Sam Adams drops sponsorship of St. Patrick's parade

MassLive reports on Boston Beer Co.'s statement this morning:

We have been participating in the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade for nearly a decade and have also supported the St. Patrick’s Day breakfast year after year. We’ve done so because of the rich history of the event and to support veterans who have done so much for this country.

We were hopeful that both sides of this issue would be able to come to an agreement that would allow everyone, regardless of orientation, to participate in the parade. But given the current status of the negotiations, we realize this may not be possible.

We share these sentiments with Mayor Walsh, Congressman Lynch and others and therefore we will not participate in this year’s parade.

The news comes less than a day after a South End club announced it was dropping Sam Adams because of its parade sponsorship.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

    Comments

    Sam Adams

    By on

    In the end, bullying wins out.

    up
    55

    Excuse me while a shed a tear

    By on

    Excuse me while a shed a tear for the poor souls being bullied into not bullying gays anymore.

    up
    160

    Bullying? This "LGBT Veterans

    By on

    Bullying? This "LGBT Veterans group" produced exactly on veteran, plus a bunch of rainbow flag wavers. They publicly admitted that they didn't even have enough veterans to produce an honor guard (that would be 4, for those unfamiliar). The whole group was a sham from the beginning.

    up
    33

    That is the weakest excuse

    By on

    That is the weakest excuse for condoning homophobia that I've ever heard. For 20+ years they've actively excluded gay groups. Now they're claiming it's not because they're homophobic, its just because the group wasn't pulled together? How convenient. Maybe next year they can use another excuse. THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT APPLICATIONS IN TRIPLICATE!!!

    up
    39

    Oh wake up!! They don't even

    By on

    Oh wake up!! They don't even allow a pro-life Catholic group to march. Stop it already and leave us alone.

    up
    24

    What Veteran Would Want To March ...

    By on

    ... when their own free speech was to be prohibited? To do so would only give validation and approval to this "organization" to deny the very freedoms those veterans fought for. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

    up
    21

    Which veterans?

    By on

    Perhaps those who can, have, and always will march as veterans who happen to be gay... not gay veterans. Those same rights you claim to understand so well are being used by the organizers to assert their stance as well.

    up
    13

    No, bullying lost

    By on

    Supporting human rights won.

    So did capitalism.

    up
    99

    Rights?

    By on

    Like the ones you're trying to violate by imposing your agenda on Mr. Hurley. Agree with him or not but you are also violating his individual rights.

    up
    29

    I'd suggest a rereading of

    By on

    I'd suggest a rereading of the Constitution, because your understanding of how rights work is very, very strange.

    up
    82

    Is a dress code discriminatory?

    Lots of events and schools have dress codes. Do gays consider that discrimination against individuals? Try showing up in assless chaps, nipple rings, and shirtless to a White House formal state dinner and see if you are discriminated against for being gay and/or BDSM community member, then boo-hoo to the world.

    BTW, here is your gay beer folks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSMF-4b6wr4

    up
    29

    Thank you

    Glad you appreciated another way to look at the situation, that the parade has a dress code for participants (not audience on the streets) that makes the issue over dress, banners, signs, and flags, not about the people wearing/carrying them as many are so confused about.

    up
    17

    Go to the Flower & Garden show instead

    Go to the Flower and Garden show instead of Southie. Imagine how much that event would suffer if homosexuality were promoted at the South Boston parade and there was a big, gay turnout.

    up
    18

    This highlights the problem

    A quick look at the press release and website confirms it.

    These guys still think they are in middle school. Or, at least, they act like it.

    up
    18

    I did!

    By on

    Try showing up in assless chaps, nipple rings, and shirtless to a White House formal state dinner

    The Secret Service told me that Sunday nights were the nights to dress like that!

    up
    15

    "Rights"

    By on

    How exactly are his rights being violated? Does he have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a Sam Adams sponsorship?

    up
    52

    Thank you

    By on

    Thanks - it wouldn't be the same without these sincerely held belief exclamation points.
    May I add: "HILL--A-REE!! MOAN-ICAH!!! YOU-KNIGHT-ED NAYSHUNS!!!!

    up
    24

    Who wins if there is no parade?

