Marching in Lock Step

Organizers ban gay Trump supporters from North Carolina pride parade. Diversity!

And Scott Shackford writes:

Talbert has said he’s going to sue Charlotte Pride for discrimination, which is also a terrible response. Charlotte Pride should be allowed to include or exclude any participants it wants. It’s their parade. And there’s already a Supreme Court decision that affirms that parade organizers have the right to exclude participants with messages they do not support.

But Charlotte Pride’s organizers should remember something. That Supreme Court case was about a very long fight by LGBT groups to be included in St. Patrick’s Day parades. And they’re only just now, in this decade, convincing the Catholic organizers of those events to allow them in. To turn around and treat another group of gay people the same way is pretty terrible.


Meanwhile…
No doubt more “pinkwashing,” progressives will declare:

Los Angeles Pride Parade becomes Resist March—to foster inclusion.

8 Comments for “Marching in Lock Step”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Meanwhile …

    Meanwhile, what?

    Here’s the statement issued by Charlotte Pride:

    Charlotte Pride reserves the right to decline participation at our events to groups or organizations which do not reflect the mission, vision and values of our organization, as is acknowledged in our parade rules and regulations by all groups at the time of their parade application. In the past, we have made similar decisions to decline participation from other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances.

    Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice. Charlotte Pride invites all individuals, groups, organizations and causes which share our values to join our community’s celebration of the LGBTQ community, history, arts and culture during the Charlotte Pride Festival and Parade, Aug. 26-27, 2017.

    Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    My governor thinks we shouldn’t mix politics with parades.

    It’s BS, but… no, actually, really, it’s BS.

    NEXT!

    Reply
  3. posted by TJ 3 on

    1. Homocons need to be consistent. If a private entity, say a baker,has a right to discriminate and not be criticized, then it should apply to a pride parade. Just saying.

    2. Local Pride Events take an awful lot of resources to successfully plan and organize (often from volunteers). People who complain about x, are often the same people who can’t be bothered to actually do what needs to be done to make large scale events happen. How many of the Gay Republicans actually made effort – earlier – to get involved.

    3. Minneapolis Pride has gay Democrats and gay Republicans. We also get gay caucuses from some third parties. I’m told that the Libertarian party was once moved to the front of the parade, because they had 1776-themed costumes, several openly gay candidates in the parade.

    Reply
  4. posted by JohnInCA on

    On a sneaking suspicion, I went back to look at what IGF posts there were in the month of June for the last couple of years trying to find some post where Mr. Miller ever actually supported Pride. Some post where he acknowledges any good in the events at all.

    Now, I didn’t check other months in summer, and didn’t fine-comb the posts, just the headline and skimmed if it seemed relevant, so I’m not speaking conclusively, but at least as far back as 2011 the only posts I saw related to pride -at all- were “why are you so mean to Republicans/conservatives/dog-catchers/etc.”

    Along the way, I did find some nuggets of interest.

    Back in June 2014, Mr. Miller didn’t see any need for a religious exemption to the “federal contractors non-discrimination” executive order, or at least didn’t care enough to mention it. Sometime in the intervening three years, he discovered the need for such an exemption as seen in January 2017.

    Also, back in June 2015 he said “By November 2016, a GOP nominee who campaigns in favor of voiding hundreds of thousands of legal marriages and leaving the children of these unions with far fewer family protections is going to seem very extreme, I suspect. “

    Now, I know gay Republicans like to say he didn’t really mean it, but President Trump wasn’t shy about saying he thought Obergefel v. Hodges was wrongly decided, and that he would appoint SCOTUS justices that would roll it back. And again, I know gay Republicans say the platform doesn’t matter, but the Republican National Platform also talked about rolling back marriage equality.

    Back in June 2011, he had this fun headline: Democrats can’t do it alone and they never could. Which thankfully seems as false now as it did then, because despite all our preferences on the topic, the Republican party remains committed to being anti-gay. And yet we continue making progress. Because no, we don’t need Republicans on-board.

    Reply
  5. posted by Jorge on

    1. Homocons need to be consistent. If a private entity, say a baker,has a right to discriminate and not be criticized, then it should apply to a pride parade. Just saying.

    Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. There’s a marked difference between using the First Amendment to call someone out on their bull**** and using the court system to try to shut someone out of business.

    2. Local Pride Events take an awful lot of resources to successfully plan and organize (often from volunteers). People who complain about x, are often the same people who can’t be bothered to actually do what needs to be done to make large scale events happen. How many of the Gay Republicans actually made effort – earlier – to get involved.

