# Cleveland Truck Driver Ditches Local AIDS Group Over Gay Pride Parade



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 25, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...38.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009



> Cleveland Truck Driver Ditches Local AIDS Group Over Gay Pride Parade
> An Ohio truck driver is at the epicenter of a local controversy after ditching a community AIDS group after learning he and his trailer were going to be participating in a gay pride parade in Cleveland.
> 
> As Fox 8 is reporting, the driver allegedly yelled obscenities before storming off after he learned the news, despite the fact that his company had volunteered its services to provide the group a float for the parade.



I'm not sure I see that the truck driver is the bad guy here.  Nor is the group that expected his company to pull their float to blame.

I can look at it several ways.   One way would be to say look, you have to do your job.  If your company sends you to drive a truck somewhere, you do it - or quit if it bothers you that much.

On the other hand, what if the company had sent him to pull a float in a White Pride parade?  Would he be unjustified if he refused to that?  What about a KKK Pride parade?  What about a Right to Life parade?

If your job was to hand out fliers on the street corner and you were given a stack of NAMBLA pamplets to hand out, would you?  Gay rights?  Pictures of aborted fetuses?  See where I'm going with this?

I think the trucking company that he works (or worked) for has some responsibility here.  The truck driver, while having a right to choose what he won't do, probably (and rightfully) has forfeited his job by doing so.  Those are the breaks.

No fun for anyone; but the whole thing could have been avoided if the company had checked with their driver before sending him on this job; and perhaps chosen a driver who didn't have an objection to it.

I'm a little concerned that we're headed for a place where it is morally wrong to not favor all things homosexual.  Cheer, damn you, or you're a bad person.  I'm sorry, but it is OK to not be in favor, to not support it, and I don't like the idea that it's not OK to have those opinions.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 25, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> and I don't like the idea that it's not OK to have those opinions.


Agreed... it's called thought policing, and it's wrong, wrong, wrong. Our thoughts and opinions have always been the last vestiges of privacy that we have. We can choose to share them or not that is our right as free thinking citizens of this planet. To say you're not allowed to have those thoughts or opinions is nothing short of brain washing. 

Granted not all thoughts and opinions are good and/or bad. It is society that determines the ACTIONS in relations to those thoughts and opinions that determine the right/wrong of it all.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 25, 2012)

Sounds to me like someone at his company knew he was a homophobe and thought it would be a funny joke.  It isn't funny.  If the company said it would particpate, then the company should of made sure it would participate, wouldn't matter what kind of parade it was.  how hard is it to say, "Hey Karl, you mind driving for some people in the gay pride parade?"


----------



## granfire (Jun 25, 2012)

Oh my....

A) I am guessing it's a job. The job is driving the rig. If you haul gay people or manure, should it matter?

B) There is no reason to yell obcenities at anybody. (OK, I am making exceptions for those morons who cut you off in traffic or crawl up your tail pipe, no pun intended)

I can understand that his presence there could be misconstrued towards his own direction (and me thinks he protest too much, you know what I mean...)

And maybe somebody set him up for it. 

He is not completely in the wrong and still comes across as jerk 9well cussing usually does that to you)

And seriously, gay pride and KKK ralley? That's not even on the some planet....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 25, 2012)

granfire said:


> And seriously, gay pride and KKK ralley? That's not even on the some planet....



I agree.  My point was not to say they're the same thing but to highlight that there is a point at which nearly anyone would say "Oh, yeah, I totally get why he didn't want to do that and I don't blame him."  And while you and I do not see Gay Pride parades as onerous or evil, there are some who do - and though we do not agree with them, they're entitled to believe what they will, and to order their lives accordingly.    

Let's say I find out my boss is a Klan member.  I can't handle that, so I quit my job.  Most would say they understand that.  But what if he was openly gay and I had a deep religious objection to that?  Would it still be OK for me to quit my job?  That's what I was trying to get to.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 26, 2012)

The truck driver had a right to be upset about driving for a gay pride parade.  He should have been told beforehand, as a normal part of job communication.  Then he could have voiced his concerns to his employer about driving it.  He did NOT have the rght to verbally abuse anyone when he found out what the parade was about.  I would say the above applies to any type of driving assignment he would be given for any organization.