    The gay vets who don't get to march? Gays in other groups who don't get to march? Kids and spectators? Who wins if organizers have had enough hassle and decide its not worth the trouble to have a parade?

    up
    17

    The residents of South Boston

    By on

    who don't have to endure street closures and drunken crowds. And the citizens of the City of Boston, who don't have to endure their police force being monopolized to watch over the parade route (even if the vet's group is paying all the bills - right!)

    up
    33

    and double parkers!

    Don't forget them! They get to double park again on Broadway that day.

    Sadly many parades have become corporate marketing events, pride parade included. Before all the corporate sponsors and having to keep a veneer of respectability, the pride parade was more entertaining with topless women in and around the parade. Now its boring, though rapid global dissemination of images on the Internet is also to blame. Getting rid of national corporate sponsorship at parades can be a good thing to make events more free without sponsor contracts.

    up
    13

    Goerge Orwell got it wrong

    By on

    It's not excessive intrusion into our lives by the government we should be fearing and protesting. It's excessive intrusion into our personal lives by the marketing executives that's the real problem. Sadly, the majority of Americans are totally oblivious as to what's happening on this front - and corporate sponsorship of community events is just one example.

    up
    15

    I'm confused as to why anyone

    By on

    I'm confused as to why anyone would want to march in a parade with a banner stating who they like to have sex with. Just don't get it. Why can't they just march as Irish veterans? If you're gay, whatever, who cares. The bottom line is that this parade is not about making political, social or sexual statements. Also, it is a Irish-Catholic parade which begins with Mass. Can we just be left alone already? Wonder if it's okay for the KKK or Westboro Church to march in the gay pride parade?

    up
    30

    What?

    By on

    What makes you think that these organizers are the only ones capable of putting together a parade?

    up
    19

    A team of wedding planners? Theater producers?

    Too tempting to speculate on potential gay organizers. Just having fun.
    "The client insisted on a Kelly green theme, so you just have to work with that. Perhaps you can use some leftover props from the Peter Pan set."

    up
    15

    There you go again!

    You simply do not understand that it isn't GAY versus STRAIGHT but civilized human beings (who may be either) versus bigots.

    There are other parades that happen in Boston, and other groups with the chops to put together a proper celebration that does not exclude (particularly since Sam Adams and Harpoon and all the people who have pulled their support may be willing to support this).

    up
    28

    OK, who else protests to get in parades?

    Its gay vs. straight because gay groups are the only ones suing to get into the South Boston Parade! They are in a small group suing for parade/event inclusion with fellow members being skinheads, KKK, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

    up
    14

    I can't help noticing that

    I can't help noticing that you seem a little obsessed with the stereotypical signifiers of gay culture, Mark.

    Not that, you know, there's anything wrong with that.

    up
    27

    There are no winners--only losers, all around in this.

    By on

    If the hassles are that big that people ultimately decide that not worth the trouble to have a parade, then everybody loses. Kids and adult spectators, Gays and straights, the organizers, the South Boston Community, the City of Boston, and the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day Parade themselves, because their prejudices will have ultimately backfired on them.

    up
    14

    I remember back in high

    I remember back in high school the constant harassment I got for being a straight male. All the queer kids use to shove me into the lockers and call me names like straighty and women-lover. This parade is the last place I can go as a straight male and feel safe. Feel like I belong, the rest of Boston is sooooooo diverse I feel like I don't fit in. I wish there was an awareness month for me.

    up
    131

    Hahaha

    By on

    1100 people (even if we assume that every like and every comment was from a completely different person) didn't bully a multi-million dollar alcohol enterprise into doing anything.

    up
    31

    As a business owner, they

    By on

    As a business owner, they have every right to work with whatever vendors they choose. That is not bullying, it's business.

    up
    34

    It seems both sides can play

    By on

    It seems both sides can play this game. The Cornerstone Pub and Restaurant in South Boston just gave Sam Adams the boot for their decision. There will be no Sam Adams served at the Cornerstone any longer. My family and I will be dining there tonight.

    up
    21

    It hoits! It hoits!

