New York St Pats Parade - Gays need not apply

[BoomerD]

Thats not a good comparison, how about straight-Black Pride folks marching in a gay pride parade and making a stink about it and yelling about how being black is so great ? It just doesnt belong there in a gay pride parade. Save the gay pride banter for YOUR parade..


The comparison you are making, is more along the lines of a group that hates Irish people protesting the St.Paddys day parade.

Hell...I always thought everyone except the Irish hate the Irish...and I'm not so sure even the Irish actually LIKE the Irish...

 

[smackababy]

Hell...I always thought everyone except the Irish hate the Irish...and I'm not so sure even the Irish actually LIKE the Irish...

Weren't the Irish often referred to as the "white n***ers"? Everyone used to hate them, at least.

 

[sportage]

The up side?
Irish people are totally welcome to march in the pride parades.
AND... carry their banner.
And besides, I'd favor a pride parade over any St Pats parade any time.
Bigger crowds, better floats, better music, more color, and a lot more celebrities.

 

[mikeymikec]

You ever see a float or group in a parade that wasn't identified?

+1

Just like the storm troopers, I bet there were a tonne of people in such parades that had "irrelevant" elements to their float / outfits.

If they're going to ban "irrelevance" utterly, then they have a point in not allowing the LGBT people from openly flying their colours.

A number of people are going to hate me saying this, but usually there is a fair bit of diversity in these sorts of parades. In this case however, they don't appear to appreciate particular forms of diversity.

 

[Zaap]

They probably just don't want the parade becoming this:

 

[mikeymikec]

They probably just don't want the parade becoming this:

Insist on some dress code then?

I doubt that the LGBT community would get much sympathy if their problem was, "they wouldn't let us go nekkid!".

 

[Zaap]

Insist on some dress code then?

I doubt that the LGBT community would get much sympathy if their problem was, "they wouldn't let us go nekkid!".

You'd be surprised.

I've seen some events in this town where even the gay groups have had to tell the more "out there" members of their own community to "tone it down" a bit.

 

[mikeymikec]

You'd be surprised.

I've seen some events in this town where even the gay groups have had to tell the more "out there" members of their own community to "tone it down" a bit.

Diversity is diverse, huh. There's a surprise.

 

[MagickMan]

I don't even get why this is a problem at this time. Let the gay groups in, simply make it known that this is not meant to be a political exercise and review what the parade participants want to wear/display and let them know if its appropriate or not. A few guys and/or girls holding hands plus a simple sign should not be an issue at this time.
Also expecting to be in the parade but essentially wanting to hijack it with over the top signage, rhetoric or dress is not proper either and you should expect to be banned or removed.

That's what the organizers told them, they were allowed to attend and be in the parade, the political signs were the problem.

 

[mikeymikec]

That's what the organizers told them, they were allowed to attend and be in the parade, the political signs were the problem.

Do you know what these "political signs" actually said?

http://instinctmagazine.com/post/boston-gays-crash-st-patricks-day-parade

Because this one doesn't look very political to me.

 

[Zaap]

Do you know what these "political signs" actually said?

http://instinctmagazine.com/post/boston-gays-crash-st-patricks-day-parade

Because this one doesn't look very political to me.

What? This one what?

Nothing mentioned there was disallowed from the parade.

 

[mikeymikec]

What? This one what?

Nothing mentioned there was disallowed from the parade.

I responded to TheMagickMan saying that the political signs were the problem. I asked what did these political signs actually say, citing another gay pride float which isn't exactly brimming with political messages. I'm wondering where these overly-politicised gay pride floats are.

 

[Zaap]

I responded to TheMagickMan saying that the political signs were the problem. I asked what did these political signs actually say, citing another gay pride float which isn't exactly brimming with political messages. I'm wondering where these overly-politicised gay pride floats are.

LOL.

This is like saying "no smoking allowed in the parade." Smokers pissed off and feeling persecuted.

Parade goes off...

Guess what! Smokers marched in the parade! (Claiming to "crash it" how clever! ) But no one smoked.

You see, because the parade DIDN'T actually ban smokers....they banned SMOKING.

You: point to smokers marching in parade and ask "so where's all the cigarettes?!!"

I'm sure you won't get the analogy but its essentially the same silly question you asking where all the political signs were.

 

[mikeymikec]

So you're saying that Boston gay pride float has absolutely no indicators of the statement it is making?

Did you look at it? Did you read the article?

I think it's you who is missing the point. It seems to me that the LGBT community are being excluded because they're advertising alternative sexual orientations (that the management find objectionable), and the excuse is that their signs are "political".

 

[Zaap]

So what specifically was against the parade rules? What was political?

Or are you just doing the usual pretending that gays were actually banned from the parade?

 

[mikeymikec]

So what specifically was against the parade rules? What was political?

Or are you just doing the usual pretending that gays were actually banned from the parade?

Read my edited post above yours (you might have missed the edits before posting).

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/17/pf/st-patricks-day-parade-boycotts/

"On Friday, Sam Adams (SAM) pulled its sponsorship of Boston's parade. Guinness and Heineken (HEINY) followed by withdrawing sponsorships of New York City's parade.But both of these events have had rules in place for years that prohibit sexual orientation from being displayed -- meaning LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) groups have been unable to march openly."

If you're still missing the point, I give up.

 

[Zaap]

^ LOL! In other words: yeah, still pretending gays were actually banned from the parade because that's actually what he WANTS to be the case, otherwise all the faux outrage would be much ado about nothing.

 

[mikeymikec]

^ LOL! In other words: yeah, still pretending gays were actually banned from the parade because that's actually what he WANTS to be the case, otherwise all the faux outrage would be much ado about nothing.

No-one is saying that gays were banned from the parade.

The point initially was that the LGBT communities were prohibited from displaying their sexual orientation. Then someone tried to say that it wasn't because of that, but because of their "political displays", I basically said "what political displays", then you came in trying to make it about something else.

If you're having problems following this discussion, I suggest starting with the first post and read the whole thread. If you're still having problems figuring out what it's about, don't jump to conclusions because it makes you look ignorant.

 

[Zaap]

You still haven't answered a simple question what parade rules were broken? What was political?

I understand though. To do so would mean you'd have to pack up the make-believe outrage and no way you're doing that!

It's hilarious to me the lenghts some people will go to to manufacture their own outrage.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

<ignore list> bye bye, moving on.

 

[bshole]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

<ignore list> bye bye, moving on.

Gotta love the rage quits.....

 

[mikeymikec]

Gotta love the rage quits.....

Not really. If Zaap was willing to concede any of his incorrect points and then engage in a bit of unbiased reading comprehension, then he might have noticed that he was trying to argue a contrary position that wasn't contrary to anything I was saying, and we might have had something interesting to talk about. Instead he was trying to talk about my "faux outrage". I tried to explain it a few times, he failed to get it. There was no point in continuing.

 

[MagickMan]

You still haven't answered a simple question what parade rules were broken? What was political?

I understand though. To do so would mean you'd have to pack up the make-believe outrage and no way you're doing that!

It's hilarious to me the lenghts some people will go to to manufacture their own outrage.

Indeed, he didn't bring up a single valid point, then he rage-quit. Typical. :\

 

[mikeymikec]

Indeed, he didn't bring up a single valid point, then he rage-quit. Typical. :\

Ok, since I responded to your point to begin with, what political signs were you referring to?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Actually they do let storm troopers march..... lol!

that's not the parade in NYC.