Last week, a San Diego (CA) Superior Court judge refused to grant an injunction sought by four Catholic firefighters who objected to being required to participate in the local Gay Pride Parade. The complaint alleged that forced participation violated the firefighters' free speech rights. Developments in the case were reported in yesterday's Gay & Lesbian Times. The court said that an injunction goes to future action, and is not a punishment for past conduct. Future problems are unlikely because the city has changed its policy so that now no firefighter who is unwilling to do so will be required to participate in the Pride parade. Earlier this month, the jury deadlocked in a civil damage action by the firefighters claiming sexual harassment when they were required to operate a fire truck in the 2007 parade. A retrial on that claim is set for January.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
6 comments:
It was idiotic to have ordered firefighters (or any other city employee) to participate in the first place. Glad to see that they've changed their policy.
well, yes true.
nobody should have to participate in any rally that they don't want to--not just because it's the pride parade.
they shouldn't have to walk in breast cancer marathons, etc. either.
Agreed. Extra-curricular community activities should only be done by volunteers in any department.
But someone better put a stop to any "conscience" exceptions in their work contracts, or there may come a time when firefighters could legally refuse to fight particular fires because the people who own/live in the building are gay...
Chimera: "But someone better put a stop to any "conscience" exceptions in their work contracts, or there may come a time when firefighters could legally refuse to fight particular fires because the people who own/live in the building are gay..."
I'm not aware of a "conscience" exception in work contracts for city employees. Are there such a thing? The possibility you describe - of firefighters picking and choosing who to save - strikes me as outrageous. I don't believe at all that any firefighter, paramedic or police officer would refuse to save a life.
What you may get are situations such as a police officer refusing to protect an abortion clinic. There was such a case in Toronto in the early 80's, and the officer - for whom police management had tried to make some reasonable accomadations - insisted on making a stand. He was fired.
"I'm not aware of a "conscience" exception in work contracts for city employees. Are there such a thing?"
"Conscience" clauses are becoming a big thing all over the world, right now. I don't know for sure how prevalent they are in every city, but the religious right has "discovered" that this can be an effective way of road-blocking things about everyone else's freedom of expression that they don't like -- like same-sex marriage, birth control, access to legal abortion, and anything else outside their narrow little parameters.
It needs to be stopped before it actually gets to any government contracts, be it city, state/province/territory, or federal.
Yes, a google search indicates that at the moment "conscience clauses" seem to be confined to the field of health care.
I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone tries to spread it's application to other sectors & services. Sort of like "conscientious objector status" for the military....
Post a Comment