Reader comments · US: Boston Beer Company drops sponsorship of St Patrick’s Day Parade over gay veteran ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Boston Beer Company drops sponsorship of St Patrick’s Day Parade over gay veteran ban

  • It’s great to see so many people taking a stand against this kind of outrageous bigotry. Lets hope other sponsors follow suit and tell this hateful group of disgusting “veterans” their old age views are no longer relevant in modern society.

    I hope that if this is not resolved this year, the Mayor of Boston will make plans to replace this event with something more welcoming of the entire Boston community.

    They have it in their power to refuse to grant licenses to events that practice discrimination and bigotry, so it would be excellent to see the Mayor proposing a replacement where all are welcome.

    If those running this farce are going to continue to push their hateful and ignorant views on the city, the city should take over control of this event.

    • John deLeo

      You’d have no way to know this, because the article is so poorly reported, but the Boston St.Pat Parade is not a city, or state or federal, event. It is run by private group who do not allow any particular point of view to be advertised with signage or symbols (I can remember them being criticized for refusing anti-war groups). They do not prevent any individual veteran from participating.
      I suppose leaving out these critical facts make a better vehicle to get the hyperbole flowing.

      • Every event of this size has to be sanctioned by the local government, no matter how independent it is.
        The City of Boston has to issue licenses for events of this size to cover insurance, alcohol sale and use, policing and crowd control. You can’t just have a party in the street with thousands attending without agreement from the city.

        As most cities already have policies in place to protect against discrimination, it would be entirely plausible for the city to refuse to grant a license to this group in the future because of their exclusionary policies, which the city can argue goes against the interests of the community.

        If for no other reason, the city should be looking at this again solely on the embarrassment this group of veterans has caused the city. Their recent statement is homophobic, suggesting that including gay veterans would be a “risk” to “families”. That one statement alone should be enough to force the city of Boston to reconsider allowing this group to continue to manage what has become an iconic event for the city and community.

        It’s not about being “allowed” to march individually, it’s about recognizing the DIVERSITY of Boston and the sacrifices these veterans made. Of the two groups in this debate, it’s clear to all sane and decent people which is in the right, and which is a homophobic club of old men drunk on power.

        • John deLeo

          It is not “entirely plausible for the city to refuse to grant a license to this group in the future” because in the United States all groups have the right to peacefully assemble.

          • Your talking about political protest, this is not a political protest,
            it is a street party, and as such it has to comply with licensing laws
            within the city and state.

            I know you don’t want to accept this
            (for some reason lol) but all cities have legislation in place to
            prevent unauthorized public disorder, and street parties are not covered
            under the constitution because they are not political protests.

            if it is a political protest, there are still laws which can be used by
            various states and cities to end them. All the city needs to do to end
            an “unauthorized” gathering is claim that it is unauthorized, and that
            it is causing a nuisance or a risk.

            If you need any evidence of
            this you just need to go back a couple of years to the Occupy protests.
            These were “technically” legal under the constitution, but it still
            didn’t stop cities and states from disbanding them and labeling them as
            illegal under city laws.

      • “who do not allow any particular point of view to be advertised with signage or symbols”

        Also interesting, considering it is sponsored every year by several companies who demand that their branding and logo is displayed in several places. This is what sponsorship is.

        So, how can a private club complain about not allowing a group to be “promoted” with the event, while allowing companies to sponsor it and spread their own branding across the event?

        It seems they’ve attempted to pick out an excuse, and utterly failed. If they want to claim that this is their reason, they have to abide by their own rules and ban anyone from holding any banners, raising any flags, advertising any companies…

  • Truth

    Bigots should always be kicked where it hurts the most: in the pocket. Funny how easily someone’s moral and religious beliefs can simply evalorate when their income is threatened. Hope it proves effective in this case …

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.