Firefighters forced to drive truck in gay parade

[PureX]

Precedent.

The gigantic difference in this instance: "The men endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd."

This suit was not about participation in the parade, it was about the public abuse they endured because of it.

Even still, I think this precedent will eventually fail because the sexual harassment was coming from the public and the city should not be held responsible for the behavior of the public.

What this episode does underline, however, is the ignorance of city officials in forcing firemen to participate in this kind of parade, and the stupidity of the gay participants in behaving like obscene fools toward respected public servants. Both sides displayed an 'epic failure' of common sense.

 

[musterion]

The gigantic difference in this instance: "The men endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd."

This suit was not about participation in the parade, it was about the public abuse they endured because of it.

Not entirely, you poor, comprehension-deficient boy.

The four men, led by Fire Capt. John Ghiotto of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, filed the suit against the city of San Diego for sexual harassment a month after a battalion chief directly ordered them to ride a fire engine in a lewd parade through the city streets. The men [THEN] endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd. . .

Had the men refused, Ghiotto noted, the men risked being immediately suspended and stripped of any chance of promotion.

“As a supervisor I felt disgusted and embarrassed, that I had to subject my crew to this type of behavior.”

They had resisted participation in the first place, but were given the Or Else. The sodomite abuse was the result.

 

[PureX]

They had resisted participation in the first place, but were given the Or Else. The sodomite abuse was the result.

Being ordered to do unpleasant and even dangerous things is a significant part of their job. There was nothing wrong with them being ordered to do something they didn't want to do. And there was nothing wrong with the "or else". As they are expected to follow orders whether they like them and agree with them or not.

And the abuse was not at the hands of fellow employees or their bosses, it was by the behavior by some members of the general public. It could have happened at the scene of a fire in a gay neighborhood just as easily as in a parade for gay pride. And the city can't reasonably be held responsible for the harassing behavior of free citizens at public events, because they AREN'T responsible for it.

So in the end, all were left with was a stupid (though understandable) decision by the city to participate in the parade, compounded by the stupid behavior of some of the other parade participants. It hardly warrants a law suit. But then it didn't warrant making the firemen go in the first place. Let's hope better decisions will be made in the future.

 

[musterion]

Being ordered to do unpleasant and even dangerous things is a significant part of their job. There was nothing wrong with them being ordered to do something they didn't want to do. And there was nothing wrong with the "or else". As they are expected to follow orders whether they like them and agree with them or not.

And the abuse was not at the hands of fellow employees or their bosses, it was by the behavior by some members of the general public. It could have happened at the scene of a fire in a gay neighborhood just as easily as in a parade for gay pride. And the city can't reasonably be held responsible for the harassing behavior of free citizens at public events, because they AREN'T responsible for it.

Too bad the people deciding their case disagreed with you.

 

[PureX]

Too bad the people deciding their case disagreed with you.

It happens all the time. This is a diverse nation, after all.

 

[Morpheus]

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.

Let's take this example a step further to create a closer comparison. Say that the firefighters ordered to drive in that Klan parade are Black. Would they also have no right to refuse? Along that line, what motive would their chief have for ordering them specifically to that duty when there are obviously others who would have less objections?

 

[PureX]

Let's take this example a step further to create a closer comparison. Say that the firefighters ordered to drive in that Klan parade are Black. Would they also have no right to refuse?

How about if they are ordered to respond to a fire at a klan rally? They would suffer the same likelihood of harassment. And yet they would be expected to go just the same.

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.

 

[Rusha]

Rhode Island court throws out city firefighters' gay pride parade lawsuits - The Guardian

I was surprised that GFR7 didn't start a thread on this already. :chuckle:

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'?

For employEES (unlike employers/small business owners), IMO, work duty (which should be explained prior to hiring) always trumps religious liberty or any other *personal* interests/activities.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Really?

I work with the internet, should I be forced to work on porn sites if my employer required, just because my contract does not explicitly state I should not?

I'm unsure about US law, but UK law requires employers to be reasonable in requests.

If not sure if supporting a gay pride march is a reasonable part of an a fireman's job?

Being asked to turn out for a veterans or 4th of July parade or likewise woudl less problematic because of its non controversial nature.

For employEES (unlike employers/small business owners), IMO, work duty (which should be explained prior to hiring) always trumps religious liberty.

