More Political Correctness gone mad....

[Shakey]

Yes, we're all definitely going to hell in a handcart etc. etc. etc.

Firemen disciplined for refusing to hand out leaflets at a gay pride march.

 

[higthepig]

Dont go there shakey, dont you know its an offence to be christian and straight, if youre not a Muslin or Gay your a perv.

 

[FlagWagger]

Dont go there shakey, dont you know its an offence to be christian and straight, if youre not a Muslin or Gay your a perv.

The one thing that surprises me is that they weren't English - things must be bad is non English people are being discriminated against now. :roll:

 

[Passed-over_Loggie]

I heard the argument that the leaflets were to promote fire safety awareness and fire prevention, therefore part of the day job. Now I know the old tale about rubbing 2 boy scouts together; but seriously?

 

[Deeps]

if you lot fancy a battle have a look at URBAN 75 , i dont know how to do
the link thing , but google it and honest you will be shocked at the
complete left wing tossers on that forum .The fireman snub is a hot topic
on there at the moment .

 

[Shakey]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the fire brigade what with striking and Op Fresco and that but would they have disciplined them if they'd turned round and said we're Muslim it's against our beliefs?

I think not.

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

The problem was that the fireman have been happy to hand out leaflets at other events (other than Protestant Orange marches - itself unacceptable in my view) but not at gay events. The issue is whether public servants should be entitled to discriminate against part of the public on grounds of their beliefs. For example suppose they refused to hand out fire leaflets at a Catholic school because they had all been Presbyterians. This kind of behaviour against a religious minority is outlawed in Northern Ireland, so why should it be acceptable when done against gays?

If they are allowed to refuse to hand out leaflets how long before they claim the "right" to not fight fires?

If you think I'm joking just remember the NHS - where a small minority of staff (15% of nursing staff, for example, according to a recent survey in the Nursing Times) do refuse, on religious grounds, already, to provide full or any medical help to gays! That has not always been acceptable but is now. They are paid to provide a service yet a small minority choose who to provide it to. Does the church condemn or even criticise this practice - of course not.

The issue of discrimination should mean that no group faces discrimination. White, heterosexual, Christians should face no more discrimination than blacks, Muslims or gays. That said, given the choice - if I could take a magic drug tomorrow which would make me straight - I'd happily take it - but that's not a remote possibility at present, and I don't see why people like me should face discrimination because of the way we are. I don't know any gay man who chose to be gay - not one! So imagine how you would feel if the firemen had refused to hand out fire safety leaflets to you because you were white and they were black? Would THAT be acceptable?

Steve.

 

[WarMonger]

If you are paid to do a job and that job is clearly defined within your job description then get on with it and if your not prepared to carry that out then you should expect to be disciplined accordingly or should leave..(however I would add the punishments seem to be very harsh).!!

Especially if you work in public service as clearly the fire service is!

Have we not had conversations about service personnel refusing to undertake duties in Iraq on moral/political grounds and cheered at their subsequent punishment...is this not the same!!!

However I take your point Shakey and would guess that had they been Muslims they would not have been disciplined...but thats the kid glove pampered society that Muslims are allowed to operate in within this country and just so that I provide a balanced approach as do many other minority groups..!!

Has anyone heard the saying "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one!!!

 

[SILVER_FOX]

In my book, if you sign on to do a job you do the whole job for the people you are paid to provide that service to. If you're not prepared to do that - you should bugger off and find an alternative career (outside the public sector). These leaflets related to safety advice. It's not up to them to decide who gets and who does not. Taxpayers come from all sections of society and as far as I am aware, gays don’t have an exemption so the firemen deserve to be penalised for their prehistoric attitudes.

I don't have a lot of time for firemen; they’re a bunch of spoilt overpaid sods [trying to keep my language right] who really don’t know how well off they are.

SF

 

[FlagWagger]

In my book, if you sign on to do a job you do the whole job for the people you are paid to provide that service to. If you're not prepared to do that - you should bugger off and find an alternative career (outside the public sector). These leaflets related to safety advice. It's not up to them to decide who gets and who does not. Taxpayers come from all sections of society and as far as I am aware, gays don’t have an exemption so the firemen deserve to be penalised for their prehistoric attitudes.

I don't have a lot of time for firemen; they’re a bunch of spoilt overpaid sods [trying to keep my language right] who really don’t know how well off they are.

