Firefighters forced to drive truck in gay parade

[Jose Fly]

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

Depends. If they were told that would be part of their duties when they were hired, then I don't see how they can object when it happens.

 

[Dialogos]

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.

:nono:

No backtracking now.

You said:

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.

According to you, driving the truck is a part of official gov't speech.

They are being compelled to participate in gov't speech.

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.

Employment contracts don't trump the Bill of Rights.

 

[Jose Fly]

According to you, driving the truck is a part of official gov't speech.

They are being compelled to participate in gov't speech.

Duh....everything they do while on the job is gov't speech. While on the clock and in uniform, they are representing the city gov't.

Employment contracts don't trump the Bill of Rights.

Yes they do. You seriously think you have freedom of speech at work? Tell you what, go call your boss a bunch of dirty offensive names and see if you don't get fired.

 

[Dialogos]

Duh....everything they do while on the job is gov't speech.

Silly me, I thought we paid the local gov't so we could have firefighters that put out fires rather than employing firefighters for the purpose of being gov't spokesmen.

While on the clock and in uniform, they are representing the city gov't.

And lose all constitutionally guaranteed rights, apparently.

Yes they do. You seriously think you have freedom of speech at work?

Yup.

Tell you what, go call your boss a bunch of dirty offensive names and see if you don't get fired.

I am my own boss. I can call myself whatever I want and I guarantee I won't get fired.

We aren't talking about the right to be offensive, we are talking about the right to obtain from compulsive speech. Would your company have the right to draft a statement saying that all company employees must worship the image of the CEO?

Do ya think that would fly?

 

[Jose Fly]

Silly me, I thought we paid the local gov't so we could have firefighters that put out fires rather than employing firefighters for the purpose of being gov't spokesmen.

Apparently this is beyond your ability to comprehend.

When you're at work on paid time, everything you do is representative of your employer. You are on "company time".

And lose all constitutionally guaranteed rights, apparently.

Sheesh....you do not have freedom of speech at work the same way you have it on your own time. I am perfectly free to criticize my company and boss on my own time and not be subjected to any penalty. But if I do it at work on company time, I'm probably going to be fired.

Have my free speech rights been violated?

We aren't talking about the right to be offensive, we are talking about the right to obtain from compulsive speech. Would your company have the right to draft a statement saying that all company employees must worship the image of the CEO?

Yes, as bizarre as that would be, a private company is free to have that as a condition of employment and fire anyone who doesn't comply.

Companies have employees do and say things the employee doesn't agree with all the time.

Do ya think that would fly?

I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world companies can require their employees to do and say all sorts of things. And as long as they aren't asking them to break any laws, they are generally free to fire them if they don't.

http://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

No Constitutional Free Speech At Work

Employees don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it’s not absolute. There is no free speech in your house; ask your mom. And there is no legal right to free speech or expression at work. (If you work for the government, there is a special set of rules that apply.)

So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.

 

[Dialogos]

Apparently this is beyond your ability to comprehend.

Say it with me Jose F-I-R-E... F-I-G-H-T-E-R.

A firefighter's core job is to fight fires :duh:, not drive fire engines in parades.

Please tell me you aren't as dumb as I think you are and that you get this.

This issue isn't about the firefighters having the freedom to cuss out their bosses, its about their freedom from being compelled to engage in speech that they find objectionable.

When you're at work on paid time, everything you do is representative of your employer. You are on "company time".

Wrong.

The company doesn't own you like a slave owns a master. People still retain constitutional rights, like the freedom to practice one's own religion while at work. In fact, one of the responsibilities is to make "reasonable accomodation" for their religious practices.

"The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices."

(http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)
​

The Fire department could have easily made reasonable accommodation, finding another firefighter to drive in the parade, instead the fire department wanted to make a political statement and denied the request.

 

[Jose Fly]

Say it with me Jose F-I-R-E... F-I-G-H-T-E-R.

A firefighter's core job is to fight fires :duh:, not drive fire engines in parades.

Please tell me you aren't as dumb as I think you are and that you get this.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately stupid, or if this is just who you are. Again, every party (including the plaintiffs) in the lawsuit agrees that driving engines in parades is part of the firefighters' duties, and they were told this when they were hired.

So in your blind hatred of all things "gay", you are trying to dispute a fact that no other party in the lawsuit disputes. And you're making yourself look rather dim in doing so.

This issue isn't about the firefighters having the freedom to cuss out their bosses, its about their freedom from being compelled to engage in speech that they find objectionable.

