I don't usually go for the PC stuff. I know things can be said respectfully without using PC terms (that always seem to change anyway) and I, personally, have no issue with free speech. I agree with it and if it is negative....expect backlash. My only problem with the topic is that it's a private business who is trying to keep things civil (for a lack of a better term) but it is their right to ask them to turn the shirt inside out. There was no discrimination. No one knew for certain that she was gay. As long as the rules apply to all (which I haven't seen evidence that it hasn't been in other cases). She was able to enjoy the park with her family and friends.

Freedom of speech doesn't all speech is protected anyway...but a privately owned business (not government owned) can have their own rules as long as they follow the laws.

But you see how people are passionate about the issue on both sides of the issue. I agree with a business trying to avoid controversial issues for the sake of peace and an enjoyable time for all.

If the employee did ask if she was gay...that is a set up for a law suit. If the woman got rowdy or whatever and had to be asked to leave...then she could use that in court for discrimination. For all they knew...it could have been a straight woman wearing it to support gay marriage or many other things.

This image just popped into my head

employee: Excuse me. Are you gay?
woman: Yes I am. Why?
employee: I just wanted to make sure if you should be allowed to show that shirt.

Kinda comical when put that way IMO

Actually I did have to interview someone a few years ago because he supposedly went up to a gay employee and said I am surprised you don't want to work in the produce department because then you would be around all the fruits.

but he did like fruits, right?

Well, yea. He chose to be gay so thats what he was into I guess.

C'mon, you can't seriously believe this, knowing that some gay teenagers commit suicide because they give up with trying to handle the bigotry they face every day.

That's like making the generalization that all straight males are wired for rape, but most choose every day not to. In logical terms, it's called 'begging the question', or assuming the very point under examination has already been decided and the questions being asked are only to satisfy the bias of the questioner, NOT to get at the ultimate truth.

-Kerry O.

And religious groups aren't the loudest when it comes to opposing gay marriage? Indeed, ANY thing having to do with homosexuality?

There are a LOT of people in this country who are in monogamous gay relationships with 'life partners'. They are happy, well-adjusted people who are productive members of society and contribute to their communities. Yet, time again, it's the RELIGIOUS people who try to change them and prevent them from being happy in the only type of relationship they find fulfilling.

Yet, time and time again, it's RELIGIOUS people who throw Leviticus at them, completely ignoring all the positive things that gay people have contributed to society.

Levite code also prohibits charging interest on some debts, but do those same RELIGIOUS people call credit card companies 'abominations' for charging usury rates LEGALLY?

Beam. Out. Own. Eye.


-Kerry O.

really NOTHING to do with a park trying to keep a family friendly environment,,,

good thing the slogan wasn't on her shorts!

We can fix that oversight. Call in the TSA and have everyone walk through one of their scanners before they are admitted.


-Kerry O.

It is a choice, plain and simple. I support their right to CHOOSE who they want to be with as long as they are consenting adults.

It may be a choice in some cases, but the APA and its DSM IV say otherwise when it comes to making generalizations. So, I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and just say it shouldn't be anyone bidness as long as it's between adults with informed consent.

-Kerry O.

the APA and DSM say its not a choice?

interesting,, never read that before,,


except when it was still considered an 'illness',,(illnesses arent usually thought of as a choice)

Yes, the APA says it's not a choice. A quote from their website:



Read it here:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

You often defend the religious viewpoint of issues here, and part and parcel to that viewpoint is that it HAS to be a choice because morality is based upon choice. Take 'choice' out the equation, and you... don't have an equation.

I think you also well know that when it was considered an illness, relgious people used that pronouncement to institutionalize people.

Either way, many religious people have never given up trying to 'cure' homosexuals, to get them to 'choose' heterosexuality or if that doesn't work, complete abstinence.

One need only look at how badly projects like 'Exodus' have failed to see that it just doesn't work well.

I mean really, would YOU yourself want to take a chance on marrying a man who had a past of being openly gay? If religion is the cure, why did a certain pastor stray from his wife?


-Kerry O.

Right.

In this world, a woman or man who choses not to be married is sometimes asked... why? What's wrong with you? etc.

But a park, business or restaurant should be able to have any dress code they want. Some restaurants insist on you wearing a tie. Other stores have a sign: No shoes, no shirt, no entry.

The park should just have a rule that you can't wear any T-shirts with anything written on them. Then they would not have to make any decisions about whether it might "offend" anyone.

They are the stupid ones.

I'm down with this. No slogans, symbols or logos allowed. That will eliminate any chance for bias or potential lawsuits for discrimination or arguments of selective enforcement. If you show up with a shirt (or other apparel) displaying these things, you can buy a shirt at the front gate with the logo of the park for $1. All problems solved. :)

as a parent, i find the shirt less offensive, even in a family environment (especially considering that any child that is young enough to be shielded from such couldn't read it anyhow), than the person lighting a smoke.

thats what makes America America....everyone has different opinions. i find smoking not offensive whatsoever, while i find the t-shirt very offensive and would not want my kids seeing that kind of filth.

true true...

the t-shirt doesn't bother me in the least, and i wouldn't shield any of my children from it...but i could possibly see someone not wanting to discuss such with a small child, but they couldn't read it anyhow.

i don't allow my children around smoke ever. i'll leave if i even get a whiff. it doesn't bother me if they aren't with me, though.

yea, i wouldn't want my kids to smoke, but they seem to really hate it anyway, because of their grandparents that smoke.

"Filth" is in the mind. The word "gay" used to mean "happy."

I see nothing wrong with a sign that says "Marriage is so gay." I think its funny.

I would wear a sign that says "Marriage sucks."

Being a family park, they would probably make me take it off.

Then I would.

See how they like that.