Cedar Point Discrimination
Becky Weber
Food for thought:
AMUSEMENT PARK EJECTS GAY MAN IN T-SHIRT DEBACLE
by Anne Harris
Between the Lines - Detroit
Toledo - A local man is suing Cedar Point Amusement Park in
Sandusky, OH, for
$25,000 plus a refund of his admission following his ejection from
the park
three years ago. David Winkle, an openly gay Toledo resident, was
forced to
leave Cedar Point after he refused to turn his t-shirt inside out.
The shirt
said, "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is."
As he was seating himself on the Blue Streak roller coaster, Winkle
was
approached by a Cedar Point ride attendant who asked him to turn his
t-shirt
inside out so that the message on the shirt would be unreadable.
Winkle
refused. At that point the attendant was joined by a security guard
who
informed Winkle that his t-shirt violated park policy. Winkle and a
friend
who had accompanied him were escorted to the operations office.
According to
Winkle, the acting operations manager told him the shirt was
offensive, and
that if her daughter saw it, she wouldn't know how to explain it to
her.
Winkle and his friend, Jim Bernard, who is not (as the shirt might
suggest)
his boyfriend, were expelled from the parkwith no refund of their
admission
tickets.
"I was totally humiliated," said Winkle of his experience. "They
waited
until I was sitting on the ride [to approach me]. They embarrassed
me in
front of thousands of people." Winkle and Bernard had been at the
park for
several hours before the incident occurred.
Cedar Point public relations official Robin Innes would not comment
on the
incident, but he did say that "we appeal to a family oriented
audience [and
prohibit the wearing of] anything that would be offensive to that
audience."
When asked to be more specifie, Innes said he "doesn't think the
park policy
gets any more specific than that." Innes added that Cedar Point's
dress code
is posted at the front of the park and in the park guide. The dress
code
states that "Profanity, sugestive pictures and [depiciton of]
illegal
substances on clothing are prohibited."
Two days after the incident, Winkle's lawyer, S. Scott Schwab,
attended the
park with his twelve-year-old daughter and five of her friends.
Schwab
enlisted the aid of his daughter and her friends in locating
t-shirts that
violated the park's stated policy. "I had these five little girls
running
around the park, yelling 'Mr. Schwab, look at this one.'" Among the
profane
and suggestive t-shirts they found was one which featured a race car
and the
words, "Fuel injection is nice but I'd rather be blown."
David Patton
In article 56...@uswest.com, Becky Weber <bxw...@uswest.com> writes:
>Food for thought:
>
<<snip>>
>
>Cedar Point public relations official Robin Innes would not comment
>on the
>incident, but he did say that "we appeal to a family oriented
>audience [and
>prohibit the wearing of] anything that would be offensive to that
>audience."
> When asked to be more specifie, Innes said he "doesn't think the
>park policy
>gets any more specific than that." Innes added that Cedar Point's
>dress code
>is posted at the front of the park and in the park guide. The dress
>code
>states that "Profanity, sugestive pictures and [depiciton of]
>illegal
>substances on clothing are prohibited."
>
Oh no! Even Cedar Point is trying to tell us what is good/moral/decent!
Get ready. Pretty soon it will be like a private school; everyone will have
to wear the same "approved" uniform. Sheesh, imagine what they'll do if you
try to wear a Kings Island or Six Flags shirt!
---
__________________________________________________________________
Name : S. David Patton "Drummers do it in rhythm"
Addr : pat...@aud.alcatel.com Richardson, Texas
"Some people are alive, simply because it's illegal to kill them!"
David Hamburger
Well, first of all, if this is true, I think that this is HORRIBLE!
This is the kind of think that would keep me from going back,
regardless of the fact that it is (for now) my favorite park. Except
maybe on "gay day" as part of an unofficial protest.
Does anyone know Ms. Innes's phone number or extention? Can she be
reached via the 800 number? I'd REALLY like to know if I'd be kicked
out wearing a similar shirt. Strangely enough, I almost did wear such
a shirt last May, but didn't in the end.
If this is true, then this is a horrible example of typical
descimination. On my trip there I saw MANY t-shirts that I thought
were offensive. There were HUNDREDS of "co-ed naked" shirts, which
alone would be ok, but ALL of them have other suggestive phrases. And
to someone who isn't Crhristian, the HUNDREDS of Jesus shirts (many of
which are illegal copyright infringements of the Coke and Pepsi
logos!) is offensive.
I could see complaining if someone was wearing a SEXUAL gay t-shirt,
but a complaint against this particular shirt, while allowing all of
the co-ed naked ones, is just plain discrimination!
The sad part about this is that Winkle doesn't have a legal leg to
stand on in Ohio. Unless there's a county law I don't know about or
Sandusky has enacted an anti-descrimination law, there's nothing he
can do. Unfortunately, Ohio is one of 41 states that doesn't have an
anti-descrimination law that includes sexual orientation.
The best that Winkle can hope for is to try to use the First Ammedment
as his defense, but on private property, that will most likely NOT
hold up.
Contrast this situation with Mass., which HAS a gay rights law. I
went with a bunch of friends to a nightclub. We were physically
dragged out of the club because we were gay. Three of the people
filed a complaint with the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination.
(I missed the deadline by ONE day!) The Commission recently awarded
each of the three $10000! Unfortunately, the bar owner is bankrupt,
so they probably won't see any of it. But the point and the legal
precedent was made!
If Cedar Point does not clarify this position, then I think ACE should
SERIOUSLY reconsider it's convention there next year.
As word of this gets out, I suspect that people will challenge the
policy. This could make the event nasty!
Becky Weber <bxw...@uswest.com> wrote:
>Cedar Point public relations official Robin Innes would not comment
>on the
>incident, but he did say that "we appeal to a family oriented
>audience [and
>prohibit the wearing of] anything that would be offensive to that
>audience."
> When asked to be more specifie, Innes said he "doesn't think the
>park policy
>gets any more specific than that." Innes added that Cedar Point's
>dress code
>is posted at the front of the park and in the park guide. The dress
>code
>states that "Profanity, sugestive pictures and [depiciton of]
>illegal
>substances on clothing are prohibited."
>
>Two days after the incident, Winkle's lawyer, S. Scott Schwab,
>attended the
>park with his twelve-year-old daughter and five of her friends.
>Schwab
>enlisted the aid of his daughter and her friends in locating
>t-shirts that
>violated the park's stated policy. "I had these five little girls
>running
>around the park, yelling 'Mr. Schwab, look at this one.'" Among the
>profane
>and suggestive t-shirts they found was one which featured a race car
>and the
>words, "Fuel injection is nice but I'd rather be blown."
David Hamburger
Boston, MA
My top 10 coaster list:
1) Raptor 6) Great White
2) Great Nor'Easter 7) Mantis
3) Magnum XL-200 8) Steel Phantom
4) Batman (SFGAdv) 9) Kumba
5) Cyclone (Coney Island) 10) Yankee Cannonball
RIP: Hercules
Pete643
>Toledo - A local man is suing Cedar Point Amusement Park in
>Sandusky, OH, for
>$25,000 plus a refund of his admission following his ejection from
>the park
>three years ago. David Winkle, an openly gay Toledo resident, was
>forced to
>leave Cedar Point after he refused to turn his t-shirt inside out.
>The shirt
>said, "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is."
An important point here is the guy wasn't ejected because CP
discriminates against homosexuals, he was ejected because
he didn't turn his t-shirt inside out. He was given the opportunity
to stay in the park, the park just thought his t-shirt was in poor
taste.
