Other
See other Other Articles
Title: SanFag Fudgepacker Pride Parade celebrates 40th anniversary
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GJIA1G0&show_article=1
Published: Jun 27, 2010
Author: SUDHIN THANAWALA
Post Date: 2010-06-27 07:18:38 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: queers, fags, faggots, dykes, butches, fudgepackers, carpet munchers
Views: 151736
Comments: 167
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco's 40th annual gay pride weekend drew thousands to Civic Center Plaza, with even more expected Sunday for a parade, a Backstreet Boys concert and comments from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Organizers kicked off the event Saturday in front of City Hall where thousands converged as vendors sold barbecue and burritos and DJs spun tunes on a large stage. Advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community shared booths alongside corporate sponsors. "It's part political, it's part a party," said Darryl Groom, 55, explaining the elements that brought him and his partner, Tobey Tam, 41, to San Francisco from Cape Coral, Fla. San Francisco's gay pride festivities have come a long way since the first parade in 1970, as has the LGBT movement, organizers and historians say. The first pride parade had about 150 to 200 people, said Gerard Koskovich of the GLBT Historical Society. "Barely anybody noticed," he said. "I've seen pictures of it." The following year, there wasn't even a march, he said, just a gathering in Golden Gate Park. Today, the march attracts tens of thousands of people, and a growing number of those are not in the LGBT community, Koskovich said. "That homophobia that says, 'Eek, I'm not going to hang out with these people,' has turned into, 'Boy, these people throw a great party.'" San Francisco Pride Executive Director Amy Andre said the fight for equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people has also come a long way since the first pride celebration in 1970. At the time, gay sex was a crime in California. This year, a prerecorded address will be delivered by Pelosi and The Backstreet Boys will perform. Andre said this year's theme, "40 and Fabulous," is partly intended to celebrate the movement's progress. "But we're also reflecting on the fact that we still have a long way to come for equal rights," Andre added.
A member of the Mike's on Bike rides his
bike nude down Market Street...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 71.
#1. To: Happy Quanzaa, Badeye (#0)
(Edited)
Did anyone check this article for accuracy...given the poster's defiant history of editing articles?
War. It is you who edits content of articles. Quit spinning.
Bloggers and others routinely cite the content of articles and editorialize the title, and it's generally considered acceptable as long as the original article is linked. That's far different than changing the article itself without acknowledging such.
Read any website's TOS...ALL content on the website is copyrighted. That includes titles. And you know that you've changed the content of articles here. And when it was pointed out that I inserted "obese" I acknowledged it.
IIRC, you didn't even link the original source. Terms of Service be damned, it's generally accepted that it's ok to editorialize the Title as long as the original source is linked.
Chuckles... I made an error in the link and put a comma instead of a period. The link here is optional anyway... And thanks for not denying that you've edited articles...
The link isn't optional. If you have a source put the link there. If you write something yourself there will be no link.
Apparently you've forgotten what your own site looks like.
Hey smart ass. I just gave you the rules. Just because you can be an asshole and leave it blank doesn't mean I condone that. It is for people who write their own articles. Got it?
That explanation was previously found where?
It doesn't matter. You know it now.
Got it. So far: Anyone posting shit you agree with can violate copyright laws but I can't. Any other serendipitous rules you'd care to share? Or do you need to consult with Tull?
First off. Copyright laws is limited to a 10 mile jurisdiction. Secondly there is no violation of any copyright law for describing an article in your own words. If I think it is fair it will stay. If it offends me I may remove it. If it is an article that offends me with the original title. I will probably let it stay. There are all kinds of articles people post here that I believe are pure bullshit. But I let 99 percent of them stay. You like to argue a lot.
You like to single me out a lot. Everyone here is in an argument at any given time. And what you've stated is 100% incorrect. Copyright reach extends within the jurisdiction of the US and is even enforceable beyond water's edge under some treaties. There's a whole body of common law dedicated to it.
Yeah, and the constitution doesn't protect free speech for corporations.
Correct. Only people have rights. Read Madison. He specifically states that corporations are dangers to liberty. He makes the case that they exist as an entity NOT as a person. There was no such thing as corporate "rights" until the late 19th century when they started buying politicians. Do you know what Panama came into existence?
#75. To: war (#71)
Myth: The protections of the Free Speech Clause properly apply only to individuals, not corporations. Justice Scalia dispatched with this argument nicely in his concurring opinion by pointing out that the First Amendment has long been extended beyond isolated individuals to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety of purposes ranging from political to commercial. The Democratic party, the Sierra Club, and the New York Times aren’t individuals, but their speech nonetheless falls under the umbrella of First Amendment protection. But the formalistic obsession with whether a corporation should have the legal status of a “person” with a “right” to free speech quite misses the substantive issues at stake, which concern how the principle of free expression should be applied to the political speech of certain types of social groups. In particular, is there something uniquely harmful and/or unworthy of protection about political messages that come from corporations and unions, as opposed to, say, rich individuals, persuasive writers, or charismatic demagogues? Which brings us to our next point: Myth: A deluge of corporate and union speech will corrupt the democratic process. The very idea that political speech in an open democracy can be “corrupting” rests on fundamentally illiberal assumptions about individuals’ capacity for reasoned deliberation and self-government. The First Amendment was designed to allow all speakers to put their messages out into the public debate, be they rich or poor, vicious or virtuous. The underlying principle is that over the long run, a society of free individuals is best equipped to evaluate the merits of political arguments for themselves, and that a distrustful government cannot ban speech out of the worry that its citizens will be unduly swayed by it. Rich individuals and talented polemicists have always been permitted to put out quantities and qualities of speech that may exert a disproportionate influence on society, but political opponents and voters have always been trusted to evaluate these speakers’ arguments for themselves, respond with counter-arguments, and ultimately make up their own minds about the truth of any matter of controversy. Especially with the explosion of diverse viewpoints and avenues of expression that have come from the Internet media revolution, it simply defies common sense to think that any corporation or union could ever hope to so overwhelm the political debate as to prevent dissenting voices from being heard and reasonably contemplated by the electorate. Of course, this freewheeling political dialogue may be messy, imperfect, and prone to abuses, but the First Amendment makes it constitutionally preferable to censorship targeted at disfavored groups. http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49322/defending-i-citizens-united-i/anthony-dick
The supreme court just bitch slapped that nonsense. Only people can talk so they are the only ones who could possible have free speech. People are free to contract as they see fit. They are allowed to peacefully assemble. Just because they form a corporation doesn't mean they lose any rights. Do they also lose right to trial by jury? What about the fourth amendment? And on and on and on.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: war (#1)
#4. To: A K A Stone, war (#2)
#6. To: no gnu taxes (#4)
(Edited)
#9. To: war (#6)
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#9)
(Edited)
Terms of Service be damned
#14. To: war (#10)
#55. To: A K A Stone (#14)
The link isn't optional.
#58. To: Skip Intro (#55)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#61. To: war (#59)
#64. To: A K A Stone (#61)
(Edited)
#66. To: war (#64)
Anyone posting shit you agree with can violate copyright laws but I can't.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
(Edited)
You like to argue a lot.
#69. To: war (#68)
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 71.
#76. To: war (#71)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]