----------



## K-man (Jun 26, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm a little concerned that we're headed for a place where it is morally wrong to not favor all things homosexual.  Cheer, damn you, or you're a bad person.  I'm sorry, but it is OK to not be in favor, to not support it, and I don't like the idea that it's not OK to have those opinions.


I think it goes much further than that.  With political correctness gone mad it is 'wrong' to express adverse sentiment to gay marriage, homosexuality, anything about ethnic groups, undesirable immigration, women in men's fields (but not vice versa), other religions (but anyone can bag Christianity), 'cultural diversity', etc, etc, etc, even when anecdotally the majority might support that particular sentiment.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can look at it several ways. One way would be to say look, you have to do your job. If your company sends you to drive a truck somewhere, you do it - or quit if it bothers you that much.



*THIS.*

Or complain to your employers-"obscenities and storming off?" Piss-poor form, really.....



Bill Mattocks said:


> On the other hand, what if the company had sent him to pull a float in a White Pride parade? Would he be unjustified if he refused to that? What about a KKK Pride parade? What about a Right to Life parade?



Inasmuch as he was the agent tasked with fulfilling his employers lawfully contracted services, yes, he'd be unjustified in refusing any of those.



Bill Mattocks said:


> If your job was to hand out fliers on the street corner and you were given a stack of NAMBLA pamplets to hand out, would you? Gay rights? Pictures of aborted fetuses? See where I'm going with this?



No, I don't see where you're going with it-see above. One could certainly complain to their employer, ad perhaps renegotiate or trade off with someone else, but you can't refuse to do your job if it's lawful and safe.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I think the trucking company that he works (or worked) for has some responsibility here. The truck driver, while having a right to choose what he won't do, probably (and rightfully) has forfeited his job by doing so. Those are the breaks.
> 
> No fun for anyone; but the whole thing could have been avoided if the company had checked with their driver before sending him on this job; and perhaps chosen a driver who didn't have an objection to it.






Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm a little concerned that we're headed for a place where it is morally wrong to not favor all things homosexual. Cheer, damn you, or you're a bad person. I'm sorry, but it is OK to not be in favor, to not support it, and I don't like the idea that it's not OK to have those opinions.



It's OK to have those opinions-acting on them, as this man did, is always going to have consequences.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 26, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *THIS.*
> 
> Or complain to your employers-"obscenities and storming off?" Piss-poor form, really.....



Not at all uncommon, though.



> Inasmuch as he was the agent tasked with fulfilling his employers lawfully contracted services, yes, he'd be unjustified in refusing any of those.



I guess we have to differ there.  I've always considered myself an 'at will' employee, just as my employer does.  They can fire me for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all. I can quit for the same reason.  I won't do something I have a strong disagreement with.  But I do understand that refusal gets me fired; that's part of the deal.



> No, I don't see where you're going with it-see above. One could certainly complain to their employer, ad perhaps renegotiate or trade off with someone else, but you can't refuse to do your job if it's lawful and safe.



I can refuse to do my job for any reason at all.  I can expect to be fired for it, but that's on me.



> It's OK to have those opinions-acting on them, as this man did, is always going to have consequences.



Consequences, yes, I fully agree.  I'm not sure that those consequences include labeling the person a bad man and calling him out in public.  Suppose 'Anonymous' decides to make an example of him, as they seem to do to anyone who opposes the 'new order' of things?  Will that be a consequence he deserves?

I disagree with the truck driver's choices; but I support the fact that he has them.  I guess it's a fine line.


----------



## granfire (Jun 26, 2012)

K-man said:


> I think it goes much further than that.  With political correctness gone mad it is 'wrong' to express adverse sentiment to gay marriage, homosexuality, anything about ethnic groups, undesirable immigration, women in men's fields (but not vice versa), other religions (but anyone can bag Christianity), 'cultural diversity', etc, etc, etc, even when anecdotally the majority might support that particular sentiment.



