosexuality but instead on not wanting to be put into a situation where they are on display and subject to cat-calling behavior. But we shall see...

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

I will agree that the firefighters are also focusing on the "political" issue of being forced to participate in a parade for an issue they don't support.

But the main focus in this thread lately is "Sexual Harrassment", and being forced to participate in a cause you don't support is not Sexual Harrassment.

I know that one of the points of the lawsuit (based on what I heard on a radio show today) is a total ban of city employees to attend events like this, or other things, such as pro-life or pro-choice events, only those employees who volunteer and wish to attend would have to.

But the Sexual Harassment charge goes to being placed on Show and subject to the taunting and related activities of the spectators.