More on Hillcrest

Reader PietB provides this follow-up to Wednesday's post on the "sexual harassment" suit being sought by four San Diego firefighters:

This has sounded peculiar to me all along, especially considering it's the Thomas More Law Center sponsoring the planned suit. The documentation for the requests for right-to-sue is available online but I'm attaching a pdf of it for you; I had some free time today and went searching and voila, as they say.

Three of them were unhappy about overtime pay, just from the start. The reservations they express about "suspension" clearly indicate that the suspension would have been one day of duty, not a permanent or long-term career-threatening disciplinary action. The statements the three firefighters (besides the station chief, that is) gave are so close to identical that it would appear they were told what to write. If you know lawyers or legal secretaries locally you might run these past them to see whether they agree with that assessment. All of the guys would like us to believe they were completely demoralized by the sight of men dancing in shorts, flirting in the open sunshine, actually trying to flirt with (gasp) the firemen [who were doing their level best (a) to see what was going on and (b) look as though they weren't looking]. It completely destroyed their morale and their professionalism. Jeez. And the mean remarks, as in "fuck the fire department", were apparently a direct result of the firemen's refusing to interact with the previously supportive crowd.

Aside from the fact that this is the fifteenth year the Department has participated in the Pride Parade, one of the guys has an uncle who is gay, is partnered, and has been an important part of his life, and he actually saw the partner and a friend in the crowd, and walked over and greeted them with hugs. So gay life isn't exactly a mystery to these boys.

The more you read, the more distasteful the attempt to sue becomes. A little bit of teasing from other firefighters (three instances, actually) becomes "harassment and intimidation" to the point where they need a crisis intervention team to come in and counsel them? Please.

And for those who came in late, the lesbian fire chief was NOT the one who "ordered" them to participate -- the chain of responsibility in this instance stops at Assistant Chief Jeff Carle, as can be seen four pages from the end, near the top. This is a classic example of how a situation can be blown completely out of proportion by being discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed by people who have nothing but speculation and love of drama to fuel the discussion.

I'm not going to defend Carle and say it was the right thing to give a direct order to these men to drive an off-duty engine in the parade, but I certainly don't think they should object to participating in the parade because of "sexual harassment" unless they themselves have never made a lewd or suggestive remark in the presence of another person of either gender.

This is probably way too much information and opinion, but as I said above I had a little free time today, was able to research the situation, and thought you might find some of it useful.

Piet also provided a link to "news" coverage from CNS News. Here is another article from the same source, from the same writer, who seems to be milking it for all it's worth. I did some surfing on the CNS site. Included among the current op-ed writers are Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, Michelle Malkin. Brent Bozell is a featured columnist. Tell you anything? And even with that bias, the reporting on the Hillcrest firefighters makes the suit sound like a put-up job. Sometimes, you just can't make merda smell nice, no matter what you do.

Keep in mind that the Thomas More Law Center specializes in nuisance suits to protect the rights of "persecuted" Christianists.

Based on my own experiences at Pride parades, and observations of police, firefighters, and other public employees who participate, the behavior described in the statements is so atypical that I begin to doubt its accuracy. Remember that the statements carry one-half the story. Comments from the other side of this indicate that the firefighters were hostile to the crowd.

I don't dispute that, given what seems to be the general policy in the department, these four should not have been required to participate in the parade, but it really sounds to me like a much different beef dressed up in anti-gay clothing, probably thanks to the Thomas More people, who exist purely to clog the courts. Under a plain reading of the law, there's no basis for a case -- there was no reason for the department to suppose that the firefighters would be subject to "harassment" at all.

This fish smell many day dead.

Thanks to Piet for his research and observations.

(Footnote: Bozell's column is a scream. You may remember him as the guy who has an army of robots who fire off complaints to the FCC on command -- about TV shows they haven't seen. Now he's talking about "public outrage" over media content. This is the public that's so outraged that the trashiest shows get the highest ratings. Do keep in mind that the most successful outlets for pornography are in the most conservative areas of the country.)