    By on

    I think Sam Adams will survive without the Cornerstone. Hope you enjoyed your Miller Lite with your dinner.

    up
    14

    That's nice dear

    The rest of the real world, where Sam Adams sells its wares, couldn't give an airborne copulation about what you and your family do.

    up
    13

    meh

    By on

    That was the most convoluted way of not saying "we support LGBTQ people" (or hey, how about "we support human rights"?) imaginable. I can just picture some 25 year old marketing Bro or Broette trying to write this and being really squeaked out. Reading it was like watching an awkward racial scene out of a movie set in the 1960's.

    Oh well. At least they backed out...

    up
    21

    A friendly FYI, because it's

    By on

    A friendly FYI, because it's a little obscure: "Murca" is an internet meme used to make fun of the ignorant among us who wrap themselves in the flag and patriotism in their pursuit of clinging to paleo-conservative ideas.

    up
    29

    Because

    By on

    They have to much chaw in their mouth to say it correctly.

    Because they don't seem to know what the actual name of the country is.

    up
    21

    And they still want "it" back

    By on

    Futher, they may not know what a country is but they "want it back" regardless.
    The good ol' days, when everyone knew their place and we were thrilled
    to pieces to be able to work 72 hours a week and die much, much, earlier.

    up
    16

    The real question is why

    By on

    The real question is why anyone uses Moonbats. It's the verbal equivalent of an automatic disclaimer to not take your opinion seriously.

    up
    24

    I've never understood this

    By on

    I've never understood this one either. Slamming someone by accusing them of caring for others? What an insult!

    up
    19

    that, and

    By on

    A zillion messages from their target markets saying WTF are you DOING!

    up
    26

    Boy!

    By on

    They must sell a shitload of Sam Adams at Club Cafe!

    up
    40

    It will have no effect - none.

    By on

    The funny thing about all this is that nothing, not a thing that Mass Equality, the mayor and other politicians, boycotting sponsors and the bias press is doing or can do is even rattling these South Boston Veterans in the slightest. They are taking it all in stride and pretty much ignoring it all. These are people who have been in battle, have been shot at with real bullets, some of them still carrying shrapnel in their bodies. The shrieking, whining, posturing and foot stomping for attention is child's play to them and actually amusing to them. When all the noise is over next week the result will be the same as it is every year: It will have been a huge, successful parade that will go off without a hitch and on the Veteran's terms.

    up
    27

    The shrieking, whining,

    By on

    The shrieking, whining, posturing and foot stomping for attention is child's play to them and actually amusing to them

    The fact that you treat a group of people who's lone goal is to be treated as equal members of society so poorly is just shocking to me.

    up
    21

    Of course

    By on

    Because I'm sure that this year's sponsorship funds were already spent anyways. Let's see how next year goes for them...and the year after that.

    up
    17

    Honorable service, yay. Bigotry, boo.

    Stop pretending that one thing excuses (or remotely has anything to do with) the other. Being a combat veteran doesn't shield you from criticism of your homophobia; only a failure of conscience can do that.

    up
    26

    Those "other" people

    By on

    Gosh, I never realized these unrattled South Boston Veterans have so much in common
    with quite a few other folks who

    1. Have been in battle
    2. Have been shot at with real bullets
    3. Are still carrying shrapnel in their bodies

    I wonder who these other folks are? It couldn't possibly be the ordinary citizens (vs. "real" soldiers)
    of any of the following: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Libya, Sudan, Mexico, Brazil, Bosnia, and of course, the US of A?
    And how long ago was that again? What a victory for the SBV's. I'm sure George Wallace felt the same way.

    up
    11

    I'm sure

    Wacko and the boys are big Sam drinkers. They'll have to go back to Bud and shed a tear for the sponsorship loss.

    up
    10

    Losing sponsors is hard

    By on

    Sponsorship is usually what makes events like this happen. No sponsors, no event (see: FIRST NIGHT). Sam Adams is a huge corporate sponsor compared to any of the other sponsors (random Southie bars? Vet groups?) that the parade likely has. It was probably a drop in the cask to Boston Beer Co. but probably meant a lot to the parade organizers in order to pay staff and get things organized.

    But good attempt to keep a stiff upper lip.

    up
    31

    Different donor Demographic...

    ... and I suspect they'll be able to put one more year on with smaller donors. Big donors are a guarantee of sufficient lump sums up front to organize the damn thing. As others have said, note what happened to FirstNight.