I don't care what someone is as long as the homosexuals leave
me alone and don't put their preferences in my face.. As a straight
person I do find the recent increase in homosexual "awareness"
somewhat annoying. Why are the Big Johnson t-shirts alright?
Because the subject matter, even if it is a little crude, is about
things the way nature intended it to be. Homosexual activity just
isn't they way things are supposed to work and that is why many
people find it so offensive. I can understand CP's point. Nothing
would turn off CP's typical guests, main stream middle america
families, more than homosexuals advertising their exsistance in
the park.
Pete Babic
Using my AOL account
For Email replies please use p...@po.cwru.edu
Becky Weber
So, let me understand what you're saying here. A gay man wears a
shirt which basically states that he is gay - no sexual references,
no crude photos, nothing other than words - and that's worse than
T-shirts that blatantly depict blow jobs, dirty words, animal
cruelty, etc. (all of which I have seen at Cedar Point)? A simple
statement about being gay would truly offend ma and pa america more
than those other offensive shirts? Okay, I think I understand
what's wrong with this country. It's okay if you're sick, depraved,
or criminal as long as you are a heterosexual. Homosexuals,
however, are wrong even if they're model citizens. Thanks for
clearing that up for me. I'm going to go out and find some gay
person and explain this to them so they don't even bother to think
that society will give them an equal chance.
By the way, what are "main stream middle america families" to you?
And are you really naive enough to think that is the majority of CPs
guests? Not when I've been there.
As a response to another reply who thinks the guy has no chance to
win the case, I'm a lawyer and I do think that the man has a
fighting chance in court.
Becky Weber
David Hamburger
Becky Weber <bxw...@uswest.com> wrote:
>So, let me understand what you're saying here. A gay man wears a
>shirt which basically states that he is gay - no sexual references,
>no crude photos, nothing other than words - and that's worse than
>T-shirts that blatantly depict blow jobs, dirty words, animal
>cruelty, etc. (all of which I have seen at Cedar Point)? A simple
>statement about being gay would truly offend ma and pa america more
>than those other offensive shirts? Okay, I think I understand
>what's wrong with this country. It's okay if you're sick, depraved,
>or criminal as long as you are a heterosexual. Homosexuals,
>however, are wrong even if they're model citizens. Thanks for
>clearing that up for me. I'm going to go out and find some gay
>person and explain this to them so they don't even bother to think
>that society will give them an equal chance.
>
>By the way, what are "main stream middle america families" to you?
>And are you really naive enough to think that is the majority of CPs
>guests? Not when I've been there.
>
Well, I'm NOT going to get into the ludicrous "gays are abnormal"
flamewar that seems to make its way into EVERY newsgroup at one point
or another. The debate goes nowhere, and only serves to educate
lurkers. However, often the bigots make such fools of themselves that
they make our case, so I guess there's some value! All I'll say is
that I'd expected better from Pete, who's posts I HAD generally found
intelligent, informed and enjoyable.
But on the ON-TOPIC points of discussion (i.e how this relates to
parks and coasters), I have a few points.
First off, I agree wholeheartedly with Becky's point about the shirt
itself. There's NOTHING sexual about it. And it's CERTAINLY less
about promoting yourself than all of the Jesus shirts on display
there! And I think that all of the big johnson and co-ed naked
t-shirts are FAR less appropriate for kids to see than this innocuous
shirt.
If the shirt HAD been sexual, AND they had held similar standards for
heterosexually sexual t-shirts, then I would agree with Cedar Point's
case.
>As a response to another reply who thinks the guy has no chance to
>win the case, I'm a lawyer and I do think that the man has a
>fighting chance in court.
>
On what grounds?
I wish it were true, but I don't see it.
The state doesn't have an anti-descrimination law that includes sexual
orientation. I don't believe that either the county or city does.
The best I could come up with would be the first ammendment, but I
think that would forbid ANY policy on clothingpossible including dress
codes. Then again, here in Mass, a student just won a lawsuit
allowing him to wear the co-ed naked t-shirts to school. But I think
that that case had more to do with the fact that it was a PUBLIC
school.
And, Becky, you might want to post your original message to
rec.parks.theme. While Cedar Point isn't REALLY a theme park, people
talk about all kinds of amusement parks there.
David
Rich Raiders
In <3247FF...@uswest.com> Becky Weber <bxw...@uswest.com> writes:
>
>So, let me understand what you're saying here. A gay man wears a
>shirt which basically states that he is gay - no sexual references,
>no crude photos, nothing other than words - and that's worse than
>T-shirts that blatantly depict blow jobs, dirty words, animal
>cruelty, etc. (all of which I have seen at Cedar Point)? A simple
>statement about being gay would truly offend ma and pa america more
>than those other offensive shirts? Okay, I think I understand
>what's wrong with this country. It's okay if you're sick, depraved,
>or criminal as long as you are a heterosexual. Homosexuals,
>however, are wrong even if they're model citizens. Thanks for
>clearing that up for me. I'm going to go out and find some gay
>person and explain this to them so they don't even bother to think
>that society will give them an equal chance.
>
>By the way, what are "main stream middle america families" to you?
>And are you really naive enough to think that is the majority of CPs
>guests? Not when I've been there.
>
>win the case, I'm a lawyer and I do think that the man has a
>fighting chance in court.
>
unfortunately, he is at severe mercy in ohio. unless you can get very
good lawyers to fight a first amendment case on speech issues, cp (as
cedar fair) will outgun you. trust me. when i worked there, i saw
this situation. cp can easily get enough momentum to "see the black
robes". good luck to the plantiff, but the odds are not good.
besides, if you were to remove anything that offends anyone, then we
would all be naked. and that would offend someone. so you can't win.
why does as supposedly civilized society spend time on such stupid
issues? as long as you don't harm me, go about your business. who was
harmed?
rich raiders
Pete Babic
In a previous article, dav...@ix.netcom.com (David Hamburger) says:
>they make our case, so I guess there's some value! All I'll say is
>that I'd expected better from Pete, who's posts I HAD generally found
>intelligent, informed and enjoyable.
Let me just say that I meant no insult to gay persons in general. The t-shirt
issue ticked me off because I find it really annoying when ANY minority group
pushes its beliefs in such a way that they seem arrogant and overbearing. I
feel the same way about persons involved in Grean Peace, vegetarians, and
certain MADD mothers who go out of their way to advertise. I've never taken
well to authority and those type of people seem like they want to be too
authoritative, plus I was in a bad mood in general when I read the original
message. I've known a couple of gay people who are very fine people and who
don't find the need to advertise, they are happy with themselves and don't
care if other people know or care. Why the need to advertise something that
is no one elses business? Anyone who cares about the issue will seek things
out.
--
Indians Sticks Are Back In '96! | Pete Babic
"Unfinished Business" | p...@po.cwru.edu
GO TRIBE! | CWRU
WOODSS
NCR>==========Becky Weber, 9/24/96==========
NCR>
NCR>cruelty, etc. (all of which I have seen at Cedar Point)? A simple
NCR>statement about being gay would truly offend ma and pa america more
NCR>than those other offensive shirts? Okay, I think I understand
NCR>what's wrong with this country. It's okay if you're sick, depraved,
NCR>or criminal as long as you are a heterosexual. Homosexuals,
NCR>however, are wrong even if they're model citizens.
That pretty much sums it up! I'm glad that you understand
now! Just kidding, sick and depraived (perverts) are just normal
americans. But those criminals can take a hike! Of course, you
know what 500 lawyers at the bottom of a lake are don't you?
