Firefighters forced to drive truck in gay parade

[Jose Fly]

I know, I know, another gay thread. :flamer: But I'm curious to see if people look at this situation differently from the other cases like cakes or photography for gay weddings.

Religious liberty being trampled or an understandable work duty?

Is this the same as or different from the other cases?

Is it ok to force them to drive because they are 'relatively anonymous'?

Again it's a pretty simple case. The city had sent fire engines to other parades, and assigned firefighters to drive them as part of their paid duties. Because city laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, it would have been illegal for the city to single out a gay pride parade and not send an engine.

As far as the firefighters go, they were given a job to do.

 

[Jose Fly]

The relevant part of the ruling...

Here, respondents received an order to participate in the parade because their engine company was assigned to the task; it is uncontested that such orders were common, as evidenced by Chief Rattigan’s reference to receiving “numerous” requests from parade organizers for Fire Department participation and as reflected in the standard form for such requests used by the Department. After receiving this work assignment from their employer (the regularity of which has not been questioned), respondents participated in the parade merely as relatively anonymous public servants. We are unaware of any pertinent legal authority in support of the proposition that, in such specific circumstances, employees’ rights are violated if they happen to possess religious objections to the beliefs of the group with which an otherwise legitimate work assignment requires brief interaction.

The respondents’ appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part. Rather, it was simply the accomplishing of a task assigned to an engine company of the Providence Fire Department, and the individuals chosen to carry out that assignment cannot be said to have engaged in personal speech by carrying out their work as public servants.

(My note: That last part is very important. When working in a public capacity (as an employee of the gov't) the firefighters are representing the gov't, and therefore what they do in that capacity is official gov't speech, not private.)

The respondents’ participation in the parade as public servants carrying out a legitimate work assignment was not a deprivation of their constitutional rights.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Would you be happy if the fire department was in a parade at the following events?

Clan rally?
NRA rally?
Part of republican party fundraiser?
A democrat fundraiser?

A gay pride event is a political event determined to raise awareness for a particular cause. I do not think public servants should be at in an official capacity let alone forced to attend and give there backing to a contentious political issue.

To my mind the issue here is not the nature of the march, but the fact it is a politcal march which is being supported by public servants acting in an official capacity.

Is not a use of tax dollars for politcal campaigning on an issue?

The relevant part of the ruling...

Here, respondents received an order to participate in the parade because their engine company was assigned to the task; it is uncontested that such orders were common, as evidenced by Chief Rattigan’s reference to receiving “numerous” requests from parade organizers for Fire Department participation and as reflected in the standard form for such requests used by the Department. After receiving this work assignment from their employer (the regularity of which has not been questioned), respondents participated in the parade merely as relatively anonymous public servants. We are unaware of any pertinent legal authority in support of the proposition that, in such specific circumstances, employees’ rights are violated if they happen to possess religious objections to the beliefs of the group with which an otherwise legitimate work assignment requires brief interaction.

The respondents’ appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part. Rather, it was simply the accomplishing of a task assigned to an engine company of the Providence Fire Department, and the individuals chosen to carry out that assignment cannot be said to have engaged in personal speech by carrying out their work as public servants.

(My note: That last part is very important. When working in a public capacity (as an employee of the gov't) the firefighters are representing the gov't, and therefore what they do in that capacity is official gov't speech, not private.)

The respondents’ participation in the parade as public servants carrying out a legitimate work assignment was not a deprivation of their constitutional rights.

 

[Jose Fly]

Would you be happy if the fire department was in a parade at the following events?

Clan rally?
NRA rally?
Part of republican party fundraiser?
A democrat fundraiser?

According to the ruling, one of the facts not in dispute by either party is that it is city policy to send a fire engine to any parade that requests one (by filing the proper form). So I personally don't know what would happen if any of those entities did that.

A gay pride event is a political event determined to raise awareness for a particular cause. I do not think public servants should be at in an official capacity let alone forced to attend and give there backing to a contentious political issue.

I understand that is your opinion. The courts ruled otherwise.