    Pat Robertson gets money from his co-religionists. Allied War Veterans of South Boston isn't a religious group, AFAICT. It's a bunch of old guys who want to do it their way, on streets the rest of us are paying for, and won a court case to that effect.

    Many Irish aren't Catholic, and many Irish Catholics aren't homophobic, so they're already celebrating elsewhere. And now they won't be avoiding Sam Adams, either.

    Many straight people aren't homophobic either (wave!), and wouldn't have anything to do with this parade EVER. Mostly because of the dudebros vomiting green beer (ewwwwww!).

    Many veterans (from my family, all of them) aren't homophobic, and find this kind of weird-ass discrimination freakish. And then they say, "Oh, look, they're from WWII or Korea, no wonder. Just wait for these old dinos to die off".

    It's not about gay rights any more (to us younger-than-60 folk) so much as "Jeebus, it's 2014. Get a clue and let the gay Vets march too."

    up
    16

    Extinction is inevitable

    A recent Pew survey showed that "wide majorities of [US] Catholics (71%) and white mainline Protestants (65%) say homosexuality should be accepted by society. And those without religious affiliation favor societal acceptance of homosexuality by roughly five-to-one (79% to 16%)."

    Those numbers ought to jump once the Wacko generation shuffles off. The bigot parade brigade will soon be running out the clock in Florida.

    up
    17

    Hmmm..

    "It's a bunch of old guys who want to do it their way, on streets the rest of us are paying for, and won a court case to that effect."

    You mean that same bunch of old guys who want to do it their way that served this country, some in combat, some for more than the required 2, 3 or 4 years. Old guys marching on the streets of this free country enjoying the freedom they fought and served for. The old guys that persevered and won a unanimous decision in the US Supreme Court to do the same. Although I disagree with their position I honor the freedom they have earned to do as they see fit.

    They aren't the only Veterans around

    There is a large new crop, courtesy of a couple of lengthy foreign misadventures.

    Some of us served in peacetime, too.

    They can march around the streets all they want - they just can't claim any religious or ethnic excuse to prevent other Veterans from doing so and expect to have broad support for that anymore.

    up
    12

    USNR

    1984-6

    The military is how trailer court kids get their college paid for.

    You?

    up
    17

    Bud Light

    By on

    Most Yups and Hips I serve in Southie don't even drink Sam Adams. Bud Liight is the beer of choice.

    up
    14

    Sorry...

    By on

    If you drink Bud Light you are not a Yuppie. Those are the wanna-be-yuppies.. kinda like the wanna-be-Irish with shamrock tats.

    I bet there's a bunch of

    By on

    I bet there's a bunch of anonymous posters from yesterday's thread, who now feel really awkward about that 12-er of Sam they bought as protest of Club Cafe and their oppressive treatment of homophobes.

    up
    53

    HAHA

    By on

    Hilarious! I was thinking the same thing.

    -The Original SoBo Yuppie

    up
    15

    If there is anyone who ran

    By on

    If there is anyone who ran out and bought some Sam Adams in counter-protest, I'll take it off your hands.

    up
    16

    Yes!

    By on

    Looks like our emails to Sam Adams had some impact!

    South Boston is great neighborhood...hopefully we can put this debate to rest, let LGBT march and we can move on to other issues.

    - The Original SoBo Yuppie who fully supports LGBT yet doesn't have one LGBT friend.

    up
    27

    When "the children" became an

    By on

    When "the children" became an excuse for everything except caring directly for "the children".

    up
    36

    ?

    I fail to see what this comment has to do with... anything. Parades can be for everyone, including children. So what? This is about a group of people being excluded and a sponsor pulling out..

    up
    21

    Right around never.

    By on

    Right around never.

