Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Both sides can march. They are just supposed to do it without drawing attention to sexuality. If no one is allowed to draw attention to their sexuality, why is that discriminatory? It's only discriminatory if you allow one group to promote their sexual agenda, but not another group. If all sexual groups are treated equally, as they are in this case, that's not discriminatory.
Where does this stop? Where do we draw the line?
If Petco has an animal adoption event in a public parking lot, do they have to have a big sign that says "we love gays"? If the Red Cross has a blood drive at a public school, do they have to set aside space for gay rights activists? Do the caribou that migrate through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, have to have signs on their antlers that say "gays have rights, too"?
Of course there is a time and a place to discuss this issue. Does it need to get rubbed in my face every time I set foot on public property?
|
I have to say that having a "No Sexual Orientation" rule in their "code of conduct" pretty much says "No Openly Gay Demonstrations." I'm as open minded as the next, but when your code of conduct allows motorcycles with girls on the back seats and politicians to walk through touting signs all over the place, then I think you can safely infer that having a strange rule like not being able to outwardly identify your sexuality is forwarding an agenda. You can't have rules that say you are trying to keep sexuality and politics out of a fun day of celebration while openly inviting sexuality and politics for just the stuff you are comfortable with supporting.
I think the advocacy groups and media outlets probably made a bigger deal out of it than they should have, but come on... this "rule" has a purpose.
I personally don't see how a group of homosexual veterans (who more than likely lived their lives in an military culture that forced them to hide their identity) wanting to march in a parade to express their pride and the progress they have made is any different than the politicians who marched with banners saying "Happy St Patricks Day from Congressman blah blah blah."
If they had said they were going to be wearing bikinis and blasting YMCA up and down Broadway while girating on unwilling spectators, I would have approved the rescinded invitation, but they just wanted to march behind a banner and wave at a bunch of happy people, like a lot of other people were allowed to do that day.