    One of my biggest fears when I was volunteering was that I would be outed as a rightist. This is not hypothetical; I was cursed at and called all kinds of invective online when I joined a national movement toward changing hearts and minds on gay marriage. And I was worried about this even when the co-founder of the group I was volunteering for was an ex-Catholic if I remember correctly. It was one of the reasons I refused to even consider a leadership role. This was not entirely about my personal convenience. No matter how brilliant and dedicated I am, my involvement is not worth the price of moving the political center too far from the center-left.

    The reason I do not remain involved in LGBT organizations and campaigns for very long is because the time and effort required to make such events successful seems to encourage a lot of very negative things. Burnout, laziness, arbitrary decision-making, griping, and especially a certain edge of ambition and ruthlessness. And then you have the incredible factionalism within the LGBT community. Not just the factions you hear about nationally, but every single faction that exists in the population at large, including locally. It takes a high level of brilliance and character to run a successful operation. The level of leadership required to produce an event that overcomes these tensions and presents a brilliant display of Pride to the public (such events are out there) is frankly beyond my understanding. In New York City, there is such an exhaustive number of different LGBT organizations doing, shall we say, public work, and I think perhaps as a result the pool of really great leadership is diluted.

    Reply
  6. posted by TJ 3 on

    JORGE: Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

    YES, A LAWSUIT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMEONE’S EXPRESSED IDEAS. THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT I SAID. SEVERAL HOMOCONS HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT NOT ONLY DO STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY PEOPLE, BUT THAT WE — THE LGBT COMMUNITY — SHOULD NOT PUBLICLY COMPLAIN OR BOYCOTT, WHICH ARE BOTH OUTSIDE OF THE ENTIRE LITIGATION SCENARIO.

    IF WE COMPLAIN THAT A PRIVATE GROUP IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST GAY PEOPLE, WE ARE TOLD — BY MANY HOMOCONS — THAT SUCH COMPLAINTS — NOT IN A COURT OF LAW, MIND YOU — AMOUNT TO SILENCING FREE SPEECH. BASICALLY, HOMOCONS ARE OFTEN TELLING US THAT WE SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN (AGAIN SEPARATE FROM THE ISSUE OF CIVIL LITIGATION)…EXCEPT WHEN THE DISCRIMINATION IS AGAINST THEM.

    WHEN THE PRIVATE — I ASSUME — ASSOCIATION DECIDES TO EXCLUDE “GAYS FOR TRUMP”, WE ARE SUDDENLY BEING TOLD THAT COMPLAINING ABOUT SUCH DISCRIMINATION (EVEN IMPLYING THAT IT REPRESENTS THE FEELINGS OF ALL GAY DEMOCRATS OR PROGRESSIVES), IS PERFECTLY OK. I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE HYPOCRISY INVOLVED.

    PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT EXCLUDING THE “GAYS FOR TRUMP” WAS SILLY. JUST AS I THINK THAT NOT BAKING A GAY WEDDING CAKE IS SILLY. BUT IF I CANNOT EVEN COMPLAIN ABOUT UPTIGHT BAKERS, THEN HOMOCONS SHOULDN’T TURN AROUND AND START COMPLAINING WHEN THEY ARE BEING DISCRIMINATE AGAINST.

    JORGE; One of my biggest fears when I was volunteering was that I would be outed as a rightist.

    IF YOU CHOOSE NOT GET PARTICIPATE, THEN I HAVE LESS SYMPATHY WHEN YOU DO NOT LIKE THE RESULTS.

    IF THIS PARTICULAR PRIVATE ASSOCIATION IS INTERESTED IN HAVING A BI OR TRI-PARTISIAN PRESENCE ON THE BOARD. AGAIN. I MOSTLY SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCES WITH TWIN CITIES PRIDE.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      I’d like you to read my post again. What I fear when I volunteer is one thing. What motivates me to stop volunteering is something else.

      That being said, in the case of this year’s national march, it’s to the point I’d be worried about my physical safety if I did attend. No thank you, and besides I currently have the winning hand.

      That’s all I had the energy for. THE ALL CAPS IN A WALL OF TEXT BETRAYS A LOT OF HOSTILITY AND GIVES ME A HEADACHE VERY FAST. Using bold to express anger and emphasis is better.

      I suppose “it’s a minor offense, so you only go to Heck.”

      Reply
  7. posted by Lori Heine on

    “THE ALL CAPS IN A WALL OF TEXT BETRAYS A LOT OF HOSTILITY AND GIVES ME A HEADACHE VERY FAST.”

    🙂

    I see it as sort of a scream. (Perhaps a cry for help?)

    Reply

Leave a Comment