Yes, that's the issue, not whether driving engines in parades is a part of their duties.

And on that issue, again from 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. "

If they were called to put out a fire at a gay club, could they argue that doing so constituted a personal endorsement of homosexuality? Of course not.

Wrong.

The company doesn't own you like a slave owns a master. People still retain constitutional rights, like the freedom to practice one's own religion while at work. In fact, one of the responsibilities is to make "reasonable accomodation" for their religious practices.

Well, I guess this is just beyond your abilities to comprehend.

I can go out on a street corner and preach to passersby that they are all going to hell and need to repent. I can even get a bullhorn.

Can I do that at work? :duh:

 

[Dialogos]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately stupid, or if this is just who you are.

:rotfl:

When I start caring what idiots think about my intellect, you will be the first idiot I call.

Again, every party (including the plaintiffs) in the lawsuit agrees that driving engines in parades is part of the firefighters' duties, and they were told this when they were hired.

So what?

Reasonable accommodations would have been made if it were a Jehovah's witness firefighter and a Christmas parade.

So in your blind hatred of all things "gay", you are trying to dispute a fact that no other party in the lawsuit disputes. And you're making yourself look rather dim in doing so.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Yes, that's the issue, not whether driving engines in parades is a part of their duties.

And on that issue, again from the ruling...

"...The respondents’ appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part.. "

:nono:

Here's the problem.

Unless you are now contradicting yourself, we both disagree. You and I both agree that appearing in the parade constitutes a form of expression.

Remember?
When I asked:

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?

You answered:

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

So these men were compelled to participate in gov't speech. They are compelled to participate in a message that supports an agenda and ideology regardless of their own religious objections.

If they were called to put out a fire at a gay club, could they argue that doing so constituted a personal endorsement of homosexuality? Of course not.

Right, moron, because putting out a fire is not gov't speech. By your own admission, driving an engine in a parade is.

I can go out on a street corner and preach to passersby that they are all going to hell and need to repent. I can even get a bullhorn.

Can I do that at work? :duh:

Moron, you are too dense to even see the right parallel.

Could your employer demand that you drive him around while he shouted "you are all going to hell" to pedestrians on busy street corners?

We could even give the guy a bullhorn.

No?

Why not?

 

[Jose Fly]

So what?

And there ya' go....the extent of your rebuttal to the facts..."So what".

This is why your side keeps losing in court. You can't make a valid legal argument.

Unless you are now contradicting yourself, we both disagree. You and I both agree that appearing in the parade constitutes a form of expression.

In order to be able to discuss this, you first have to understand the difference between public gov't speech, and private speech. When you work for the gov't and are on the clock, everything you do is gov't speech. When the firefighters are on the clock and wearing the uniform, they are the gov't. They speak for the gov't, not themselves.

As soon as they take off the uniform and are off the clock, they speak for themselves and whatever they do or say is private speech.

So when I said, "In the same way that having an engine at a St. Patrick's Day parade conveyed gov't support of Irish pride", that's exactly what I was trying to get you to understand.

So these men were compelled to participate in gov't speech. They are compelled to participate in a message that supports an agenda and ideology regardless of their own religious objections.

Yes. It's why a teacher at a public school can't tell students during school hours that she thinks being gay is a sin. She's on the clock and is a representative of the gov't. Her job is to teach the curriculum, whether she agrees with it or not.

Right, moron, because putting out a fire is not gov't speech. By your own admission, driving an engine in a parade is.

It's sad to see what religion does to people like you. Again, EVERYTHING you do while at work for the gov't is representative of that gov't.

Could your employer demand that you drive him around while he shouted "you are all going to hell" to pedestrians on busy street corners?

Yes, a private employer could do that, as long as it was made clear that it was going to be part of the duties of the position.

 

[Dialogos]

And there ya' go....the extent of your rebuttal to the facts..."So what".

This is why your side keeps losing in court. You can't make a valid legal argument.

That may change if and when our country becomes a country that follows the rule of law rather than the rule of political correctness.

In order to be able to discuss this, you first have to understand the difference between public gov't speech, and private speech. When you work for the gov't and are on the clock, everything you do is gov't speech.

And therefore the gov't has the right to compel any gov't employee to do and say anything regardless of that employee's religious beliefs?

Hmmm?


So a Baptist Mayor can order a Jewish limo driver to sing Christmas carols while he drives?

No?

Why not then?

When the firefighters are on the clock and wearing the uniform, they are the gov't.

That is both false and stupid.