** "Never tell the same lie twice!" **
Garak, DS9
F. Sam Woodson
E-Mail sam.w...@daytonoh.ncr.com
* * I've Never posted as Anonymous, and never will *
David Hamburger
p...@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) wrote:
Well, Pete, while I disagree with your points here (and I WON'T go
into why on the newsgroup, since it's WAY off-topic), the point (which
actually DOES relate to this newsgroup) is that it doesn't matter WHY
someone wanted to wear the shirt. The point is that a person was
allegely kicked out of Cedar Point for wearing a completely
non-sexual t-shirt which announced that he was a member of a
particular minority. (Actually, it said that he WASN'T gay, but it
was a joke.) Sounds a lot like descrimination to me! Especialy with
all of the crude SEXUAL t-shirts that some tacky heterosexuals wear to
CP WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE!
For the record, I think the shirt is funny, and it was QUITE popular
in Boston a few years back.
But what got my disappointed response quoted above is when you went on
about how ***I*** am abnormal. Well, you said that gays were
abnormal, but you were responding to my post which mentioned that I am
gay. So, by association, you said that I am abnormal.
David
David Hamburger
Boston, MA
-----------------------------------------------------
William J. Buckley, Jr.
I'm not passing judgement in either case. However, I will say
that the person who was walking around CP on June 7th this year
who was wearing a shirt that read "Silly faggots -- dicks are
for chicks" obviously must not have raised the eyebrows of CP's
Security, as I spotted him several times throughout the day and
into the evening.
For what it's worth...
William Donabedian
You must remember, Cedar Point is PRIVATE PROPERTY... no different
than your home. And if you have a guest in your home, you can require
that he/she repspect your rules. If they do not wish to comply, you
can ask them to leave.
Cedar Point has every right to ask their guests to dress in a certain
matter, just as they have to right to ask their guests to obey saftey
regulations. If you do not agree with Cedar Points rules, don't
attend the park. It is that simple.
John A. Barrick
While I'm not a laywer, and I don't play one on TV, I believe Cedar
Point is
not quite "private property". I think its something like a "place open
to
the public", which has a higher level of public accomodation than a
private
home. Just because a shirt refers non-sexually to gays/lesbians, they
cannot
discriminate.
At my private home, I can say for instance "mexicans must wear suits".
However, if Cedar Point didn't allow blacks to wear t-shirts, I'm sure
that
would be a civil rights issue.
JASON
This summer, While I worked on the Blue Streak there was a park
policy stating that anyone with a shirt that was deemed inappropriate
they would have to turn it inside out... This pretty much left the
decision to the ride operators.. I never once saw a shirt that was so
morally wrong for me to have to ask them to turn it inside out.. I did
how ever ask so kid once to turn his grateful dead tie dye shirt inside
out because his friends wanted me to do it as a prank...
And as for the shirt in discussion "I'm not gay but my boyfriend is"
I saw many of these espeacially on gay and lesbian day (fathers day)..
I am straight and personnally see nothing wrong with this... And never
once asked any of them to turn it inside out...
JASON BROOKS
B. STREAK '96
Pete643
John A. Barrick" <jo...@en.com> wrote:
>While I'm not a laywer, and I don't play one on TV, I believe Cedar
>Point is
>not quite "private property". I think its something like a "place open
>to
>the public", which has a higher level of public accomodation than a
>private
>home. Just because a shirt refers non-sexually to gays/lesbians, they
>cannot
>discriminate.
>At my private home, I can say for instance "mexicans must wear suits".
>However, if Cedar Point didn't allow blacks to wear t-shirts, I'm sure
>that would be a civil rights issue.
Yes but bars and restaurants would fall under "place open to the public"
also and many such establishments have dress codes that are strictly
enforced. I even got past the doorman at a bar like that wearing athletic
shoes and the security "bouncer" told me to leave about 15 min. later.
If an establishment says "Mexicans must wear suits", that is clearly
wrong and discriminatory. If however and establishment says "Everyone
must wear suits", there is nothing discriminatory about that and they
have a right to enforce that. Let's not forget that gay people are not
a race or any other classification. They are simply a group of people
who have a preference for something. Similar to some people liking
Coke and some people liking Pepsi.
Cp Irvine
Becky Weber <bxw...@uswest.com> wrote:
>
>Food for thought:
>
>AMUSEMENT PARK EJECTS GAY MAN IN T-SHIRT DEBACLE
>by Anne Harris
>Between the Lines - Detroit
>
>Sandusky, OH, for
>$25,000 plus a refund of his admission following his ejection from
>the park
>three years ago. David Winkle, an openly gay Toledo resident, was
>forced to
>leave Cedar Point after he refused to turn his t-shirt inside out.
>The shirt
>said, "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is."
Oh Lord.......I feel for all PR folks at times like this. I can just
imagine what would happen to the phone boards at Marketing if this
becomes very widely known. To the PR staff from a PR student, my thoughts
are with you <VBG>
No comment on the gay issue, seeing I do not discriminate for any
reason, but I am more than irritated at the choice of shirts guests make.
NOW I know why a certain shirt has stuck in my mind. Very early this year
I saw a shirt twice - once in my town and once in line for Raptor showing
a stylized Trix rabbit stating "Silly fag, dix are for chix" <please, no
offense to anyone!> I was outraged! I can imagine how horrible it would
be to be gay and have a terrible insult and a rotten slang term slammed
in your face.
Why cannot guests choose more kind apparel? For one part I know that
there's an urge to "dress to be noticed" at Cedar Point and other parks.
You wear a shirt that states something you believe in, bears something
you like, etc., just to make your views known to a large audience. I am
vegetarian but choose not to push my opinions in anyone's face using my
mouth or a tee shirt. I've seen veg/vegan shirts plus "I Love Animals,
They Are Delicious" tees at CP this year. Sure the con-veg tees upset me,
but people are free to do their own thing, so I simply respect that and
ignore.
But also, as a female, I cannot believe some of the degrading shirts
men and women wear to the park that show women as nothing but sex objects.
Opinionated shirts are one thing, but blatent sexist shirts showing
violence or lewdity are a whole different ballgame. The shirt mentioned
above certainly fits into that category, being degrading to women and
gays. Yet people continue to cause trouble for parks by wearing them
while there. It's like the old "One person stands, everyone gets strapped
in even more" routine.
The whole thing is a mess. I understand both sides of the issue and am
sympathetic to to both sides, yet I more look to the people wearing truly,
honestly lewd and offensive shirts that require parks to become
hypersensitive to all. If someone wants to state their sexuality, moral
outlooks, eating beliefs or whatever, I _personally_ either agree or
ignore depending on my outlooks, but it's hard to ignore hardcore lewd
apparel. I'd love to see park guests stop wearing the truly offensive and
disgusting tees. All in all, I'd just say that the issue is one to be
dealed with. It's too bad that we aren't all of the same decisions or
that there can't be peaceful living with all our uniqueness. Some
families may have seen the gay tee and told their kids, when asked about
it, to accept all people as the same while others may have been terribly
offended. There's WDW with Gay Day to CP refusing the gay tees.......a
definite dilemma. I wish best of luck to both sides in deciding what the
proper outcome of this case is. I do respect Cedar Point's and the man
issuing the charge's opinions, both. (I'm more the mediator type.... :-)
)
Why can't we all just avoid any kind of thing like this in the first
place? :-(
backseat~cp~ - (HKA...@prodigy.com - among others)
**"Ride A Painted Pony, Let The Spinnin' Wheel Fly"**
Vegan - Skier - ACEer- Ridin' away since age three
Magnumaniac - Proud Cedar Po!nter since age one
Aleks Hunter
Becky Weber wrote:
>
> Food for thought:
>
> AMUSEMENT PARK EJECTS GAY MAN IN T-SHIRT DEBACLE
> by Anne Harris
> Between the Lines - Detroit
>
> Toledo - A local man is suing Cedar Point Amusement Park in
> Sandusky, OH, for
> $25,000 plus a refund of his admission following his ejection from
> the park
> three years ago. David Winkle, an openly gay Toledo resident, was
> forced to
> leave Cedar Point a
<<DRIVEL DELETED>>
Look folks these parks are privately owned and when you buy a ticket you
agree to abide by their rules...
