The Grotesque Ban On Gays In New York’s St Patrick’s Day Parade

[DonViejo]

Michael Tomasky

In states where gay marriage is legal, gays are still banned from openly marching in St Patrick’s Day parades in New York and Boston.

It’s obscene, that in 2014, gay groups are forbidden from marching in St. Patrick’s Day parades in two of America’s most liberal cities. In Dublin—Dublin! I daresay a more Irish city even than Boston—gays have marched for years. As far as anyone can see, the parade flourishes, no epidemic of gayness has “afflicted” the children born in the years since inclusion, and everybody goes home happy. This isn’t just a foreign phenomenon. Chicago’s St Patrick’s Day parade has managed to include gays without catastrophe ensuing as well.

The New York-Boston situation, while legally not only understandable but completely defensible, is a moral shambles; to the extent that the men making and enforcing this ban won’t just live in history, they’ll live in infamy.

I say it’s legally defensible because, like it or not, the Ancient Order of Hibernians is entitled to enjoy one of the few justifiable carve-outs to civil rights law. Courts have usually held that private, “expressive” associations can limit their membership, and this is right: Imagine if the NAACP were forced to admit white supremacists, or, for that matter, if a gay pride group were forced to welcome homophobes. Constitutionally, the New York and Boston bans are justified—although let us note that we’re just talking about one day a year here---no one is asking for ongoing participation in the association’s business.

That’s why in human terms, this is such an abominable disgrace. I have to say I was stunned to learn last month that the ban in New York still even existed. I was a young reporter in the city and covered this controversy in its infancy. I was still in New York when Mike Bloomberg became mayor and marched in his first parade. But in the 12 years since, I quit following it, until I saw Mayor Bill De Blasio’s announcement earlier this year that he wouldn’t march. What! That ban is still in place? After I got over the shock, I actually laughed. This is like a middle school in the mid-1970s still outlawing Beatles haircuts, or like Bob Jones University’s ban on physical contact between unmarried students (yep, still in place; here’s the 2014 student handbook). It’s just that weird that these proscriptions still exist.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/17/the-grotesque-ban-on-gays-in-new-york-s-st-patrick-s-day-parade.html

[iandhr]

1. This is will change.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. It's the "American" part of "Irish American".

We've watched too much American television. It dulls the senses and stupefies the mind.

[BrotherIvan]

3. In my ignorance, I will ask a question

Why can't this group be stripped of its exclusive rights to hold the St. Patrick's parade? I'm sure some big sponsor, or the sponsors who stepped out who would definitely be large enough when pooled together, put one on? If these guys are bigots, why can't their stranglehold be broken? Why does this group get the ultimate power to decide? I've been to the St Patrick's parade in NYC and it's a big time affair, shutting down 5th avenue and drunks vomiting green beer in the street. City cops on every corner. If the city is going to put so many resources into the parade, why don't they have any say over bigotry?

[RKP5637]

4. All excellent questions! To me, a fair number of people love bigotry, persecution and

discrimination, so, LGBT gives to them opportunities to practice their fetishes. And, this does not exclude people with lots of power in these organizations.

In America, civil rights never come easily, as in many countries, as it seems endemic to some humans to want to beat up on fellow humans as opportunities become available ... or they make them available. It is ignorant and stupid and sadly casts a negative image on some Irish Americans ... for what should be a fun day of celebration. Instead, they make the thought of the St. Patrick's parade muster up negativity and hostility.

And, they think this only affects LGBT? Their ignorance shows, many people, straight or gay, etc. are fed up with their bullshit. And if it's about religion, then their religion is filled with evilness!

I hope more and more corporations pull out of their bigoted parades so they cease to exist.

[BrotherIvan]

7. Yes, I am rather proud of the sponsors for pulling out

This is a huge advertising and money-making operation for those companies and making a stand on principle is costly. It's too bad we have to leave the ultimate word up to corporations. If I was still living in Manhattan, which I did for many years, I would be very upset that city monies were going to support a bigoted organization. I don't understand how a public event on city property can be wholly controlled by a private organization.

[Jim Lane]

5. Should the government grant or withhold parade permits based on whether it agrees with the group?

That's what you're asking.

You and I don't like the AOH on ideological grounds. The issue is whether the government, in deciding who gets to shut down Fifth Avenue on March 17, should base its decision on ideological preferences or on neutral criteria.

