So they were off-duty and were forced to participate in this event?
If not, and they were on-duty, then I don't understand the issue. They
weren't physically assaulted in any way, were they? I have to deal with
obnoxious people saying obnoxious things all the time for my paying
job. If I find it distasteful enough, I can always quit.
I thought Libertarians supported at-will employment.
Rob
Starchild wrote:
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
What is "promoting the gay lifestyle?" For that matter, what is "the gay lifestyle?"
Would you also demand that the fire chief be fired for abusing his role and authority if he was a black man who instructed his firefighters to march in the MLK Day parade? And would you wonder what would happen if, in such a situation, they'd shouted back racist epithets?
Cheers,
Brian
Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
The issue as I see it is the City is compelling its employees to participate in political speech promoting the gay lifestyle, and presumably using tax dollars to compensate those firemen for their time in the parade. Their job is to fight fires, not promote the gay lifestyle. The root problem here as I see it is the Lesbian fire chief abusing her role and authority. She should be dismissed.
I do agree the comments are funny. I laughed out loud when I heard them. But that's because they weren't directed at me. I wonder however, what would have happened had the firemen shouted back gay epithets.
-Derek
On 8/29/07, Rob Power <robpower@...> wrote: So they were off-duty and were forced to participate in this event?
If not, and they were on-duty, then I don't understand the issue. They
weren't physically assaulted in any way, were they? I have to deal with
obnoxious people saying obnoxious things all the time for my paying
job. If I find it distasteful enough, I can always quit.
I thought Libertarians supported at-will employment.
Rob
Starchild wrote:
Derek,
It wasn't stated in the article that the orders to participate in the parade came from the lesbian fire chief -- she's quoted as saying "all employees are encouraged to participate" -- but that seems like a reasonable assumption. I certainly agree with your overall take on the issue. That the San Diego government should not be compelling its employees to take part in such events was the main point I was seeking to make in my letter, and what I hope and expect Outright would be saying if they issue a press release or something on the issue.
The only quibble I have is with your references to "the gay lifestyle." While I disagree with the mainstream that sexual orientation is *entirely* biological, and do think there is an element of choice involved, I still consider that phrase somewhat objectionable for several reasons:
(1) It implies that being gay is *wholly* a matter of choice, and I don't think that's true either
(2) It's a right-wing buzz term most often used to promote an anti-gay agenda; if people see Libertarians using it, they might well draw unwarranted conclusions (unless of course we're using it satirically, which I have seen done to good effect!)
(3) It implies that being gay is a choice on the same level as other "lifestyles" such as choosing to play golf, or vacation in a recreational vehicle, when I think in fact it is much more personal and basic to a person's sense of him or herself, and could perhaps be compared to a woman's decision to have children in the face of a strong biological urge to do so
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Rob,
I don't know whether they were off or on-duty, though I would guess they were on the clock because I doubt their contracts allow them to be given orders as to how to spend their off-duty time. But I don't think there was any legitimate government interest in having them take part in a Pride Parade (even if one grants the government a legitimate role in fire prevention, which I of course do not). The orders would appear to have been politically motivated, which seems wrong.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
SC->The only quibble I have is with your references to "the gay
lifestyle." While I disagree with the mainstream that sexual
orientation is *entirely* biological, and do think there is an element
of choice involved, I still consider that phrase somewhat
objectionable for several reasons:
DJ-> OK. I didn't mean to offend. Certainly you would agree that
your "lifestyle" is very different from my "lifestyle"?
SC->(1) It implies that being gay is *wholly* a matter of choice, and
I don't think that's true either
DJ-> I totally agree being gay is not wholly a matter of choice. I
don't see how the word "lifestyle" implies that though.
SC->(2) It's a right-wing buzz term most often used to promote an
anti-gay agenda; if people see Libertarians using it, they might well
draw unwarranted conclusions (unless of course we're using it
satirically, which I have seen done to good effect!)
DJ-> OK, I see your point on its use as a buzz term. Regardless of
whether we as individuals find what gays and lesbians do distasteful
and unnatural, I think there is little question that we can all agree
as (l)ibertarians that the government has no business in the matter
whatsoever. The law should be silent on the matter. But it doesn't
mean that a libertarian can't find the lifestyle objectionable
SC-->(3) It implies that being gay is a choice on the same level as
other "lifestyles" such as choosing to play golf, or vacation in a
recreational vehicle, when I think in fact it is much more personal
and basic to a person's sense of him or herself, and could perhaps be
compared to a woman's decision to have children in the face of a
strong biological urge to do so
DJ-->Point very well taken.