    Seriously, if you think children can't handle a gay advocacy group marching in a parade, I don't know what to tell you or your children. I know it'll be hard, but you should really toughen up and figure out a way to deal with all these gay marchers wearing the exact same clothing as everyone else and parading in exactly the same way as everyone else, albeit with a sign saying that they are gay. I know, the horrors of a sign saying "Gay," right?

    up
    38

    Funny

    By on

    I read the top comment as "When did parades start being all about beer?"

    up
    14

    Our last Christmas parade

    By on

    Our last Christmas parade featured a gay dance troupe that was allowed to participate because parade organizers wanted to include everyone out of fairness. When the troupe came out to perform, the dancers were practically naked, wearing women's G-strings. Those men began gyrating and doing obscene dance moves right in front of children. The parade was a family event and it was tarnished by vulgarity. I have seen such outrageousness at other events and I suppose many people want to guard their events from such. While not all gay people yearn to don hot pink g- strings, there are still many that enjoy flaunting it all to those who would rather not see such.

    up
    14

    Right. I'm sure that really

    By on

    Right. I'm sure that really happened. Care to share a source to this non-existent event?

    up
    12

    Prove it

    By on

    I'm not saying this didn't happen. I'm saying prove it did.

    up
    15

    J Setters?

    By on

    This troupe might have been a set of J Setters. Of what I've seen of J Setters they don't wear burqas. But then the parades participants of Carnaval and Mardi Gras are not exactly known for their sober and conservative attire. However to compare J Setters to a group of pretty vanilla folks who want to be part of a major local event is a poor comparison.

    On the other hand I would be more concerned with the vulgarity of public drunkenness, abusive language and gross prejudice.

    Funny how with U. S. Americans we often equate near nudity, gyrating (hello Elvis on the eternal Ed Sullivan Show - hear this: gyrating is obscene!) but violence and drunkenness is just folks being rambunctious and having a good time.

    I do disagree with the final statement that there are many Gays who enjoy flaunting it all. Only in a person's fantasy do many Gays enjoy flaunting it all. Most Gay people are as boring, dull and nondescript as most heterosexuals. Well, except for the heterosexual males who need to flaunt their penises in public settings.

    Looked pretty quick to me...

    By on

    By my count, the first publicized call for action was yesterday afternoon, and they had their press release out this morning. Compared to how fast businesses usually respond to anything, they just exceeded the speed of light on this one.

    up
    19

    This is what happens when the country evolves

    If you're a business, you start figuring out, "Hey, being associated with bigotry against one group doesn't just hurt my business with the oppressed minority. One restaurant dropping my product won't put the tiniest dent in my bottom line. But there are a bunch of people who object to bigotry in general -- they have colleagues, neighbors, good friends and relatives in the minority, or they just object to hatred on principle -- and all those people abandoning our brand is really going to hurt."

    You haven't been bullied, homophobes. You've just been left behind by an increasingly enlightened, tolerant society, one in which young people in particular are saying, "Oh, grandpa, why are you such an embarrassment?" Smart corporations know better than to hang their profits on your dwindling numbers.

    up
    70

    Mayoral Run?

    By on

    MC Slim JB for Mayor!

    up
    21

    As usual, MCSlim is right

    By on

    Well put MCSlim.

    Wacko and his guys have every legal right in the world to hold this parade and determine its entrants, as stated by the Supreme Court. What they lose by excluding groups openly professing their LGBT/Ally status is their appeal to private commercial entities to financially support them. This isn't bullying, this isn't yuppies, this isn't anti-irish, anti-catholic, or anti-veterans. Its business. And its very bad business to be associated with groups who exclude others. I foresee a counter St. Pat's parade happening elsewhere, and gaining significant financial and municipal support to outshine Wacko's party. A proper st. pat's parade down Mass Ave in Cambridge sounds about right to me. We have neighborhoods just as irish as Southie, more T stations, and much better irish pubs.

    up
    33

    No Flags in Cambridge

    By on

    Yeah, but in Cambridge aren't American flags banned?

    up
    19

    Acute AND obtuse in the same

    By on

    Acute AND obtuse in the same response?

    Stop all this triangle talk -- it's Pi Day after all.

    up
    17

    Alternate St. Patrick's Day Parade in Cambridge:

    By on

    I remember that, a number of years ago, Cambridge did have an alternate St. Patrick's Day Parade at one point, which they held on 2 consecutive years, which started in the Central Square/Cambridgeport area and ended in Harvard Square. Too bad that one didn't continue.

    Sam Adams was right to drop their sponsorship of the regular St. Patrick's Day Parade. Let's hope the organizers of that parade learn a lesson by losing a sponsor.

    up
    12

    YUP

    By on

    That pretty much states the MAJORITY opinion in this town anyway.