To my mind the issue here is not the nature of the march, but the fact it is a politcal march which is being supported by public servants acting in an official capacity.

Is not a use of tax dollars for politcal campaigning on an issue?

I don't think so, no. I don't see a gay pride parade as any more political than a St. Patrick's Day parade. Both are about expressing pride in something (being gay, or Irish).

 

[This Charming Manc]

According to the ruling, one of the facts not in dispute by either party is that it is city policy to send a fire engine to any parade that requests one (by filing the proper form). So I personally don't know what would happen if any of those entities did that.

I think it would very problematic if they did, would you want black fireman forced to attend a clan rally?

That is what this ruling would enforce if applied to that situation. Would that be just?

I dont think so, I think the policy of sending engines to any parade that asks is stupid and open to abuse.

I understand that is your opinion. The courts ruled otherwise.

That is what this thread is about did the court rule wisely, my opinion in this case it did not.

I don't think so, no. I don't see a gay pride parade as any more political than a St. Patrick's Day parade. Both are about expressing pride in something (being gay, or Irish).

Well that a matter of your opinion, many see homosexuality as a sin outside of gods law and bad for society and the individuals involved, that is not an opinion they should be forced to give in or silence.

I dont agree with the tone of the conversation many on here have, but I do think Christianity and homosexuality are completely incompatible.

 

[Dialogos]

(My note: That last part is very important. When working in a public capacity (as an employee of the gov't) the firefighters are representing the gov't, and therefore what they do in that capacity is official gov't speech, not private.)

So you recognize that the Providence Fire Department's participation in the parade was official gov't speech and that the message being conveyed was one of support of gay pride, correct?

 

[Jose Fly]

I think it would very problematic if they did, would you want black fireman forced to attend a clan rally?

That is what this ruling would enforce if applied to that situation. Would that be just?

I dont think so, I think the policy of sending engines to any parade that asks is stupid and open to abuse.

All we have to go on is the statement from the city that they send fire engines to any event that requests one (by filling out the form).

I can envision that should some group like the KKK fill out that form, it may be the end of sending fire trucks to such events.

Well that a matter of your opinion, many see homosexuality as a sin outside of gods law and bad for society and the individuals involved, that is not an opinion they should be forced to give in or silence.

People are forced to subjugate their personal opinions during work all the time.

I dont agree with the tone of the conversation many on here have, but I do think Christianity and homosexuality are completely incompatible.

Well, then don't be gay. But understand that your opinions generally only matter to you.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you recognize that the Providence Fire Department's participation in the parade was official gov't speech and that the message being conveyed was one of support of gay pride, correct?

In the same way that having an engine at a St. Patrick's Day parade conveyed gov't support of Irish pride.

 

[Quincy]

So if some of the public who fund the Georgia fire brigade are clan members the fire service should be forced to join a clan parade?

If they are public servants who are paid to perform a service to the community which is not political in nature they should not be expected to support political causes or positions across the board.

In facts i think they should be barred form making political statements in the professional role. Public servants should be politically neutral where possible.

If the clan were to throw a parade, I'd hope both the police and fire department were on hand. Emergency personnel should be on hand for any type of big public event but that doesn't mean they have to force a specific person to do the event. Why force a Catholic to work a pride parade or a person of African descent to work a clan rally if they take offense to it? I suppose people should be more objective if they are public servants but hey, they're just human. If they don't want to work it, let someone else. It shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[PureX]

It shouldn't be a big deal.

Exactly. Unfortunately, we are becoming a population of self-centered ideologues who can't tolerate any other ideology but our own.

 

[Jose Fly]

IMO, the larger problem is we have a group of people (white religious conservatives) who historically ran the country they way they wanted it, and made it clear that anyone outside that mold should "learn their place".

But our society is moving away from that model (and rapidly so over the last couple of decades) and ethnic and religious minorities are finding their legal voices. Basically we have a shift away from society being ran by and for one group of people, and towards being more inclusive and diverse.

And the people who used to have it all their way resent every bit of it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How about if they are ordered to respond to a fire at a klan rally? They would suffer the same likelihood of harassment.