I don't see it quiet this way. I think voicing your opinions is still ok.
Sadly a lot of the more outspoken people can't do so in a civilized manner anymore.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 26, 2012)

Sometimes you need to just shut up and do your job.  I do things I don't like at work all the time its part of being an adult.  I've provided security for the westboro protest nut balls the kkk rally and you just act like a professional and do your job.  If you don't like it you quit but you don't start calling people names its not there fault your company gave you the task of driving in the parade.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 26, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Sometimes you need to just shut up and do your job.  I do things I don't like at work all the time its part of being an adult.  I've provided security for the westboro protest nut balls the kkk rally and you just act like a professional and do your job.  If you don't like it you quit but you don't start calling people names its not there fault your company gave you the task of driving in the parade.



If I were still in law enforcement, I'd have no choice - that comes with the territory.

On the other hand, if I were a truck driver and I was hired to pull the WBC group down the street on a float where they were going to display their vile beliefs via sign and bullhorn in a parade, I'd refuse.

No, I do NOT have to shut up and do my job.  My morals come first.  I am no longer in the military, no longer law enforcement, not a first-responder, and I have no duty to anyone to ensure they are given all the rights accorded them by law.  I support the right of disgusting groups like WBC to protest - but I won't be a party to it.  That choice is mine and mine alone.

And that's the point I'm trying to make with regard to the truck driver.  If it offends him to pull a float in a Gay Pride parade, I totally get it that he refused to do it.  I also absolutely understand that if he refuses, his boss can fire him for refusing.  That's the nature of free choice - there are consequences.  But as to 'shutting up and doing his job'?  No.  I support his right to refuse, as much as I support the right of people to have Gay Pride parades.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 26, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> ...but you don't start calling people names its not there fault your company gave you the task of driving in the parade.



All I got out of the story was that he shouted obscenities and stormed off.  I can see that.  If I was put in a position where I had to choose between a job I liked and needed and a moral choice I felt I could not make, I'd have a few choice words as well.  Again, he's not a public servant.  He wants to cuss, so what?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> I don't see it quiet this way. I think voicing your opinions is still ok.
> Sadly a lot of the more outspoken people can't do so in a civilized manner anymore.



I think the nature of the story shows that we're trending towards it NOT being OK anymore.  We're not there yet; but we are moving in that direction rather rapidly.

As to 'civilized manner', I think some people have a rather poor recollection of history.  We used to do some very uncivilized things, like having duels and such.  Very clean language, very dirty business.  I think a few cuss words are not uncivilized.  There was one story of a member of Congress storming across the floor and beating another Congressman into a coma with a gutta-percha cane.  Very civilized.


----------



## K-man (Jun 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> I don't see it quiet this way. I think voicing your opinions is still ok.
> Sadly a lot of the more outspoken people can't do so in a civilized manner anymore.


Exactly what I am saying. Just that political correctness dictates that we should not speak out in case we upset some poor darlings. You can have an opinion, but people jump up and down if you try to voice it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think the nature of the story shows that we're trending towards it NOT being OK anymore. We're not there yet; but we are moving in that direction rather rapidly.



You're probably right.

50 or more years ago, it would have been OK for someone to call me N****er, or "boy," or even "George," (look it up: Pullman Porters).

Now, it's not. Of course, it's perfectly OK for people to _think_ that, and people do. Hell, I've worked for people that thought that. I trained under a sensei who _told_ me from the git go that he thought that way, because of where and when he grew up-we both managed to work past that pretty well......:lol:

And, it's the nature of our times that things "move rapidly," as evidenced by PGSmith's "Where did it go wrong," thread. Nearly 50 years ago we sent men to the moon on computers that took up a gymnasium. Today, my _phone_ has more computing capacity than that gymnasium. More to the point, as a younger generation comes up, their opinions become majority opinions in reference to things like this: my son would no more call someone f***ot than he would call them n***er.



Bill Mattocks said:


> As to 'civilized manner', I think some people have a rather poor recollection of history. We used to do some very uncivilized things, like having duels and such. Very clean language, very dirty business. I think a few cuss words are not uncivilized. There was one story of a member of Congress storming across the floor and beating another Congressman into a coma with a gutta-percha cane. Very civilized.



*This*-Actually, I think duels were a pretty civilized thing, and an excellent way of settling differences with finality. 