    Well said MC

    up
    14

    It makes no difference

    By on

    The bottom line here is that it makes absolutely no difference. More than enough money has already been raised through private donations as is always the case. The parade will go on just fine with or without Sam Adams. The veterans held their ground and now, the fun part comes for Sam Adams - a boycott from people on the other side. It will be easy too. Their beer has been going down hill fast for a while now..

    up
    18

    I don't know if Sam Adams is

    By on

    I don't know if Sam Adams is threatened by a boycott from a dwindling minority with archaic ideas.

    up
    31

    I can see the conversation

    By on

    I can see the conversation now.

    "Would you like a Sam Adam's?"

    "No, I'm boycotting them ever since they withdrew their sponsorship, from the st. Patricks day parade, in support of equality"

    up
    32

    Obviously Sam Adams made an

    By on

    Obviously Sam Adams made an informed business decision that the number of people they felt would avoid drinking their beer if they were seen as promoting a discriminatory event was larger than your group of people who will avoid drinking sam adams now to protest their support of the LBGT community.

    up
    16

    What I can't figure out from

    By on

    What I can't figure out from Wacko and his crew (and please don't act as if they're speaking for all former service men and women. They are one slice of a very large pie of Americans) is exactly who this parade is for;

    1. Veterans? If its a veteran's parade, then say so. If it was a veterans parade, then we can keep the Irish and catholic thing out of it. Gays are permitted to serve in the armed forces, and are able to so openly. So there's no military exclusion principle.

    2. Irish - there's no inconsistency with being Irish and gay. Homosexuality is not banned in ireland (although they have a long way to go).

    3. Catholic - The church has stated that homosexual activity is a sin. The Pope has stated that the church shall not exclude those who are gay and welcomes all as children of christ. As such, the Church/Pope would be against such exclusion.

    I'm still looking for what source of support Wacko has other than bigotry, and I can't find it.

    up
    29

    Yes

    By on

    If only there was some way that they could inform the rest of us that they were marching...some kind of signal but smaller so as not to be too intrusive...

    A small signal...a signa or maybe even a sig for short.

    up
    14

    Maybe it is bc they are not

    By on

    Maybe it is bc they are not marching in the parade because they are gay, maybe they are marching for other reasons? They are marching as vets, they march with their children's youth sports teams, they are in marching bands, they are firefighters and police officers from around the USA, some are currently in the service. Maybe they don't think their sexuality is something they need to address at the parade?
    Again, perhaps Wacko and the boys have discriminated against the group that misrepresented themselves when applying, but the group did misrepresent themselves and that is the reason they were denied.

    Or maybe he excluded them for

    By on

    Or maybe he excluded them for the same reason he's been excluding them for 20 years. You know, Occams Razor and all that. Only difference this year is he had a convenient excuse to deflect criticism of his asinine bigotry.

    up
    10

    Maybe, if the group was up

    By on

    Maybe, if the group was up front and honest when applying, we would have been able to prove all of the maybes. Until that happens Occams Razor it is....

    Sorry, but in light of any

    By on

    Sorry, but in light of any other evidence, I'm going to assume Wacko's real motive is perusing the same line of asshole bigotry he's persued for the last 20 plus years. The only thing that's changed is his convenient excuses. Can't wait to see what he comes up with next year to exclude gay groups.

    up
    10

    What I've been unable to figure out

    By on

    is this: This is an event that's happening on public streets, is using public resources (police, additonal MBTA services, etc.) at the taxpayer's expense, and also represents an inconvenience to those members of the public iwho may be totally uninterested in the event, but are negatively impacted by street closures and the like during the parade.

    So, why would it be so unreasonable for Mayor Walsh to tell the veteran's group "If you don't agree to abide by our laws concerning non-discrimination, you won't get a permit to monopolize our streets and tie up our resources."? And if our legal system won't allow Walsh to issue such a demand to comply with these laws (which any business that operates in this state must agree to before they get a license), then there's something seriously wrong here.
    .

    up
    11

    I sure there are some legal precedents....

    If this were a Patriots parade, would you let a Jets fan group get a duckboat? If it were a civil rights group, would you have to let a skinhead group march?

    Every private group (road races/parades/walk) that wants to close streets pays for the police that closes those streets, there is a limit as to what the government should require them to pay for. Just like you can't deny a Nazi group from marching because you don't want to pay for the protesters cleanup I assume.

    up
    15

    Wow

    By on

    Worst. Analogy. Ever.