Yeah, but if they show up to put out a fire, they'll be armed with fire-hoses. Do you have any idea how hard those things spray? I'd think twice about harassing somebody holding a fire-hose.

And yet they would be expected to go just the same.

Of course. Putting out fires is their job.

Public parading may not be the firefighter's primary purpose, but it IS a secondary purpose, in that the public has to pay for them to exist. So public relations are very important, like it or not.

If it's about PR, then maybe they should assign gay firemen to do the parade.

 

[Dialogos]

In the same way that having an engine at a St. Patrick's Day parade conveyed gov't support of Irish pride.

So you believe that a gov't employee is obligated to participate in political speech even if that violates their own conscience, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

So you believe that a gov't employee is obligated to participate in political speech even if that violates their own conscience, right?

Depends on the case. Here, the firefighters weren't expected to say anything, wear anything, or do anything other than drive the engine along the parade route. And as the court documents show, all parties agree that driving engines in parades is a regular part of their duties, and firefighters are aware of that when they are hired.

 

[Granite]

Depends on the case. Here, the firefighters weren't expected to say anything, wear anything, or do anything other than drive the engine along the parade route. And as the court documents show, all parties agree that driving engines in parades is a regular part of their duties, and firefighters are aware of that when they are hired.

Exactly. This shouldn't have come as a surprise to any of them. It's part of their job.

 

[kmoney]

If the clan were to throw a parade, I'd hope both the police and fire department were on hand. Emergency personnel should be on hand for any type of big public event but that doesn't mean they have to force a specific person to do the event. Why force a Catholic to work a pride parade or a person of African descent to work a clan rally if they take offense to it? I suppose people should be more objective if they are public servants but hey, they're just human. If they don't want to work it, let someone else. It shouldn't be a big deal.

I'd agree, and if the firemen were at this gay pride parade for safety purposes then I don't think I'd question it at all, but that's not why fire companies attend parades, I didn't think?

 

[kmoney]

Depends on the case. Here, the firefighters weren't expected to say anything, wear anything, or do anything other than drive the engine along the parade route. And as the court documents show, all parties agree that driving engines in parades is a regular part of their duties, and firefighters are aware of that when they are hired.

So, if the firefighters had been asked to read a prepared statement would your opinion of the matter change?

 

[kmoney]

IMO, the larger problem is we have a group of people (white religious conservatives) who historically ran the country they way they wanted it, and made it clear that anyone outside that mold should "learn their place".

But our society is moving away from that model (and rapidly so over the last couple of decades) and ethnic and religious minorities are finding their legal voices. Basically we have a shift away from society being ran by and for one group of people, and towards being more inclusive and diverse.

And the people who used to have it all their way resent every bit of it.

There's probably some truth in that. However, what I wouldn't want to see is the pendulum swing too far the other way in the drive to promote diversity and tolerance. I'm not saying this example shows that we have, just something to watch for.

 

[genuineoriginal]

the firefighters weren't expected to . . . wear anything

That sounds about right for a Gay Pride parade.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There's probably some truth in that. However, what I wouldn't want to see is the pendulum swing too far the other way in the drive to promote diversity and tolerance. I'm not saying this example shows that we have, just something to watch for.

To a point I would say that it has, but I think there's a bigger picture at stake here.

Conservatives are whining that these firefighters are having to ride in a gay pride parade, but what if they had to ride in a police or military parade? Would they have complained about that?

Would liberals be OK with this if instead of a gay pride parade, it were a parade promoting Christian values?

The real problem here is "city-firefighters." That is, firefighters funded by "taxes." When everyone is forced to contribute to a specific group, and "the public" is trying to figure out what they should and should not be made to do, conflicts of interest are inevitable.

Privatize it all. Don't collect any "taxes" to fund firefighters. let private companies compete on the market. Let individual owners decide what they want to expect of their employees. That is the libertarian, voluntarist, pro-freedom option. I am not really sympathetic to the complaints of those who would support tax-funding, no matter WHAT position they were taking.