The only problem I see here is that the ticket collector at the entrance
as negligent in letting him in with that shirt on.
Flame me if you feel the need, but face the fact that most of the
population feels homosexuality is a form of moral perversion --
terpitude if you prefer -- and simply feel homosexuality is wrong and
leave no room for depate on this point. The parks have made a business
decision that they would rather do without the homosexual (I'm a holdout
that still defines gay as happy rather than homosexual, live with it)
crowd in favor of the "traditional family" crowd. And I'm glad they did.
The usual arguements hold no water (Ie. I was born this way)
kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs seem to have been born that way, but if
they don't curb their behavior, they jo to jail. Everyone has urges,
but most people develop sufficient self-control to act appropriatly in
public, not act-up.
Aleks Hunter
Mike Gillooly wrote:
>
> William_D...@msn.com (William Donabedian) wrote:
> >You must remember, Cedar Point is PRIVATE PROPERTY... no different
> >than your home.
>
> park and $28.95 to walk through my front door...
No law says you can't. Of course it would be easier to charge that much
if you hasd 10 or so quality coasters and dozens of other rides games
and shows in the backyard!
And if you went to all that expense and trouble, wouldn't you want to
set some of the ground rules??
David Patton
In article 100...@expert.cc.purdue.edu, JASON <jjbr...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> writes:
<<snip>>
> And as for the shirt in discussion "I'm not gay but my boyfriend is"
>I saw many of these espeacially on gay and lesbian day (fathers day)..
>I am straight and personnally see nothing wrong with this... And never
>once asked any of them to turn it inside out...
>
> JASON BROOKS
> B. STREAK '96
From what I understand, what CP did to the Blue Streak was much worse
than any t-shirt could ever be!
Debra Gardner
following is a part of a letter I sent to Bruce Neal at SFot in April 94
about the dress policies at the park. I was a little upset at the time
about my observations. Part of the letter was about a particular security
guard (name removed) that I had previously had a 'discussion' with. I did
not get a response. sorry for the length.
Debbie
"...The situation involved a young female that had tied her hair back with
a orange bandanna to ride the Texas Giant. xxx was accusing her of being a
gang member and after she had removed it threatened to remove her and her
group from the park. xxx was yelling and attracting a crowd of spectators
and from my perspective appeared to roughly grab the young lady and jerk
her around to face him. He then marched them back to the security office. I
talked to the group later in the day and they were very upset with the
park. They in no way looked like gang members, were not dressed like gang
members and seemed very confused at the treatment they received from Xxx.
A person in my group recently was approached by security and told to tuck
his wallet chain into his pocket and that chains have sometimes been used
as a weapon. My friend complied with this request although the wallet and
chain had been purchased this season at the park for the sole purpose of
not losing his keys and wallet on the rides. This security officer was very
nice and his request was made in a respectful and non-accusatory manner.
If security has the power to eject guests for what they personally deem
gang related apparel, how is a guest who is not a gang member to determine
if they are wearing inappropriate items. I often wear a black and red Six
Flags jacket. Since red and black are colors used by active gangs in this
area, will I soon be told not to wear it in the park? How far will this go?
Will Six Flags start issuing uniforms for guests at the gate?"
JASON
On 27 Sep 1996, Mike Gillooly wrote:
> William_D...@msn.com (William Donabedian) wrote:
> >You must remember, Cedar Point is PRIVATE PROPERTY... no different
> >than your home.
>
> Hmmm...I don't recall ever expecting guests in my home to pay me $5 to
> park and $28.95 to walk through my front door...
>
>
>
Yes, but in theroy you could.. So if you had a roller coaster in
your back yard you could charge people to ride it....
Jason Brooks
Outlaw
>The parks have made a business
>...
>crowd in favor of the "traditional family" crowd. And I'm glad they did.
Excuse me?... which "parks" have made THIS decision? Names,
please. And NOW.
Mike Gillooly
We'll ignore the fact that my back yard isn't big enough for a roller
coaster and, even if it were, the city zoning commission might have
something to say about installing one in a residential neighborhood, or
the fact that Mr. Donabedian say it was "no different than my home", or
any other "theroy" you may have...
The fact, simply put, is that Cedar Point (or any other business) is NOT
like a private residence - terminology referring to customers as "guests"
notwithstanding.
I missed the first part of this debate, but apparently someone was evicted
from Cedar Point for wearing some tee shirt referring to homosexuality. I
was at CP seven times this summer and saw shirts ranging from "I'm not gay
but my boyfriend is" to "How dare you presume I'm straight?" to "God made
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" to "Silly Faggot - Dicks are for
Chicks".
I own a miniature golf course and this year, for the first time, we had
discussions about banning clothing with "inappropriate wording". We
decided against it (at least for the time being) because the censorship
directly or indirectly involve could create the appearance of taking sides
on issues on which we don't have a company stance.
Cedar Point, if it has decided to do so, has opened a can of worms it will
regret having ever taken off the shelf. If they have chosen to take sides
- whichever side - in this debate, somebody's going to be offended and
customers will be lost. Had they simply ignored the tee-shirt, the issue
of CP's stance on gay rights would not have been raised.
Just an opinion,
Mike Gillooly
Cp Irvine
heya!
Amazing! I wish I could remember what day it was I saw that guy but
it's all a blur when it comes to dates that I go. I do know it was a
Wednesday, perhaps the 5th of June; maybe he had been there three days
already! Whatever the case, it is a tasteless shirt; funny to some,
insulting to others, (and if it was the same guy, I'll bet he smelled
pretty bad after wearing that same shirt for three days straight...... ;-
) ). Things like that end up in other people having the boom lowered on
them over what some other moron(s) do/wear/say....... :-( It's not just
Cedar Point that is unlucky enough to have guests visit wearing lewd
shirts like the "Silly" tee, too......
David Hamburger
Aleks Hunter <mic...@superior.net> wrote:
>Becky Weber wrote:
>>
>> Food for thought:
>>
>> AMUSEMENT PARK EJECTS GAY MAN IN T-SHIRT DEBACLE
>> by Anne Harris
>> Between the Lines - Detroit
>>
>> Toledo - A local man is suing Cedar Point Amusement Park in
>> Sandusky, OH, for
>> $25,000 plus a refund of his admission following his ejection from
>> the park
>> three years ago. David Winkle, an openly gay Toledo resident, was
>> forced to
>> leave Cedar Point a
>
><<DRIVEL DELETED>>
>
>Look folks these parks are privately owned and when you buy a ticket you
>agree to abide by their rules...
>
>The only problem I see here is that the ticket collector at the entrance
>as negligent in letting him in with that shirt on.