    - The Original SoBo Yuppie who voted for Linda Dorcena Forry.

    up
    12

    Off topic: the "1"'s vs the "!"

    By on

    FYI: the whole "11111" vs. "!!!!!" and subsequent "111!!!!11!!!!" are an expression of commenting "outrage" by someone who is typing so hard that the "1" key" and its companion shift key "!" are used interchangeably. This often goes along with an "all caps" message. When I first saw this somewhere, I did not understand it either.

    For example: "I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE TO PAY MORE TAXES!!!111!!!!"
    or:
    "WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????!!!111!!!!!

    My understanding is that it now primarily used in a sarcastic manner, although from time to time, there are still some
    "SERIOUS" messages which apparently are meant to be taken "SERIOUSLY!!1111!!!!"

    Thank you!

    By on

    for the clarification--I've never seen that! But I try to limit the time I spend on message boards since I tend to get a little...well, ranty. :)

    that was what the Supreme Court ruled on 9 - 0

    By on

    Any public demonstration uses public roads or parks. The Supreme Court said, you can't make the state as the censor of public assemblies, demand the participation of uninvited groups.

    If you think the freedom of controlling your own message is seriously wrong, move to China.

    For those of you playing Blockhead Bigot Bingo,

    you can now check off the "Go back to China/Russia/Iran!" square. Also, the "But they fought bravely in combat", "It's our religious freedom", "Stop shoving your lifestyle down our throats", "That [withdrawn sponsor's product] was probably sour anyway", "Gays are so bullying us frightened, oppressed straight white men", and "Won't someone think of the children?" squares. Same as the last five threads on this topic.

    up
    22

    Don't get it do you?

    By on

    **Irish - there's no inconsistency with being Irish and gay**

    You guys just don't get this do you?

    Gays can march in the parade every year.

    They cannot (and should not) march with a banner that identifies their sexuality. "Divorced Irish mothers of South Boston" would not be allowed to march identifying as such. Nor would the "Irish Abortion Rights league" be allowed to march under said banner.

    Now, you CAN be a divorced Irish mother...or be a member of NARAL and march, but not as an advocacy group.

    So it has nothing to do with the claim "Everyone should be able to march"....everyone CAN march.

    It has to do with every special interest group under the sun DEMANDING to be included in a private organized event.

    Seems like there are gay militant groups that are trying to twist this whole thing into "hate"....which it is not. And for a group that is known for it's stance against bullying, this seems awfully suspect.

    I think the backlash is going to hurt more than the message you are pushing.

    up
    21

    I was kinda (keyword: kinda)

    By on

    I was kinda (keyword: kinda) with you until you used "gay militant groups." The fact that you conflate being gay with getting a divorce or having an abortion is just strange.

    up
    17

    **I was kinda (keyword: kinda

    By on

    **I was kinda (keyword: kinda) with you until you used "gay militant groups." **

    I don't know what else to call people who are throwing around words like hate..and insist they must be included to march under any banner they want.

    **The fact that you conflate being gay with getting a divorce or having an abortion is just strange.**

    It equates because it would be another advocacy group ...or a group trying to be identified with something that has nothing to do with the parade.

    Again, you miss the point. No one is equating "being gay"...or preventing gays from marching.

    It's about private organizations being allowed to decide their own rules. It's about allowing others trying to turn the SO. Boston parade into something it isn't.

    If Jewish people had a parade and I insisted my "Jews for Jesus" group be allowed to participate, I would imagine the parade organizers would not have to bow to my insistance that my group be able to take part.

    It's about private

    By on

    It's about private organizations being allowed to decide their own rules.

    No one is taking away Wacko's right to decide his own rules. He's still as free to be as homophobic today as he was yesterday. The only thing that is happening here is private individuals letting Wacko know that he's homophobic and that he won't be getting their support anymore. He's still more than free to be homophobic on his own. There's no law insisting that private individuals support him.

    up
    17

    Indeed it is!

    Thus some private organizations, known as Harpoon, Sam Adams, etc. have made a private decision to withdraw their private funding of a private organization.