New York City has a policy of honoring established traditions. (In fact, I think there may now be a policy of not authorizing any additional parades on Fifth Avenue, though I'm not sure of that.) Another of the established parades is the Gay Pride parade during Pride Week. If you and I get to retaliate against the AOH because we disagree with it, then a right-wing City government would get to retaliate against the sponsors of the Gay Pride parade.

Admittedly, it's unlikely that New York City would have such a right-wing government anytime soon -- but other places would, and do. Before you override the AOH's First Amendment rights, think about how the principle you're espousing would apply to LGBT groups or antiwar protestors in deep red states.

[BrotherIvan]

6. I understand first amendment rights

Parade permits are not given on the basis of a sanctioned message. I'm aware that if neo-nazis wish to march, the city must issue a permit. But I don't understand the use of enormous city and taxpayer resources for discriminatory agencies. I assume that just like with government contracts, there are some rules that an organization must abide by in order to access those resources, such as non-discrimination in hiring practices, etc. Shutting down 5th Ave and a cop on every corner adds to the prestige and participation of the parade. It would seem to be up to the city whether they would like to spend their resources in promoting such an organization. The parade permit might allow them to march, and perhaps they could on some small street, but shutting down the major traffic thoroughfare to support this organization seems unwarranted. If they refuse to abide by basic laws of the city, which include non-discrimination, then they are making the choice themselves.

Tradition seems like a bad argument. This organization is not allowing the LGBT groups to march in their parade and yet we are supposed to support their rights? Rather ironic.

[Jim Lane]

8. I'm still not clear how you would apply this to the Gay Pride Parade.

You're absolutely right that the St. Patrick's Day Parade involves shutting down a big stretch of Fifth Avenue and providing a heavy police presence. So does the Gay Pride Parade.

Could a right-wing government, in NYC or elsewhere, refuse to allow such a parade because that government disagreed with the sponsor's political views?

You can't distinguish the AOH on the basis that "they refuse to abide by basic laws of the city...." New York City law prohibits discrimination against LGBT people in employment. It does not prohibit private associations from limiting membership to cisgender straights, or from espousing homophobic or transphobic viewpoints -- nor, under the First Amendment, could it prohibit such things.

David Dinkins made the right decision here. He honored the AOH's First Amendment rights by issuing the permit for the parade. Then he exercised his own First Amendment rights by becoming the first Mayor to refuse to march in the parade unless and until the AOH allowed the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization to march under its own banner. The AOH never relented, so Dinkins never marched in the parade.

[BrotherIvan]

9. I appreciate what you are saying.

But it seems so strange that somehow the AOH can force the city to provide support and then turn around and claim as a private organization, they can discriminate. This seems like a good thing for lawyers to argue. In a sense, the city must issue a permit. But why does that permit have to include that day as well as 5th and police? What if another organization applied for the same day? How would the city choose? If the AOH is not prevented from marching...somewhere...then their first amendment rights are not being trampled.

And it is my understanding that some cities do not do as much for Gay Pride parades as others. It is up to the city what resources they choose to allocate. Some cities' parades are huge. Some are much smaller.

NYC provides cops and traffic for public safety because so many people show up. It is a huge drain on public monies. I'm always mad living in LA when they shut everything down for the Oscars. That is also a private organization that makes $$ from the event. The city ponies up for it because of the prestige and tradition, and offsets the costs with jacking up the price on all parking meters and violations.

I know very well that RWNJ mayors and governors do their best to discriminate when they are in office. We always say, we shouldn't do it for fear that they will do it. But it seems as though once in power, they always do it anyway. That's why people should not elect RWNJs.

[Cha]

11. Good quesiont, BI

[Cha]

10. "Guinness Pulls Out Of Anti-Gay New York St. Patrick's Day Parade"

By Elizabeth Barber

BOSTON, March 16 (Reuters) - Irish brewer Guinness said on Sunday that it would not participate in New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade this year because gay and lesbian groups had been excluded, costing organizers a key sponsor of the annual event.

The move came on the same day that Boston's Irish-American mayor skipped that city's St. Patrick's Day parade after failing to hammer out a deal with organizers to allow a group of gay and lesbian activists to march openly.

"Guinness has a strong history of supporting diversity and being an advocate for equality for all. We were hopeful that the policy of exclusion would be reversed for this year's parade," the brewer said in a written statement issued by a spokesman for its parent company, Diageo.

MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/guinness-st-patricks_n_4978572.html


At the Dubliner, an Irish pub in Washington, D.C., Saturday, March 17, 2012


Unknown date and place~ Pres Obama and Michelle with their Irish Mates~

And, a late Happy St Paddy's Day to you, Don