>
>Flame me if you feel the need, but face the fact that most of the
>population feels homosexuality is a form of moral perversion --
>terpitude if you prefer -- and simply feel homosexuality is wrong and
>leave no room for depate on this point. The parks have made a business
>decision that they would rather do without the homosexual (I'm a holdout
>that still defines gay as happy rather than homosexual, live with it)
>crowd in favor of the "traditional family" crowd. And I'm glad they did.
>
>The usual arguements hold no water (Ie. I was born this way)
>kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs seem to have been born that way, but if
>they don't curb their behavior, they jo to jail. Everyone has urges,
>but most people develop sufficient self-control to act appropriatly in
>public, not act-up.
First off, I want to say that I've talked to Cedar Point's Robin
Innes. I'll post the results of that discussion in a separate thread
entitled "Gay t-shirts and Cedar Point-an update". Look for it on
this newsgroup. I'm doing this because I suspect that people may stop
following this thread, particularly as it veers off-topic, which it
WILL inevitably do!
I've got to say that I'm finding it REALLY hard to stay on-topic with
this discussion. I want to ONLY talk about the park's admissions
policies regarding these and other t-shirts. But invariably, people
end up using long off-topic homophobic reasons for why a park should
want to keep gays and/or their t-shirts out. When that happens, I
think it's fair for gays to defend themselves, even if the discussion
veers off-topic. But I'd hope that we can TRY to keep this focused on
PARKS, not the minutae of political views on gays!
That said, I think that the only drivel is in the ENTIRE post by Aleks
Hunter posted above. (OK, I'll TRY to be nice, but no promises!)
Since when did business become private establishments, immune to rules
and laws? If that were the case, then parks wouldn't be having all of
the trouble they've been having getting permits tp build new rides and
parks! If you run a business an this country, you are subject to
certain rules and requirements, if you wish to retain the permits and
licences required to remain open. Businesses do NOT have completely
free reign.
That said, since Ohio is one of the 41 states without any
anti-descrimination law that includes sexual orientation, and since I
don't believe that either Cedar Points city or county has such a law,
then they actually CAN kick someone out just for BEING gay, regardless
of what t-shirt they're wearing. It may be despicable, but there's no
law preventing it in 41 states. (There's also no law preventing such
descrimination in employment and housing in those 41 states.) That's
why we need more inclusive anti-descrimination laws in every town,
city, county, state and country. Whether a strong case in this
instance can be made using the first ammendment is unclear, but
doubtful in my opinion.
However, just because a park may have the legal right to take an
action doesn't mean that we don't have the right to challenge a park's
policy if we feel it's unjust. After all, we complain about things
like changes to rides, head-banging, the efficacy of ride loading
procedures and many other things that ultimately are really none of
our business. But if we have an opinion on a park policy we have a
right to speak out against it, as well as to register complaints about
it. That's the only way that the park's management and PR staff can
be made aware of the public's opinion of these policies. And it's the
only way (short of successful litigation) that those policies will get
changed. Sure, it's THEIR park, but we're their customers. We PAY
them!
On another note, I'm REALLY tired of the terms "family" and "family
values" being used as opposites of gay. Gay people are part of
families. We build families. Many of us raise children, believe it
or not. A FAMILY park doesn't have to be a DESCRIMINATORY one! As
the slogan goes, hate is not a family value!
CP public relations official Robin Innes's statement to the press "we
appeal to a family oriented audience [and prohibit the wearing of]
anything that would be offensive to that audience" didn't specifically
state that gays are offensive to a "family oriented audience", but it
was clearly implied! I hope that in the future he will be more
careful with words. Unfortunately, he made a similar statement to me
on the phone just yesterday. I hope to make him aware of how truly
OFFENSIVE that language is to many people!
One thing I find interesting about the article and this discussion is
Innes quote of CP's dress code, which, according to him in the article
"is posted at the front of the park and in the park guide. The dress
code states that 'Profanity, sugestive pictures and [depiciton of]
illegal substances on clothing are prohibited.' Neither Innes nor
anyone out here has offered any explanation as to which of these
categories "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is" falls under.
I'm NOT going to dignify Aleks Huter's comparison of LOVING people who
happen to be of the same gender with STEALING AND SETTING FIRES!
Anyone who truly feels that there's a similarity really needs help,
IMHO.
And I'm also tired of people saying that even if people are born gay,
they don't have to act on it. Anyone who would condemn millions of
people to a loveless life (by definition, gay people do NOT fall in
love with the opposite gender) is truly cruel indeed!
That's it for now. I'm sure I'll have more to add later.
Don't forget to check out my other post for the latest updates,
including a seemingly new interpretation of the drss code....
Mike Seigworth
"Verbal Hi-5" to Cedar Point ! C.P. is privatly funded and
has every right to escort the man out of the park. I'm sick
and tired of the liberals in this country trying to shove
this crap about accepting everything that comes along as
"OK". It's not ok and C.P. has every right to promote their
views and values in their park! Everybody keeps talking about
free speech for the individules (sp?) in this country but
seems to neglect the rights of Companies to create the type
of atmosphere they want to create to help their business!
Once again, Verbal Hi-5 C.P. .... Verbal Hi-5 !!!!
- Mike
Pete643
HKA...@prodigy.com (Cp Irvine) wrote:
>"William J. Buckley, Jr." <buc...@powdml.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm not passing judgement in either case. However, I will say
>>that the person who was walking around CP on June 7th this year
>>who was wearing a shirt that read "Silly faggots -- dicks are
>>for chicks" obviously must not have raised the eyebrows of CP's
>>Security, as I spotted him several times throughout the day and
>>into the evening.
> Amazing! I wish I could remember what day it was I saw that guy but
>it's all a blur when it comes to dates that I go. I do know it was a
>Wednesday, perhaps the 5th of June; maybe he had been there three days
>already! Whatever the case, it is a tasteless shirt; funny to some,
>insulting to others, (and if it was the same guy, I'll bet he smelled
>pretty bad after wearing that same shirt for three days straight...... ;-
>) ). Things like that end up in other people having the boom lowered on
>them over what some other moron(s) do/wear/say....... :-( It's not just
>Cedar Point that is unlucky enough to have guests visit wearing lewd
>shirts like the "Silly" tee, too......
Yea, that is a very tasteless shirt and CP should have asked that person
to
turn that shirt around also. That is a popular shirt around here, I've
seen it
at CP, Sea World, Put-In-Bay, Indians games and some other places which
I can't remember right now. I think a problem is uneven enforcement.
Perhaps
these places should have a standard inventory of shirts that are not
permitted
with a card with little thumbnail pictures for the security people. That's
probably
impractical for a number of reasons, but I really can't think of a good
way to
enforce these things.
David Hamburger
"Mike Seigworth" <mi...@clarion-net.com> wrote:
Does that include keeping out blacks? It's the logical extention of
what you're saying.
David H.
Boston, MA
--------------------------------------
"Words can hurt. Words can heal,
Make us think, make us feel.
And they're every bit as deadly as
A bullet tearing through the land,
For if our words create the climate,
then the blood is on our hands."