The firefighters are gov't employees. Elected officials are the gov't.

They speak for the gov't, not themselves.

They shouldn't have to speak at all. They aren't speech writers, they are firefighters.

Yes. It's why a teacher at a public school can't tell students during school hours that she thinks being gay is a sin. She's on the clock and is a representative of the gov't. Her job is to teach the curriculum, whether she agrees with it or not.

This isn't true. Teacher's do not shed their first amendment rights at the schoolhouse doors, not according to Tinker Vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." ( Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).​

"

It's sad to see what religion does to people like you.

Its sad to see what mindlessly following the wind of political correctness does to sheep like yourself.

:sheep:

 

[Jose Fly]

And therefore the gov't has the right to compel any gov't employee to do and say anything regardless of that employee's religious beliefs?

Or course not. How you got that from "When you work for the gov't and are on the clock, everything you do is gov't speech" is a mystery.

So a Baptist Mayor can order a Jewish limo driver to sing Christmas carols while he drives?

:sigh:

Stop and think for just one second. Try it. The Mayor is a gov't employee and therefore cannot endorse a particular religion in his capacity as Mayor.

That is both false and stupid.

The firefighters are gov't employees. Elected officials are the gov't.

Well, I guess if you hadn't jumped the shark already, you definitely did it here. Gov't employees aren't representatives of the gov't?

This is why your side keeps losing in court. You can't make a legal argument at all and have to resort to making absurd arguments like gov't employees don't represent the gov't.

They shouldn't have to speak at all. They aren't speech writers, they are firefighters.

And they didn't have to say one single word.

This isn't true. Teacher's do not shed their first amendment rights at the schoolhouse doors, not according to Tinker Vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." ( Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).​

"

You just keep getting more and more bizarre with every post. That case was about student free speech.

If what you're saying was true, then any public school teacher could get up in front of a class and say absolutely anything and never be held accountable.

This is why your side keeps losing in court.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If what you're saying was true, then any public school teacher could get up in front of a class and say absolutely anything and never be held accountable.

That is called "Tenure"

 

[kmoney]

Depends. If they were told that would be part of their duties when they were hired, then I don't see how they can object when it happens.

What is "that"? Generally reading statements at events or reading specifically pro-homosexual statements?

 

[kmoney]

Wrong.

The company doesn't own you like a slave owns a master. People still retain constitutional rights, like the freedom to practice one's own religion while at work. In fact, one of the responsibilities is to make "reasonable accomodation" for their religious practices.

"The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices."

(http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)
​

It seems a stretch to call this an infringement on their right to practice religion. :idunno:

The Fire department could have easily made reasonable accommodation, finding another firefighter to drive in the parade, instead the fire department wanted to make a political statement and denied the request.

I tend to agree here. I don't know all the details of the fire dept but it seems unlikely to me that they couldn't have accommodated their request.

 

[Dialogos]

Or course not. How you got that from "When you work for the gov't and are on the clock, everything you do is gov't speech" is a mystery.


:sigh:

How do you draw the ridiculous and erroneous conclusion that people park their civil rights at the door of their job, business and especially the gov't?

:sigh:

A company break room can't have a "whites only" section and then claim that equal rights don't matter when an employee is "on the clock."

Can they?

Neither should a company be able to compel someone to do or say something that is a violation of their religious rights, and that's what forcing a catholic man to participate in a gay-pride parade does.

Stop and think for just one second. Try it.

You should stop trying, you aren't any good at it and you'll just hurt yourself if you strain any more.

Well, I guess if you hadn't jumped the shark already, you definitely did it here. Gov't employees aren't representatives of the gov't?

Not what I said, do try and stay awake.
What I said is that they aren't "the government" they are government employees and while they represent the government they aren't held the same level of accountability for their belief as elected officials.

If you don't like the fact that a candidate is a conservative Christian, you are free not to vote for him or her. But you aren't free to fire someone because of what they believe. Well, let me correct that, you didn't use to be able to, the Atlanta case will probably show that you actually can, because the First Amendment means next to nothing anymore.

And they didn't have to say one single word.

:bang::bang:

You and I both know that no parade is value nuetral. A St. Patricks day parade is about celebrating St. Patrick and Irish Americans. An Independence Day parade is about celebrating our countries independence. A Cinco De Mayo parade is about celebration Latino culture and Mexican Independence.
A gay pride parade is about celebrating gay pride, which to all real Christians is about celebrating sin which the bible commands us not to do (see Ephesians 5:11).

You just keep getting more and more bizarre with every post. That case was about student free speech.