 

[musterion]

Really?

I work with the internet, should I be forced to work on porn sites if my employer required, just because my contract does not explicitly state I should not?

I'm unsure about US law, but UK law requires employers to be reasonable in requests.

Interesting.

I'd REALLY like to see what would happen if someone in a similar position didn't want to work as required on a Muslim website. I'll bet "reasonableness" will go right out the window.

 

[bybee]

Interesting.

I'd REALLY like to see what would happen if someone in a similar position didn't want to work as required on a Muslim website. I'll bet "reasonableness" will go right out the window.

Amen Brother!

 

[Rusha]

Really??

Yes, really.

I work with the internet, should I be forced to work on porn sites if my employer required, just because my contract does not explicitly state I should not?.

Yes ... if you wish to be their employee. Just like the employer should have a right to make their employees sign a morality clause that would prohibit them from porn. If they find out you viewed it, you know you will lose your job.

I'm unsure about US law, but UK law requires employers to be reasonable in requests..

That's nice ... that you agree that the UK law is reasonable.

If not sure if supporting a gay pride march is a reasonable part of an a fireman's job?.

IF he knew ahead of time it was expected, then it is reasonable. People should know more about the company they work for and the expectations.

Being asked to turn out for a veterans or 4th of July parade or likewise woudl less problematic because of its non controversial nature.

I thought I made it clear that it should be expected IF the employee understood it might be part of his job requirement.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Yes, really.
Yes ... if you wish to be their employee. Just like the employer should have a right to make their employees sign a morality clause that would prohibit them from porn. If they find out you viewed it, you know you will lose your job.

Sounds like you believe that the employer holds all the cards, I think its an equal exchange of work and skills for cash and benefits. Negotiation and compromise is part of a good employer employee relationship.

Having a framework of whats expected and normal, set by central government helps employees without much clout (low skill set) not be completely dominated by unscrupulous employers.

IF he knew ahead of time it was expected, then it is reasonable. People should know more about the company they work for and the expectations.

If you work for a city or government what is expected changes with each major that gets elected and each change of policy. How does that work?

I thought I made it clear that it should be expected IF the employee understood it might be part of his job requirement.

Obvious as stated above that is not always the case in working in the public sector, the job and the company often change quite radically.

 

[kmoney]

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.

The public has to pay for what to exist?

 

[kmoney]

Parades are campaigns of sorts.
However, if it is in the Job Description of "Firefighter" to drive the fire truck in parades as directed then the firefighter must needs comply. If it is not written in the job description then the Firefighter has no obligation to comply.

Yes, I'd like to know to what extent driving in parades is mentioned when a firefighter joins. But even if there was some generic mention of parading, should the firefighters know to expect a gay pride parade? Especially if none has ever happened in the city before (I don't know the history of this Rhode Island town).

That may not really matter in the end, but I may not be too quick to tell a firefighter to just deal with it, they signed up for it, even if parading is in their job description, depending on the circumstances.

 

[kmoney]

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

If I saw a firetruck at a gay pride parade I'm not sure what I'd think about the drivers. Would I assume they supported the cause or were just doing a work assignment? Which is the more reasonable assumption? Does it matter what a parade participant thinks?

I would probably be slightly more likely to assume the truck driver was supportive of the parade's cause, but I also don't think what some people in a crowd thinks I support matters much. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

They must have more than two firemen.

From a public relations perspective, the Providence Fire Department could have diffused the situation by simply assigning 2 other "non-objecting" firefighters to drive in the parade!

Right, was there really no one else they could have gotten to do it? :idunno:

 

[journey]

A public employee should NOT be forced to show political support for something they view to be morally wrong. This would be especially true after making objections to that political support, AND the employer had other options to perform or not perform a non-essential task.

 

[musterion]

Sounds like you believe that the employer holds all the cards,

A job ultimately belongs to the owner, not the person hired to do it.

 

[jgarden]

..... The court said the men were assigned to work the parade because they served in an engine company that was closest to the parade route. They asked to be reassigned but were refused, according to their lawyer. They said that during and after the parade, they experienced sexual harassment from parade-goers and their co-workers.

The Providence Fire Department needs to pick and choose its battles - although the 2 firemen may be legally obliged to complete their assigned duties, ordering them to participate in a parade against their wishes does not reflect well on management!