    Got that?

    up
    10

    Fair point Lou; you can be

    By on

    Fair point Lou; you can be anything you want to be and march, you just can't advertise it unless it is specifically approved by Wacko and crew.

    This gets back to my original point; What are the metrics they use as acceptable?

    Homosexual promotion = bad.
    Abortion promotion = bad.
    Divorce promotion = bad.
    Pro-abortion Democratic Politician = good?
    Divorced democratic politician = good?
    Bar that everyone in southie knows sells coke out of the back (shannon) = good?
    Bar that everyone in southie knows sells oxys out in the open (Corner Tavern) = good?

    up
    16

    100% Right

    By on

    I completely agree, Lou. All groups can participate, they just can't have an advocacy group label in which to march under. So far I'm seeing other advocacy groups being okay with this. Why must gay groups constantly force the spotlight to be upon them? Their plight is all I hear about. Sure, everyone has the right to live their lives as they please, but in life there are rules to live by. If parade organizers want to avoid trouble and make rules for all, then all parade participants should abide by such rules. I sometimes feel that the media, liberals, etc. won't be happy until everyone agrees to be homosexual.

    Not so much...

    I think the backlash is going to hurt more than the message you are pushing.

    Bitter truth: in the Commonwealth, a majority of people support same-sex marriage, gays serving openly in the military, and don't support Wacko.

    Who drinks Sam Adams? Who drinks Harpoon? Hint: the majority of their customers don't agree with the policy on parade participation. So this backlash you posit is from people who aren't customers? Let's see how that goes.

    I wasn't going to buy any Sam Adams next week, but now I'm gonna go pick up a mix pack. Heh.

    up
    10

    "Their beer has been going

    By on

    "Their beer has been going down hill fast for a while now."

    That's just like getting dumped by your girlfriend and immediately saying meh.. she was a bitch anyway. Bet a Boston Lager would taste just fine to you if they were still a sponsor.

    up
    22

    Some boycott that will be

    By on

    Less than 11,000 signatures were collected in 2008 in an attempt to get same-sex marriage outlawed in MA.

    In the intervening 6 years, those numbers have only been going down.

    up
    20

    The original Sam Adams

    Would be proud that his namesake beer was involved in a successful boycott against bigotry.

    Or he'd be surprised that someone named a beer after him, seeing as he wasn't all that much of a success as a brewer.

    And then he'd wonder what all these magical horseless carriages and tall buildings were about and go into a state of shock for coming back to life hundreds of years after he passed away.

    up
    35

    Actually

    By on

    He might wonder why the hell his namesake brewery was bankrolling a celebration of a Catholic saint by bunch of recalcitrant papists!

    up
    38

    Is this really a victory?

    By on

    What about all the gay vets who do march in the parade but don't feel the need to wave rainbow flags or otherwise proclaim their sexual preferences? Do the opinions of certain groups within the LGBT community outweigh theirs? Loss of corporate sponsorship puts the event in jeopardy of even happening in the future; this decision affects everyone, not just the so called "bigots" who organize it...

    Assuming the views of groups like Mass Equality and nameless (strictly-online) activists represent the LGBT community as a whole is like assuming Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for all black people...

    Gay people have marched and will continue to march comfortably in the parade, yet you may not realize it because they don't stand out... that's the point, not the issue.

    up
    19

    Oh, because I support gay

    By on

    Oh, because I support gay rights, gay marriage and gay vets marching openly in the Southie parade or any parade for that matter, but I think the people cheering the fact that Mass Equality and the organizers didn't work out a resolution and therefore Sam Adams pulled their sponsorship is NOT a reason to celebrate... that makes me a concern troll? Whatever. Grow up.

    up
    10

    Being a concern troll

    Makes you a concern troll.

    You sound soooo worried about people you don't even seem to know, but insist simply must exist AND have no way to speak for themselves.

    up
    14

    Problems with cause and effect here

    People are not cheering the fact that the matter was not resolved, they are cheering the fact that a particular sponsor decided to end its sponsorship given the bad faith instransigence of the parade's organizers.

    up
    11

    Hmm

    By on

    I'm not sure but maybe its the fear of being ostracized by their gay counterparts? How ironic...

    up
    14

    In order to be ironic, I

    By on

    In order to be ironic, I think it would have to be more than speculative.

    up
    12

    Pages