Dear Editor,

I could not disagree more with your article in the Thursday, Aug. 16, edition of the Gay and Lesbian times, titled “Cash-grabbing firefighters capitalize on culture of hate.” I find it disturbing that you and your staff would assume that because the firefighters of Station 5 were opposed to marching in the Gay Pride parade, that the reason for their grievance must be based on hate. If a group received permission for a parade and a gay firefighter, whose beliefs conflicted with those of the parade organizers, was forced to march in that parade, would you be screaming as loudly against the firefighter when he protested? I think not. This makes your article hypocritical to say the least. The city’s policy was scrapped, not as a reactionary measure, but because it’s wrong. No one should be forced to participate in an event that conflicts with their beliefs. Whether or not you and I (or anyone for that matter) agree with those beliefs is irrelevant. Then you resort to your own form of bashing by calling the firefighters, “weak-wristed, unstable, unsuited, incapable little mama’s boys.” Why? Because they disagreed with participating in the event and chose to stand up for themselves? In short, what your article says is, “We (the gay community) have had to tolerate attacks for years and now it’s your turn.” This makes you no different then those who have participated in (or even failed to condemn) attacks on other minority groups in the past. The next time you write an article you should state the facts and let us decide for ourselves instead of simply resorting to attacking the other party. There are those of us that do not tolerate bigotry in any form; even when it comes from those in our own community.

Jay Turner

Dear Editor,

Your editorial this week set the cause of gay americans back about 20 years. You gave an entirely new meaning to the word double standard. You attack hard working emergency service workers just because they felt uncomfortable being sexually harrsassed by many gay people at the pride parade. You go out of your way to state that gay people are harrassed and discriminated against every day, but yet you feel that when straight people are sexually harrassed by gay people that that’s okay. If someoone yells out the window of a car and harrasses a gay person than that’s horrendous, but if a firefighter who is forced to ride on a float is harrassed by gay people then that’s just good natured fun. You can’t have it both ways. If we as a community expect to be treated with respect then we have to treat others with respect. At the parade I heard some of those comments shouted at the firefighers and if I were straight and on that float i would have felt uncomfortable as well. Every day these brave firefighters risk their lives to serve this community. they don’t deserve to be degraded by your editorial just because they didn’t sit by as they were being sexually harrassed. To state that since they work in Hillcrest they should be able to take degrading comments from this community is ludicrous. Their job is to protect us, and there is no evidence presented that these individuals have not performed that duty with distinction. Nowhere in their job discription does it state that they have to take being sexually harrassed. If we as gay people want respect from the community at large than we need to start by respecting others. I also find it offensive that your editorial pretends to represent the views of the whole gay community. I read this editorial and talked about it with many friends and we were all embarrassed by it. You may condone sexual harrassement , but don’t present those biggoted and hateful words you wrote as the views of the community because clearly they are not.

Brad Bielawski

Dear Editor,

This letter is in rebuttal to your August 16th edition in the Gay & Lesbian Times concerning the San Diego Firefighters lawsuit.

Your entire argument was blatantly hypocritical. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, The Times is threatened that someone else knows how to play the game. These men have every right to sue if they felt their rights were violated. As far as I know they were ordered to participate in the parade. I wonder what your paper would report if any City gay employees were ordered to participate in a GOP sponsored event.

It is also unfortunate that you resort to name calling by referring to these men as “sissies.” Are you in some contest with Don Imus? Whoever resorts to the most hysterical, name calling blast wins the best nonsensical argument of the year.

And what does the New York Firefighters’ calender have to do with harassment? Those men posed in a studio with only a select few watching. They did not march in a parade against their will with hecklers at the ready.

Then there is this statement: “The FDNY capitalized on its workers’ sex appeal, in fact, until last week, when it discovered cover boy Michael Biserta happily tugged on his hose in Guys Gone Wild. It seems that sexploitation is perfectly acceptable among firefighters so long as it’s hetero.” This is a most confusing statement. What the FDNY allows has nothing whatsoever to do with the FDSD. But your statement just confirms my suspicions of your own intolerance. No one forced that firefighter to pose.

Threatening these men to move out of the district or face the consequences is not helpful to our community. I can read between the lines. The way I see it there is not much difference between what you preach and what James Hartline preaches.

And how as the community’s confidence been shaken, pray tell? How have they shamed Station 5? Do you know something the community does not? Remember, the firefighters’ lawsuit is based on harassment. Are you making their case for them?

I will just leave you with this: “The left-wing thought police are forever paying lip service to the ideals of free expression, but they are the first ones in line to place restrictions on it for those with whom they disagree.” This was written by Rush Limbaugh 14 years ago in his best selling book, “See, I Told You.”

Thomas G. Phillips

Dear Editor,

Thanks to Nicole’s latest column that gloated about the Gloria fund-raising edge, I was prompted to contribute some more money to the Whitburn campaign. A disparity in fund-raising in San Diego – I remember the 4:1 disparity between Sanders and Frye – usually means that the conservative power brokers are trying once again to have their way. The quid pro quo is money and support to the more malleable candidate in exchange for votes. Does anyone doubt that Jerry Sanders in exchange for such support has become a thing of the developers? I don’t. Rather than declaring Gloria as the District 3 candidate because of the cash that has flowed in so early and apparently so easily, I’m inclined to think that he has some explaining to do about his relationship to Sanders and about quid pro quos. In San Diego politics, follow the money.

Charlie Pratt