-- Romanovsky & Phillips
"Be Political, Not Polite"
Jonathan Hodge
Well, for my first post in 6 months I think I chose a rather ambitious
topic. ***Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are simply my
opinion and are not meant to be anything more than a constructive addition
to previous posts.***
On the topic of the discrimination suit against Cedar Point: It is my
opinion that the individual who was wearing the T-Shirt should not have
been ejected from Cedar Point. I wholly acknowledge the fact the Cedar
Point has the right to remove individuals who wear clothing which is
deemed offensive. However, a shirt which simply makes a statement of
one's beliefs cannot be judged offensive. In no way was the shirt of a
sexual nature and in many ways, it was more decent than many of the shirts
that I have seen in the park. Big Johnson, Coed Naked, etc. shirts are
purely sexual statements that to me are offensive, yet I have not seen
anyone wearing the shirts at Cedar Point get ejected. And it is important
to note that I have seen many of these shirts.
I am straight, and I admit that I am not always entirely comfortable
around homosexuals. If I had seen the shirt, I probably would have felt a
little awkward. But I would certainly hope that I would not cast
judgement on a person simply because their views of sexuality are
different than mine. Nor did Cedar Point have the right to cast judgement
on the individual wearing the shirt, simply because it might make people
feel uncomfortable. An argument was made in an earlier post that went
something to the effect of "at least it was better than those Jesus
shirts," but statement brings forth a whole new set of problems. I am not
uncomfortable when I see a shirt that says "Jesus Saves" or something to
that effect. That is a part of my life that I have no problem sharing
(note: I did not say forcing) with others. Yet those who do not share my
beliefs might find the shirt makes them uncomfortable. I would challenge
anyone to argue that a shirt which states a religious belief is offensive.
Freedom of religion is one of those things that as a citizen of the USA,
we are thankfully entitled to. So, while that shirt may make another
individual feel uncomfortable, the individual wearing the shirt certainly
should be allowed to wear it. In the same manner, an individual wearing a
shirt that states he or she prefers to be involved sexually with members
of the same sex should not be forced to hide that statement.
I will come right out and say (and I do not want to offend anyone by
saying this) that I do not agree with the PRACTICE of homosexuality. But
that is simply my view. I do not see homosexuals as any less human or
worthy of rights than myself. I certainly hope that we have not come to a
point where society casts away individuals because they do not conform to
the majority norms of the society. If we do so, we are eliminating the
diversity in this country that is an essential part of our history.
Homosexuality, however each individual might feel about it, is a part of
American society, and thus homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as
you are and as I am.
Anyway, my two cents, sorry I got long winded. Just something to think
about: If I wore a shirt that said "I am straight", do you think I'd get
kicked out?
-----
Jon Hodge
Calvin College
jhod...@Calvin.edu
Outlaw
>That's it for now. I'm sure I'll have more to add later.
>Don't forget to check out my other post for the latest updates,
>including a seemingly new interpretation of the drss code....
Maybe you should clue Mr. Innes on the meaning of all the little,
ummm, "trinkets" some gay people wear to state their orientation.
It'll be interesting to see how many people are asked to remove
them in 1997.
I remain amazed at how little attention this matter is receiving
(by that I mean: lack of responses here) from many members of a
certain coaster club. This may seem like a non-issue to most
people, but remaining silent about it only implies that CP's
actions are acceptable.
This could be a very worthwhile topic in a particular
publication.
Outlaw
>Well, for my first post in 6 months I think I chose a rather ambitious
>topic. ***Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are simply my
>opinion and are not meant to be anything more than a constructive addition
>to previous posts.***
I'm glad you wrote. This thread is very much "on-topic" for
rec.r-c, despite what private Email to me has stated.
>On the topic of the discrimination suit against Cedar Point: It is my
>opinion that the individual who was wearing the T-Shirt should not have
>been ejected from Cedar Point. I wholly acknowledge the fact the Cedar
>Point has the right to remove individuals who wear clothing which is
>deemed offensive. However, a shirt which simply makes a statement of
>one's beliefs cannot be judged offensive. In no way was the shirt of a
>sexual nature and in many ways, it was more decent than many of the shirts
>that I have seen in the park.
I am still undecided exactly WHERE in the park their rule should
be enforced. By that I mean: is it the responsibility of the
ticket booth person? Does making it past them mean the
shirt-wearer is free and clear? Or, is it up to the rent-a-cops?
Ride attendants? Food service people? And, would it make sense
to eject someone, at say 8pm, after they have have been walking
around the park all day?
Whatever... the main point of this thread is why CP "picked on"
one shirt and seemingly ignored others.
>I am straight, and I admit that I am not always entirely comfortable
>around homosexuals.
That's an interesting statement. How do you KNOW when you are
"around homosexuals"? Pink triangle pins? Rainbow anything?
Freedom Rings? Flamboyant behaviour? Lisps? "Girlfriend" talk?
In my case, you would not see/hear any of those stereotypical
traits. I think you'd be very comfortable around me.
Or is it when you see two guys at the park together, without
girls? Yikes! A day at the park must be one uncomfortable
situtation after another for you! And, that would be the only
"clue" to you that my lover and I are gay. (However, other gay
patrons would be able to pick us out immediately by other very
VERY subtle visuals. That fact is borne out at every coaster
club event... without fail.)
>But I would certainly hope that I would not cast
>judgement on a person simply because their views of sexuality are
>different than mine.
Either you WOULD or you WOULD NOT. None of this "hoping" here.
It's one, or the other.
>An argument was made in an earlier post that went
>something to the effect of "at least it was better than those Jesus
>shirts," but statement brings forth a whole new set of problems. I am not
>uncomfortable when I see a shirt that says "Jesus Saves" or something to
>that effect. That is a part of my life that I have no problem sharing
>(note: I did not say forcing) with others. Yet those who do not share my
>beliefs might find the shirt makes them uncomfortable. I would challenge
>anyone to argue that a shirt which states a religious belief is offensive.
>Freedom of religion is one of those things that as a citizen of the USA,
>we are thankfully entitled to. So, while that shirt may make another
>individual feel uncomfortable, the individual wearing the shirt certainly
>should be allowed to wear it. In the same manner, an individual wearing a
>shirt that states he or she prefers to be involved sexually with members
>of the same sex should not be forced to hide that statement.
Sorry to all that I quoted the entire paragraph regarding
religion. But, there *is* a reason... CoasterMania 1993...
that same day, there appeared to be an abundance of
religious-types (absolutely no slam intended...). It was quite
obvious by the shirts that were everywhere. Anyway... the group
I was with decided to go into the pizza and salad place in the
Frontier section of the park. I opted for some pizza and felt
like "treating" myself to some beer to go with it. (I consume
alcohol two, maybe three, times a year maximum.) When I asked
for the beer, I was told the park was "not serving beer today".
That seemed a bit odd. I asked why... and the food service
person just pointed his head toward a table and nodded. I looked
over to see a group of people who were wearing those religious
shirts.
So, when you say: "That is a part of my life that I have no
problem sharing (note: I did not say forcing) with others", I
have to disagree. True, it was probably not YOU personally who
asked park management to NOT to sell beer that day. But, I was
"forced" to drink Pepsi, rather than my desired beer.
OK... to make this post even longer... The argument will come up
that if the boyfriend-T-shirt-guy wins his lawsuit, you will have
to put up with seeing shirts/clothing that will offend you at
every turn. True. Hoever, your "offense" will be totally
untangible. It will be an emotional offense. Whereas my
inability to purchase a beverage is VERY tangible. I was unable
to TOUCH a container of beer simply because said beer is verboten
to YOUR lifestyle.
Does it matter if it's "emotional" or "tangible"? <shrug...> I
suppose that's a whole other thread. I'll go on record by saying
by saying I feel my "rights" were more-violated than the people
who gasped at that nasty T-shirt.
>Anyway, my two cents, sorry I got long winded. Just something to think
>about: If I wore a shirt that said "I am straight", do you think I'd get
>kicked out?