I'd bring back dueling in a heartbeat, and I'm not a hot-headed young man anymore. :lol:

It was on the floor of the Senate, btw: Congressman Preston Brooks beat Senator Andrew Sumner with a cane over an abolitionist speech that he felt had defamed his home state and his elderly uncle. Brooks was expelled from the House (and later re-elected) and received many canes as gifts in his home state of South Carolina...

Quite frankly, things are better for not being permitted to behave this way, but I can't say that I wouldn't if I could, sometimes.......hell, sometimes I might just, anyway. :lfao: :angry:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2012)

I'm in agreement with Bill here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 26, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If I were still in law enforcement, I'd have no choice - that comes with the territory.
> 
> On the other hand, if I were a truck driver and I was hired to pull the WBC group down the street on a float where they were going to display their vile beliefs via sign and bullhorn in a parade, I'd refuse.
> 
> ...



In todays economy if you can afford it then good for you.  I wish him well in finding another trucking job.  My fathers a truck driver and quit his job to "Prove" a point yeah that was 9 months ago and hes still looking for a job.  Hes been a driver for over 20 years no accidents and no tickets in almost 8 years and nothing so again I say sometimes you just need to shut up and do your job. Now Im loaning my parents money to pay the bills because he didnt like the way his boss talked to him.

Some times its better to act like a grown up and keep a good job.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm in agreement with Bill here.



I'm not altogether in disagreement with him-I just think the truck driver handled the whole thing poorly, and that the company has some culpability there-and, sure, the guy could just refuse to do his job, and get fired. 

Actions have consequences, though, and one of them is people expressing their opinions about those actions-whether  that's some form of political correctness or simply what some of us believe (yes, I for one, would _think_ the truck driver a homophobic bigot) is in the eye of the beholder.Yes, he might have an opinion about driving a truck full of KKK members in a rally, or pro choice *or* anti-abortion protesters.

Or blacks. Or Jews. Or Italians. If it had been an ethnicity, would his actions have been okay, or those that criticize them guilty of "anti-thought?"


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> I don't see it quiet this way. I think voicing your opinions is still ok.
> *Sadly a lot of the more outspoken people can't do so in a civilized manner anymore*.



I think is becoming the problem more and more, people can't disagree in a civilised manner now they have to rant about things and go to the media for their ten minutes of fame. No dignity.


----------



## granfire (Jun 26, 2012)

> 50 or more years ago, it would have been OK for someone to call me  N****er, or "boy," or even "George," (look it up: Pullman Porters).



So it's not ok for me to call you George, and to hug you and squeeze you and feed you and hug you? 
[yt]2JlVqfC8-UI[/yt]

<is off researching - for all you know>


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> So it's not ok for me to call you George, and to hug you and squeeze you and feed you and hug you?
> [<is off researching - for all you know>



Under the right circumstances, I've let red-headed women call me all sorts of things. :lol:

Of course, under those circumstances, I was usually pretty sure that when they said _Oh, my *God*_, they were calling me by name.....:lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 26, 2012)

Hmmm..





> .*Preston Smith Brooks* (August 5, 1819 &#8211; January 27, 1857) was a Democratic Congressman


and 





> *Charles Sumner* (January 6, 1811 &#8211; March 11, 1874) was an American politician and senator from Massachusetts. An academic lawyer and a powerful orator, Sumner was the leader of the antislavery forces in Massachusetts and a leader of the Radical Republicans





> Brooks is primarily remembered for severely beating Senator Charles Sumner with a metal-tippedgutta-percha cane on the floor of the United States Senate. Brooks' attack, assisted by fellow Southerner Rep Laurence Keitt, was delivered as revenge (or "punishment", in Brooks' words) in response to a virulent abolitionist speech by Sumner



Just saying...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm..and
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying...








Just sayin'....:lol:


----------



## granfire (Jun 26, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Under the right circumstances, I've let red-headed women call me all sorts of things. :lol:
> 
> Of course, under those circumstances, I was usually pretty sure that when they said _Oh, my *God*_, they were calling me by name.....:lfao:



:lfao:


----------

