[Dilly]

"They just don't care to understand the notion of freedom of association"

Sounds like they do understand it. If the parade is being sponsored by a private organization, the CC, then that organization gets to decide who's in the parade. But if the parade is (or was originally) a city affair, then state law precludes the city from excluding groups based on political beliefs. Sounds like its the CC that wants "special rights". They should be required to abide by state law just like everyone else.

[jwalsh07]

How about the local heterosexual S&M club. Is it also their right to have a float in a kid's parade?

And what would be their purpose? Recruitment?

As at the March for Life, homosexuals should simply have marched as parents or proponents of children but alas, it doesn't serve their agenda.

[MEGoody]

"But if the parade is (or was originally) a city affair, then state law precludes the city from excluding groups based on political beliefs."

Political beliefs? It's a kid's parade for crying out loud.

[A. Pole]

But if the parade is (or was originally) a city affair, then state law precludes the city from excluding groups based on political beliefs.

"political beliefs"?! Since when feeling an attraction to kids is a political belief?

[randog]

But if the parade is (or was originally) a city affair, then state law precludes the city from excluding groups based on political beliefs.

Zackly, and I'm surprised that the city is so confused about what to do. It's not the law banning gay discrimination that has them tied up in knots, it's the Law of Unintended Consequences that's mucking things up.

[JoeSchem]

But if the parade is (or was originally) a city affair

Sounds to me that the liberals who promoted the idea of a government-sponsored parade knew exactly what they were doing. I thought the government didn't have enough money to give old people their drugs, but apparently it can spend tax dollars on parades to expose little kids to the homosexual agenda.