>>Gay rights apparently means no rights for others.
An assignment is an assignment. When cops can decide who to protect and where they want to serve, then why have them anymore?
It’s a special event, not normal duty and they should have some choice.
If he’s willing to quit, then that’s how cultural mores are set
No, an officer must first protect his dignity, his faith and family first. You cannot force a man to protect people that want to destroy him.
On one hand, and I don't know from the information presented if this a religious expression issue, I presume that police establishments swear to protect and defend the Constitution, including protecting the rights of their own members. So the police establishment in question may need some "sensitivity training," imo, concerning respecting the constitutional rights of its members if such is the case.
On the other hand, police establishments have a right to know, imo, if its limited members are ready, willing and able for all scenarios. So maybe such personal convictions are grounds not to expense police training for police training for unwilling candidates.
Finally, I regard uniformed police presence at community events as meaning that police are strictly being peacekeepers and are not there to endorse a "product," the gay agenda in this example.
“The Utah Pride Parade is a smaller event, so all officers involved were assigned.”
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58036918-78/jones-police-officer-officers.html.csp
“An assignment is an assignment. When cops can decide who to protect and where they want to serve, then why have them anymore?”
Cops DO NOT protect. Cops DO NOT serve. Police show up AFTER the fact and take your statement.
Police are REVENUE agents collecting money for the state in various ways - Traffic control, SPEED traps
Police CANNOT be sued when at the location of an active crime they do not put their lives at risk to save your miserable ass.
Yes, it’s a special event, bring in someone else. Also, if sodomy is so accepted, they shouldn’t need any protection etc anyways.
I will always back a guy or gal up for standing up for morality and what is right.
Not really. Especially in this case where the officers are being told to ignore the law.
When cops can decide who to protect and where they want to serve, then why have them anymore?
They have been doing so for a very long time. Remember the case saying that the police have no obligation to protect you?
I don't think that's the point. The point is, the Department characterized any consientious objection to homosexual displays as "bigotry".