Quote:
Originally posted by analog
Well, does the person who organized the event really speak for "the sensibilities of the group" as a whole, without a vote or some other democratic show of approval? Is this person the Gay Dictator of Ohio? Technically, without the guns, they'd have been let in, so they WOULD BE part of "the group". The only reference that somehow indicates the "will of the people" is this, from the original article...
That was Kate Anderson, Executive Director, and some people. That could be 3 people, maybe 10 people. How many hundreds (or thousands, i don't know) of people marched in the parade? Does that "Stonewall Columbus contingent" really speak for ALL of them without first asking them?
Also, it says "sensibilities"... this is not a "gays who are anti-gun" parade, and these gun-lovin' people are trying to oppose them, it is a parade designed to educate people and promote acceptance and tolerance. How the hell can you say you teach those messages while telling part of the people you represent (gays, lesbians, etc.) to collectively and immediately fuck off?
|
It does give Stonewall the right because they are liable and held responsible. If people did not agree with Stonewall they did not have to be there. Stonewall did not hold a gun to gay people's heads (no pun intended) to show up.
Again PP was well withing their rights to petition and pay for their OWN event and not violate another's rights.
If Stonewall find it offensive and has made it public then PP's were there to disrupt and take advantage of Stonewall's expenses.
Analog, again I ask how would YOU react if someone had done this to you and your event? You or any one of the supporters on your side have yet to answer that.
You keep shoving PP's rights down our throat but you totally ignore Stonewall's rights. Why is that? Does Stonewall have no rights unless they conform to what YOU believe?
Do you truly believe if it had been Gays for unicyclists rights instead of PP you'd be arguing how they had the right to violate Stonewall's rights?
I seriously doubt it. But because this has to do with guns and people are fanatical on both sides, and Stonewall did not want to take focus off their cause chose to politely ask PP not to come, it has become a big 2nd Amendment issue.
When it isn't about guns it is about one group (PP) violating and taking advantage of another group (Stonewall).
To use the example that Stonewall was excluding a portion of their "constituency", while fair, it could be argued that by having PP there (which is in many in the community's eyes a "militant group") is a slap in the face to those gays who don't want to be associated with them.
Stonewall took a stance, why can you not honor that stance?
Why must it be your way?
Why must you attack Stonewall's stance when PP could have their own event?
Again the question I posed (in previous posts) goes unanswered.