US Justice Department forbids Gay Pride event at headquarters

[renata]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030606/ts_alt_afp/us_justice_gay_people_030606173244

- Homosexual employees of the US Department of Justice (news - web sites) have been forbidden to hold an annual "Gay Pride" event at the department's headquarters, a gay DoJ employee said Friday.

Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) "will not allow us to hold our annual pride ceremony in the building," said Melissa Schraibman, who works in Justice Department (news - web sites)'s tax division.

The Justice Department has held gay pride events at the Department headquarters annually since the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton (news - web sites) -- a gay rights supporter -- was president and Janet Reno (news - web sites) the US attorney general.

.....

The cancellation "is definitely a surprise," Schraibman told AFP. All the preparations for the event, to be held in the Department's main hall, had already been finalized.

According to Schraibman, the prohibition is "in accord with a new department policy that prohibits commemoration unless it is supported by a presidential proclamation."

"This is something we have never heard of before," she said. "It doesn't exist in writing yet."

Schraibman said that other groups of DoJ employees -- including those belonging to ethnic or special interest groups -- continue to use the Department building as a meeting place.

....

A Department of Justice spokesman, contacted by AFP, refused Friday to comment on the issue.


The son of a Pentecostal preacher, Ashcroft has long been an outspoken social conservative, opposed to abortion and gay rights, and supporting the death penalty and few restrictions on gun ownership.





Is this discrimination?

[Tony]

Originally posted by renata




Is this discrimination?


I dont think so. The work place is not the place to be celebrating sex.

[Gem]

I don't know how policies work in the DoJ, but...

"This is something we have never heard of before," she said. "It doesn't exist in writing yet."

If it's not in writing, and it has to be in writing to be effective, then something is wrong.

I think it's indirect descrimination.

Gem

[renata]

Originally posted by Tony



I dont think so. The work place is not the place to be celebrating sex.

Do you think the employees are celebrating sex?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by renata


Do you think the employees are celebrating sex?

You don't see any heterosexual pride days at DOJ, do you? :eek:

Come on, the "sexual behavior is a civil right" nonsense has to stop. I do not have to respect anyone's sexual behavior. If I do, show me in the US Constitution where it instructs me to.

JK

[Gem]

You don't see any heterosexual pride days at DOJ, do you?

Well, there could be. But is it nesscessary?
It's like celabrating that you're human.

Gem

[Tony]

Originally posted by renata


Do you think the employees are celebrating sex?


"Gay" is a sexual label for someone that prefers members of the same sex. Having a gay pride day is the same thing as having a swingers pride day or an S&M pride day.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem


Well, there could be. But is it nesscessary?
It's like celabrating that you're human.




How is it any different from a gay pride day?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Well, there could be. But is it nesscessary?
It's like celabrating that you're human.

Gem

True, and all sexual behavior is behavior, not a civil right.

JK

[Gem]

True, and all sexual behavior is behavior, not a civil right.

JK

True, but that behavior was being descriminated against. Bill CLinton didn't pass the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for no reason.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


True, but that behavior was being descriminated against. Bill CLinton didn't pass the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for no reason.

Gem

There is no discrimination regarding behavior. Behavior is adjustable.

The military does not give servicemembers the right to have sex. When I was in the military, I deployed for months, sometimes over a year without having sex. It was part of the job and every servicemember knows it.

Homosexual sexual behavior is not conducive to military service. What does it provide for the military--what benefit?

Also, a civil right is something that cannot change in a person. There are no ex-blacks, ex-Latinos, ex-whites, ex-Asians, ex-Indians, etc. There are ex-homosexuals. I have read articles written by ex-homosexuals who say that homosexuality is adjustable behavior. That means it is not a civil right.

JK

[Gem]

There is no discrimination regarding behavior. Behavior is adjustable.

Yes there is discrimination regarding behavior. Gay men were discriminated against in the military, that's why CLinton put the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military.

The problem was that the military did not want gays in the military just because they were gay.

Whether sex is allowed or not in the military is not the issue.

Gem

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There are ex-homosexuals. I have read articles written by ex-homosexuals who say that homosexuality is adjustable behavior. That means it is not a civil right.

JK
A homosexual can change his/her behavior, but they're still a homosexual. There is no such thing as an ex-homosexual, only homosexuals who have been shamed into denial by religious fascist fanatics.

JK, a homosexual cannot be made to be attracted to the opposite sex any more than you could be made to be attracted to another male (assuming you're not, of course).

I know several gay men who only recently come out of the closet after years of living in denial. Two were even married before (ironically, one of their wives turned out to be a lesbian!). Now they're out and much happier, and found to their surprise that their hetero friends didn't abandon them.

[peptoabysmal]

Could it be argued that a celebration based on a sexual preference and lifestyle would be uncomfortable for some employees and therefore could fit into the definition of sexual harassment, if the celebration is allowed to take place?

If there was a party at my workplace celebrating transexuals or cross-dressers, I would definately feel uncomfortable enough to decide to telecommute on that day.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Could it be argued that a celebration based on a sexual preference and lifestyle would be uncomfortable for some employees and therefore could fit into the definition of sexual harassment, if the celebration is allowed to take place?

