good enough to die, not good enough to march

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:16 pm

Boston Beer Co., the brewer of Samuel Adams, has pulled its sponsorship from the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade amid controversy over the organizers’ refusal to let gay veterans march, the company announced in a statement.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:29 pm

My understanding of the agreement was they could march as a group as long as they weren't wearing shirts or signs about being gay.

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:48 pm

In recent weeks, Walsh tried to broker a deal between MassEquality and parade organizers to end a controversy that has festered for two decades. He succeeded in getting parade organizers to invite MassEquality to allow 20 gay veterans who are members of the group LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] Veterans for Equality to march in the parade.

But the offer came with the condition that members refrain from making any reference to sexual orientation during the parade.

The parade sponsor, backed by a Supreme Court ruling, has said that gays and lesbians have always been allowed to participate and that any form of political activism is banned to maintain the spirit of the parade. MassEquality rejected the condition that its group not march as openly gay veterans.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:50 pm

Apparently most of them thought they were too good to die, but wanted to march as vets anyway.

Gay veterans group disinvited to Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade

“This application was conditionally approved as submitted with the understanding that these 20 veterans can march but no sexual orientation would be displayed,” the statement read.

South Boston Allied War Veterans Council claims that the marching group was not actually 20 veterans, but was instead one veteran and 19 LGBT supporters.

“(It) was made clear to us that the LGBT Veterans for Equality do not have 20 United States veterans who wish to march. Rather, they presented only one supposed veteran and a group of others carrying rainbow flags. When asked about a Color Guard, their (lone) veteran replied that he wasn’t sure he could supply any more veterans willing to march,” organizers said.

“It is our belief that the application submitted to us by LGBT Veterans for Equality was a ploy by them to enter this parade under false pretenses and is hereby denied.”

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:54 pm

Vince wrote:My understanding of the agreement was they could march as a group as long as they weren't wearing shirts or signs about being gay.

Does anyone else in the parade have such restrictions on the attire they can wear?

Post by **Vince** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:57 pm

Don't know, but I'm pretty sure that any other group that lied about being vets would be similarly barred.

This was an attempt to set up a cock fight. Not participate. Dick heads don't get to march.

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:08 pm

Im with Vince on this one.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:05 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Vince wrote:My understanding of the agreement was they could march as a group as long as they weren't wearing shirts or signs about being gay.
Does anyone else in the parade have such restrictions on the attire they can wear?

The Men's Cigar Club from Lester's Lounge (only one of which actually smokes cigars) wanted to march with a "We love tits" banner and were similarly barred from participating.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:12 pm

The Men's Cigar Club from Lester's Lounge (only one of which actually smokes cigars)

I'm way more curious about that.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:42 am

Guinness pulls out.

Post by **TPRJones** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:55 am

On the one hand this bit about "these 20 veterans can march but no sexual orientation would be displayed" is unreasonable. If some veterans want to go marching and hold hands with their partners but now can't while the guys with the wives are just fine doing the same, well that's some bullshit right there. Hell, if they've put their lives on the line for their country then they get to march in the parade in any way they god-damn well want to, as far as I care. Surely they've earned far more than that for their service.

On the other hand, it sounds like the details of this case are one vet and some non-vets just being punks and making more of a mess of things than they need to.

Another case of everyone involved deciding that what the world really needs is more people acting like assholes.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:06 pm

You got a St. Patrick's Day where most of the major beers sponsors have walked away and you can barely make any mention of sex. What a lame-ass celebration.

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:09 pm

If I was selling microbrews I would double down on my investment in that parade. Peeps will be there drinking no matter what. If the big boys don't want to sell their shit, I would sell mine.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:13 pm

GORDON wrote:If I was selling microbrews I would double down on my investment in that parade. Peeps will be there drinking no matter what. If the big boys don't want to sell their shit, I would sell mine.

Hope you're licensed to sell beer to others. It's a bitch just transporting it, let alone trading in it.

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:14 pm

That's why I prefaced with "If I were selling microbrews." I am not because I am not licensed. I am not even sure what your point is.

Edited By GORDON on 1395072858

Post by **Vince** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:23 pm

TPRJones wrote:On the one hand this bit about "these 20 veterans can march but no sexual orientation would be displayed" is unreasonable.

I don't think it's unreasonable if the same is applied to heterosexuals.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:35 pm

Vince wrote:
TPRJones wrote:On the one hand this bit about "these 20 veterans can march but no sexual orientation would be displayed" is unreasonable.
I don't think it's unreasonable if the same is applied to heterosexuals.

I think it's unreasonable applied to either.

Post by **Vince** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:10 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Vince wrote:
TPRJones wrote:On the one hand this bit about "these 20 veterans can march but no sexual orientation would be displayed" is unreasonable.
I don't think it's unreasonable if the same is applied to heterosexuals.
I think it's unreasonable applied to either.

Yeah, because nothing celebrates a Catholic holiday like sex.

Let have whore floats for Easter. Maybe a giant penis mobile.

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:21 pm

Vince wrote:Yeah, because nothing celebrates a Catholic holiday like sex.

As opposed to all the massive drinking?

Post by **Vince** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:24 pm

Catholics are okay with drinking. Though to be honest, I really wish that weren't such a central theme to it either. Drinking... okay. Gluttony... not so much.