In which the justice writing the opinion expressed that neither students nor teachers lay down their first amendment rights when they walk into the school building.

If what you're saying was true, then any public school teacher could get up in front of a class and say absolutely anything and never be held accountable.

Yes, 'cause that is what the First Amendment guarantees us, the right to say whatever we want to whomever we want whenever we want without fear of consequence...



What the First Amendment does say is that I can disagree with the gov't stance on homosexuality (which is one of advocacy) and can do so by exercising my right to abstain from celebrations that are religiously objectionable to me (like gay pride parades), and the gov't has the obligation to refrain from abridging that right and a logical extension of my First Amendment rights is that my employer has the obligation to make reasonable accommodation for those rights. Which means they have to go to the heroic effort of asking someone else to drive the truck while I stay behind at the station prepare to answer a call to fight an actual fire.

But apparently this is just to difficult for the soft heads to figure out.

:dunce:

 

[Dialogos]

It seems a stretch to call this an infringement on their right to practice religion. :idunno:

It forces them to violate Ephesians 5:11.

I tend to agree here. I don't know all the details of the fire dept but it seems unlikely to me that they couldn't have accommodated their request.

Exactly.

:thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

How do you draw the ridiculous and erroneous conclusion that people park their civil rights at the door of their job, business and especially the gov't?

You need to break out of your fundamentalist all-or-none mindset. It's not a case where you either have all your civil rights at work or you have none of them. It's that while at work, you have fewer than you do on your own time.

You can be subject to penalty for what you do or don't say at work, up to and including being fired. That's generally not the case when you're on your own time.

If you can't get that (and it seems you can't), then there's nothing else to talk about.

A company break room can't have a "whites only" section and then claim that equal rights don't matter when an employee is "on the clock."

Can they?

They can't discriminate on the basis of race. That's illegal.

Neither should a company be able to compel someone to do or say something that is a violation of their religious rights, and that's what forcing a catholic man to participate in a gay-pride parade does.

They can if it's a regular part of their duties and the employee knew that when he accepted the position. And here, all parties agree those are the facts.

Not what I said, do try and stay awake.
What I said is that they aren't "the government" they are government employees and while they represent the government they aren't held the same level of accountability for their belief as elected officials.

Um, yes they are. Whether elected or hired into their positions, they are all employees of the gov't. They are paid out of the same funds and held to the same rules and standards.

"The government" is all the people who are employed by that gov't.

You and I both know that no parade is value nuetral. A St. Patricks day parade is about celebrating St. Patrick and Irish Americans. An Independence Day parade is about celebrating our countries independence. A Cinco De Mayo parade is about celebration Latino culture and Mexican Independence.
A gay pride parade is about celebrating gay pride, which to all real Christians is about celebrating sin which the bible commands us not to do (see Ephesians 5:11).

It's the "real Christian" part that gets you in court. That, plus the fact that these firefighters knew when they accepted the position that they'd be told to drive engines in parades.

In which the justice writing the opinion expressed that neither students nor teachers lay down their first amendment rights when they walk into the school building.

Of course they do. Neither students nor teachers are free to say anything they want in school. If you think they are, then you must have gone to a pretty bizarre school.

What the First Amendment does say is that I can disagree with the gov't stance on homosexuality (which is one of advocacy) and can do so by exercising my right to abstain from celebrations that are religiously objectionable to me (like gay pride parades), and the gov't has the obligation to refrain from abridging that right and a logical extension of my First Amendment rights is that my employer has the obligation to make reasonable accommodation for those rights. Which means they have to go to the heroic effort of asking someone else to drive the truck while I stay behind at the station prepare to answer a call to fight an actual fire.

Again, if you knew when you were hired that driving engines in parades would be a regular part of your duties, you can't sue when they tell you to drive an engine in a parade you don't like.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You need to break out of your fundamentalist all-or-none mindset. It's not a case where you either have all your civil rights at work or you have none of them. It's that while at work, you have fewer than you do on your own time.

You can be subject to penalty for what you do or don't say at work, up to and including being fired. That's generally not the case when you're on your own time.

So, there is nothing wrong with firing a sexual pervert that mentions his homosexual perversions at work?

That is good to know.

 

[kmoney]

It seems a stretch to call this an infringement on their right to practice religion. :idunno:

It forces them to violate Ephesians 5:11.

:idunno: I think that would be using that verse in a pretty loose sense. I wouldn't say that those firemen had fellowship or partook with the homosexuals in the parade.