You'd have to ask Mr. Innes that question.
Two Crows
Jonathan Hodge <jhod...@Calvin.EDU> wrote:
>Well, for my first post in 6 months I think I chose a rather ambitious
>topic. ***Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are simply my
>opinion and are not meant to be anything more than a constructive addition
>to previous posts.***
>On the topic of the discrimination suit against Cedar Point: It is my
>opinion that the individual who was wearing the T-Shirt should not have
>been ejected from Cedar Point. I wholly acknowledge the fact the Cedar
>Point has the right to remove individuals who wear clothing which is
>deemed offensive. However, a shirt which simply makes a statement of
>one's beliefs cannot be judged offensive. In no way was the shirt of a
>sexual nature and in many ways, it was more decent than many of the shirts
>that I have seen in the park. Big Johnson, Coed Naked, etc. shirts are
>purely sexual statements that to me are offensive, yet I have not seen
>anyone wearing the shirts at Cedar Point get ejected. And it is important
>to note that I have seen many of these shirts.
>I am straight, and I admit that I am not always entirely comfortable
>around homosexuals. If I had seen the shirt, I probably would have felt a
>little awkward. But I would certainly hope that I would not cast
>judgement on a person simply because their views of sexuality are
>different than mine. Nor did Cedar Point have the right to cast judgement
>on the individual wearing the shirt, simply because it might make people
>feel uncomfortable. An argument was made in an earlier post that went
>something to the effect of "at least it was better than those Jesus
>shirts," but statement brings forth a whole new set of problems. I am not
>uncomfortable when I see a shirt that says "Jesus Saves" or something to
>that effect. That is a part of my life that I have no problem sharing
>(note: I did not say forcing) with others. Yet those who do not share my
>beliefs might find the shirt makes them uncomfortable. I would challenge
>anyone to argue that a shirt which states a religious belief is offensive.
>Freedom of religion is one of those things that as a citizen of the USA,
>we are thankfully entitled to. So, while that shirt may make another
>individual feel uncomfortable, the individual wearing the shirt certainly
>should be allowed to wear it. In the same manner, an individual wearing a
>shirt that states he or she prefers to be involved sexually with members
>of the same sex should not be forced to hide that statement.
>I will come right out and say (and I do not want to offend anyone by
>saying this) that I do not agree with the PRACTICE of homosexuality. But
>that is simply my view. I do not see homosexuals as any less human or
>worthy of rights than myself. I certainly hope that we have not come to a
>point where society casts away individuals because they do not conform to
>the majority norms of the society. If we do so, we are eliminating the
>diversity in this country that is an essential part of our history.
>Homosexuality, however each individual might feel about it, is a part of
>American society, and thus homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as
>you are and as I am.
>Anyway, my two cents, sorry I got long winded. Just something to think
>about: If I wore a shirt that said "I am straight", do you think I'd get
>kicked out?
>-----
>Jon Hodge
>Calvin College
>jhod...@Calvin.edu
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
Jon,
It's str8 folk like you that renew my faith in people. I'll bet your
opinions are a majority - not the minority.
Cedar Point's policy is clearly arbitrary and unevenly enforced. Funny,
they've been taking THIS fag's money for many years (season pass holder) and
didn't mind the color of it.
I hope the guy WINS in court.
Suppose someone at "The Amazement Park" decided that "Party Naked" or,
better yet, "CoEd Naked" were offensive? Why half the public would be excluded.
<g>
=T
*************http://www.en.com/users/twocrws/***********
When we're free to love anyone we choose,
When this world's big enough for all different views,
When we all can worship from our own kind of pews,
Then WE SHALL BE FREE - Garth Brooks
********************************************************
Jeff
Sexual orientation is not a "preference" but in fact, an *orientation*.
Preference implies a choice. I may prefer Coke, though I can enjoy a
Pepsi as well. But one certainly can't just as casually switch the
gender he or she is sexually oriented towards! The fact remains that
there is nothing "lewd or obsecene" about the statement "I'm not gay but
my boyfriend is." CP's discrimination is clearly a case of a homophobic
employee w/ a wild hair up his butt!
Jesus, save me from your followers!!!
Jeff
Pete643 wrote:
>
> >Toledo - A local man is suing Cedar Point Amusement Park in
> >Sandusky, OH, for
> >$25,000 plus a refund of his admission following his ejection from
> >the park
> >three years ago. David Winkle, an openly gay Toledo resident, was
> >forced to
> >The shirt
>
> An important point here is the guy wasn't ejected because CP
> discriminates against homosexuals, he was ejected because
> he didn't turn his t-shirt inside out. He was given the opportunity
> to stay in the park, the park just thought his t-shirt was in poor
> taste.
>
> I don't care what someone is as long as the homosexuals leave
> me alone and don't put their preferences in my face.. As a straight
> person I do find the recent increase in homosexual "awareness"
> somewhat annoying. Why are the Big Johnson t-shirts alright?
> Because the subject matter, even if it is a little crude, is about
> things the way nature intended it to be. Homosexual activity just
> isn't they way things are supposed to work and that is why many
> people find it so offensive. I can understand CP's point. Nothing
> would turn off CP's typical guests, main stream middle america
> families, more than homosexuals advertising their exsistance in
> the park.
If I got "offended" every time a heterosexual shoved their sexuality in
my face, I couldn't spend any time at all in amusement parks. They're
fully liitered w/ breeders sucking on each other's face everywhere you
look.
Being homosexual is the the most "natural" thing in the world for me,
and 10% of the world's population. (I might add, incidentally, that the
Amusement Park-going population is comprised of a much HIGHER population
of gays and lesbians, at least 30 - 40% I'd reckon...)
Nothing turns off rational, well-adjusted, bias-free individuals more
than ignorance, fear and predjudice masquarading as Christianity and
"family values/morality".
Jeff
Outlaw wrote:
>
> >That's it for now. I'm sure I'll have more to add later.
> >Don't forget to check out my other post for the latest updates,
> >including a seemingly new interpretation of the drss code....
>
> ummm, "trinkets" some gay people wear to state their orientation.
> It'll be interesting to see how many people are asked to remove
> them in 1997.
>
> I remain amazed at how little attention this matter is receiving
> (by that I mean: lack of responses here) from many members of a
> certain coaster club. This may seem like a non-issue to most
> people, but remaining silent about it only implies that CP's
> actions are acceptable.
>
> This could be a very worthwhile topic in a particular
> publication.
I agree! I was quite shocked and pleasantly surprized, the first time I
went to an ACE convention, at how many gays and lesbians were there. I
thought to myself, "we should change the name of this club to G.A.C.E.!"
But THAT would be discriminatory, wouldn't it...
Jonathan Hodge
I am sorry if I offended you with my statement. Perhaps it needs
clarification. When I said that I am sometimes uncomfortable around
homosexuals, I meant that when I am around a person that I know is
homosexual, I sometimes feel uncomfortable. In absolutely no way am
I trying to imply that
I, or anyone, can "spot" homosexuals. That's just not possible. Those
stereotypical behaviors associated with homosexuality are just that -
stereotypes. ALL I WAS SAYING was an honest statement - I am sometimes
uncomfortable around people who I know are homosexual. I'm sincerely
sorry if I offended or hurt you. Its simple - I know that you are
homosexual because you have told me so. I might feel uncomfortable if I
were to meet you. Why? I don't know. I know that I shouldn't FEEL any
different just because I know of your sexual orientation, but I'm far from
perfect and I might feel a little awkward.