SF

While not disagreeing with you, one question that perhaps ought to be asked is whether its normal for the Fire Service to attend such rallies or whether their attendance on that day was a PC / political gesture. Does, for example, the London Fire Brigade attend all rallies in London such as those organised by the Countryside Alliance?

If the Fire Service attendance could be seen as a political statement then the firemen concerned have a similar right of expression. We don't have the complete story from the reports in the public domain, so any "judgements" that we make are incomplete and fit only those "facts" available.

 

[dunkers]

This is a serious question: Why do some members of the homosexual community find it necessary to parade through the streets in celebration of their sexuality? There are no "straight parades" of people celebrating heterosexuality, so why does the opposite scenario exist? In fact, it is not beyond the realms of the imagination that a "straight parade" might be taken as an incitement of hatred against gays in the same manner that Orange parades can be taken as an incitement of hatred against Catholics.

I say again: there is no alterior motive or malice behind this question, it is just idle curiosity.

 

[SILVER_FOX]

Flagwagger wrote: While not disagreeing with you, one question that perhaps ought to be asked is whether its normal for the Fire Service to attend such rallies or whether their attendance on that day was a PC / political gesture. Does, for example, the London Fire Brigade attend all rallies in London such as those organised by the Countryside Alliance?

Understood, but what better place to dish out this kind of guidance than at a rally. Admittedly they probably don't attend the lot and yes there may have been some politics at play here but if it was the Notting Hill carnival there wouldn't have been a problem.

The issue still comes down to the fact that they refused to issue leaflets to gays - a kind of discrimination in itself. Whether they should have attended the rally in the first place is another separate issue.

SF

 

[mazza_magoo]

So imagine how you would feel if the firemen had refused to hand out fire safety leaflets to you because you were white and they were black? Would THAT be acceptable?

Steve.

No steve it wouldn't be acceptable, but the way things are going in our country with the government pandering to the minorities, whether this be on religious, ethnic or sexual grounds and sod everyone else here, then i fear the day we see the scenario you refer to, or a variation of it is not that far away.

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

While not disagreeing with you, one question that perhaps ought to be asked is whether its normal for the Fire Service to attend such rallies or whether their attendance on that day was a PC / political gesture. Does, for example, the London Fire Brigade attend all rallies in London such as those organised by the Countryside Alliance?

If the Fire Service attendance could be seen as a political statement then the firemen concerned have a similar right of expression. We don't have the complete story from the reports in the public domain, so any "judgements" that we make are incomplete and fit only those "facts" available.

There is dispute over this. The Catholic Church is taking the position, and seeking to contest the judgment on human rights grounds, on the basis that this inflinged their right not to be offended by people who offended their religious sensibilities and the church suggested that the participants might molest the firemen. They also suggested that the fireman's participation was political on the grounds that they had not been required to attend the Orange Order's march. I thought the Orange Order was religious? Their argument is therefore that the Fire Chiefs wanted volunteers to attend the parade and hand out fire safety leaflets to show that the Fire Brigade were tolerant towards gays. Nobody volunteered, so some of the men were ordered to attend. The question is whether a Gay Pride march is political or getting together to feel solidarity - which is what it's all about. The Catholic Church is highly political these days. Would Archbishop Conti take a similar stance if, say, MPs refused to hand out information to Catholic constituents on the basis that our highly politicised religion meant doing so might be seen as promoting Roman Catholicm or unsavory aspects of "Catholic Practice"? (I'm being ironic here, just like the Church often is about gays!)

Conti himself does not appear to have read the Catchism, available on the Vatican's own website these days - so no excuse to plead ignorance as in the past - which requires Catholics not to discriminate against gays but only to condemn what they believe we all do! Hmmmm! He's obviously forgotten that the Bible most strongly condemns hypocrisy as the gravest sin. Do to gays as you would have done to heterosexual Catholics!

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

So imagine how you would feel if the firemen had refused to hand out fire safety leaflets to you because you were white and they were black? Would THAT be acceptable?

Steve.

No steve it wouldn't be acceptable, but the way things are going in our country with the government pandering to the minorities, whether this be on religious, ethnic or sexual grounds and sod everyone else here, then i fear the day we see the scenario you refer to, or a variation of it is not that far away.

It will happen Mazza_Magoo if we allow the kind of selective discrimination we are already allowing religious groups to practice against those they dislike. What Britain needs is a comprehensive anti-discrimination law prohibiting ALL forms of discrimination and allowing NO opt-outs by ANY group! Gays have been arguing this for years but to no avail - politically it's more divisive to have affirmative protection for some and not for others - divide and rule!