If there was a party at my workplace celebrating transexuals or cross-dressers, I would definately feel uncomfortable enough to decide to telecommute on that day.
A few questions:

1) What exactly do you mean by the term "sexual preference? Do you "prefer" women over men (I'm assuming you're male)? Is it a close call? Do you think it is any different for homosexuals?

2) Must you approve of everyone's "lifestyle" with whom you work? Do you think they approve of yours? If you're an atheist do you think the xians you work with approve of your lifestyle?

3) If you felt uncomfortable around blacks, jews, asians, hispanics, etc. would you telecommute then also?

I get from the tone of your arguement that you feel homosexuals should stay in the closet, or at least out of sight and mind. This is exactly why pride events are important to have, so that they don't have to feel like outcasts in their own communities, workplaces, etc.

[Fade]

"Gay" is a sexual label for someone that prefers members of the same sex. Having a gay pride day is the same thing as having a swingers pride day or an S&M pride day.

Homosexuality isn't a sexual fetish. Your analogy, thusly, is wrong.

Anyway, it is inappropriate for gay pride celebrations to be held in government buildings. No special rights for special interests, I say.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Fade


Homosexuality isn't a sexual fetish. Your analogy, thusly, is wrong.




Its not? What exactly is a sexual fetish?

[Fade]

Dictionaries are you friend, Tony.

[crackmonkey]

Swinging isn't a fetish either, fade. Your objection is therefore moot.

[Fade]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Swinging isn't a fetish either, fade. Your objection is therefore moot.

Swinging would be borderline, S&M is most definitely a fetish.


Also, perhaps you need to look up what "moot" means.

[Ladewig]

Also, a civil right is something that cannot change in a person. There are no ex-blacks, ex-Latinos, ex-whites, ex-Asians, ex-Indians, etc. There are ex-homosexuals. I have read articles written by ex-homosexuals who say that homosexuality is adjustable behavior. That means it is not a civil right.

Oh, JK, I was so close. I was agreeing with everything you said up until this paragraph. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Religion is an adjustable behavour and religious discrimination can be a violation of civil rights. I always thought political affiliation was included in Title VII but there is no federal law against it.

If nobody gets to celebrate xxxx-pride day, then it is not discrimination. Are black-pride day and Italian-American-pride day celebrated at the DoJ? If not, then no discrimination. Even if those days are celebrated, that does not mean that the discrimination against the gays wanting to celebrate is illegal discrimination because there is no federal law.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by WildCat

A homosexual can change his/her behavior, but they're still a homosexual. There is no such thing as an ex-homosexual, only homosexuals who have been shamed into denial by religious fascist fanatics.



Unfortunately, the evidence does not support these conclusions at this time. You may be right, but the evidence is simply not there at this time. Your arguement holds just as much water as JK's that it is purely choice.

One day perhaps will find conclusive evidence to end that debate once and for all.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by corplinx


Unfortunately, the evidence does not support these conclusions at this time. You may be right, but the evidence is simply not there at this time. Your arguement holds just as much water as JK's that it is purely choice.

One day perhaps will find conclusive evidence to end that debate once and for all.
I think there's plenty of evidence! Just show me the person who's heterosexual "by choice". Who here has had to decide whether or not to be hetero? Not a very difficult question when you think of it this way!

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You don't see any heterosexual pride days at DOJ, do you? :eek:

Sure you do. What are the other 364 days per year?

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Tony
"Gay" is a sexual label for someone that prefers members of the same sex. Having a gay pride day is the same thing as having a swingers pride day or an S&M pride day.

That's it! Being gay is a hobby. I'm glad we had this conversation. :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

I recall searching the psych literature once, looking at sexual counterconditioning in general. Of course, what I got were specifics. For nearly 100 years, we have been trying to "re-program" homosexuals, either by punishing their natural feelings, trying to reward heterosexual behaviors, or both. In this span of time, of course there have been a handful of cases that support JK's "behavior is adjustable" contention. (Frankly, the odds are that some of the people he served with were, in fact, gay, but were abstinent like he was--given conditions of abstinence, I don't see how sexual orientation enters into the equation at all--but maybe that's just me). Corplinx was closer to the truth--we have evidence in both directions, and I will not quibble with corplinx's conclusion that we still don't know--but my own personal reading of the literature is that the scale falls toward the "we cannot successfully change sexual orientation" conclusion. I don't know that we'd want to; not really something I've given that much thought. The homosexuals I have known (dear friends all) have usually said that, given our society's views, they would just as soon be heterosexual, but that was not an option.

[Tony]

Originally posted by chulbert


What are the other 364 days per year?


Regular work days.

[Baker]

Update!

Last week , the group complained that department officials said the event scheduled for June 18 could not take place because the president had not signed a declaration marking June Gay Pride Month.

"They can use the Great Hall. They can hold whatever event they want. They just have to pay for it," one Justice Department official told CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/10/gay.justice/index.html