>
> >But I would certainly hope that I would not cast
> >judgement on a person simply because their views of sexuality are
> >different than mine.
>
> Either you WOULD or you WOULD NOT. None of this "hoping" here.
> It's one, or the other.
>
OK, I do not cast judgement on homosexuals. In fact, some of my good
friends have been homosexuals. These people are great people and I would
certainly have no problem associating or becoming close to these poeple.
Despite the fact that I might INITIALLY feel uncomfortable, my actions
would not be any different toward homosexuals. I would have no problem
being at a coaster event or ANY event with you, nor would I treat you any
differently.
Let me add another something. I PERSONALLY do not see anything wrong with
the consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderation. The group who
FORCED you to drink Pepsi should not have had that authority. Even if I
did disagree with alcoholic consumption, I would not try to, nor would I
have any authority to impose that belief on you. The most I could do was
not go to CP because I did not agree with them selling alcohol.
>
> Does it matter if it's "emotional" or "tangible"? <shrug...> I
> suppose that's a whole other thread. I'll go on record by saying
> by saying I feel my "rights" were more-violated than the people
> who gasped at that nasty T-shirt.
>
I whole-heartedly agree with you. Remember, my argument was for the
t-shirt. You had the right to drink beer. The man wearing the t-shirt
had the right to wear it. Realistically, we're going to have to put up
with things that we find offensive, simply because people have rights.
This is a key factor to living in a pluralistic society.
> >Anyway, my two cents, sorry I got long winded. Just something to think
> >about: If I wore a shirt that said "I am straight", do you think I'd get
> >kicked out?
>
> You'd have to ask Mr. Innes that question.
>
>
>
Once again, I do not want to offend anyone with anything I write, so
please don't take what I write the wrong way.
----
Jon Hodge
Calvin College
jhod...@calvin.edu
Dave Althoff
Okay, I guess I can find something to say on this now...
Two issues here, first is the Case At Hand; second is the issue of
non-sales of alcohol on certain days, so bear with me. And so you can see
where my biases are, I might as well come "out": I'm a straight, white,
mainline Christian male. I'm also generally a non-drinker, but have been
known to consume various spirits on occasion.
Those of us who have been to CP have seen many tee shirts which could be
construed as offensive, if only in extremely poor taste. Mostly
heterosexual innuendo, actually. I have a theory here, and I may be
completely wrong...but it is a theory, anyway. Please remember that I do
not have the details of the case, and this is an area of CP->guest
relations where I have almost no experience...the closest I have come is a
particular incident on Mine Ride this season involving a secured video
camera, and that got quashed quickly by my desire to not go through $#!+
when I'm in the park...I get enough of that at work.
My guess is that the plaintiff in the alleged suit was spotted by a ride
operator who didn't like it. Said ride-op asks plaintiff to invert his
shirt, rendering it illegible and hence "inoffensive". Although, as a big
free-expression type myself, I think I would find the fact that the man
was asked to wear his shirt logo-in to be offensive, so there is no way to
win. Anyway, some kind of argument ensued, enough for a CPP officer to
arrive on the scene. In this case, the ride-op makes the claim that the
shirt is offensive, and since the park has a policy on offensive clothing,
the officer agrees. The man becomes argumentative, and gets tossed.
CONSPIRACY THEORY:
I'm guessing that CP's various departments have a code of "you don't make
me look stupid." It may not be an official code, but it would not suprise
me if such a "gentleman's agreement" exists simply to make sure that there
are no employee->employee confrontations in the park in front of the
guests. So a CPP officer, then, would back up a ride-op's decision in
such a matter, even if that same CPP officer would not have taken any
action against the guest (and his shirt) in another circumstance.
Consider: Presuming that the guest does not have a pre-purchased ticket,
he is greeted at the entrance first by a ticket seller, then by a
photographer, then a ticket taker...and quite often, there are park
marketing and administration types hanging about the main entrance. In
walking through the park, there are a number of other park people our
hypothetical visitor would enounter...ride-ops, CPP officers, sweepers,
sales people, and possibly even park brass...before getting as far as the
Blue Streak platform. Several of those people have direct contact with
virtually every person to walk through the gate. I would think that in
that distance, if the shirt were really THAT bad, SOMEONE would have said
something.
Unfortunately, the dress policy is loose enough that apparently, it is
sufficient for one pissed-off and probably homophobic ride-op to wreck one
guy's day over a tee shirt. On the other hand, I can't fault CP too much,
considering that they did offer the guy the choice of concealing his shirt
and remaining in the park. And I'll bet that if he did that instead of
arguing, he could probably head for the far end of the park, turn his
shirt back around and not be hassled by anyone else the rest of the day so
long as he stayed away from the...what was it, the Blue Streak?. The
trouble is that while what the ride-op did was probably wrong, the park
policy is *technically* on his side.
===SPRING BEER NON-SALES===
Now, through the course of this discussion, someone mentioned the fact
that on some Spring days, CP will cease beer sales. The implication was
that this was because of a group of people who objected to it. My guess
is that the answer is simpler than that. A few years ago, against the
desires of the voting public, the State of Ohio responded to Federal
pressure and raised the legal age for consumption of alcoholic beverages
to 21. In addition, Ohio has written the laws in such a way that the
*seller* holds criminal liability for selling alcohol to an underage
consumer. It wasn't mentioned in this thread, but I'll bet that the
Pirate Ride was closed that day, as well. Early in the season, CP has
large groups of young people come through the park, often on large yellow
buses. I have heard from various sources that these groups tend to be a
major hassle for the park, jumping queues, causing problems, and being
destructive (which is why the Pirate Ride gets shut down on those days).
I have not asked the question directly, but it seems to me that by
shutting down beer sales on days when a large percentage of the park
population is school groups and youth groups, the park is probably able to
prevent more grief and hassle than it causes legal drinkers in inconvenience.
Furthermore, I am not sure of this, but I *think* that when beer is
unavailable on the midway, it can still be obtained in the hotels, or
possibly even in the sit-down restaurants. Again, though I am not a
teetotaler, I don't go to the park to drink beer, so I haven't checked it
out.
Just some poorly edited thoughts on the subject...
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
--
/-\ Celebrating the International Year of the Roller Coaster
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX\_ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
David Hamburger
Jonathan,
There's nothing wrong with admitting that we're uncomfortable with
people who are different from us. Ideally, we won't be so, but we're
humans, not ideals.
What diminishes bigotry is when people chalenge themselves and try to
do what's right and speak up for what's right.
As to the point about Christian t-shirts, I was one the one who
brought it up.
As Jew and a gay person often targeted by the groups who sponsor these
shirts, I AM uncomfortable around them. I believe FULLY in freedom of
religion, but I wish people wouldn't try to force their religion on
others. Unfortunately, the point of most of these shirts is not to
say "I'm a happy Christian", but to say "YOU should be a Christian."
There's a BIG difference! And I'd also have a problem with a shirt
that said "Everyone should be gay."
That said, I DON'T think that Cedar Point or any park should BAN these
shirts. We just need to learn to tolerate some things that offend us.
I was merely pointing out these shirts as ones that might offend SOME
people, but CP isn't banning.
Eric Holeman
In article <Pine.GSO.3.94.960929220206.22488A-100000@ursa>,
jhod...@Calvin.EDU writes...
>ALL I WAS SAYING was an honest statement - I am sometimes
>uncomfortable around people who I know are homosexual.
It didn't bother me, and I'm a big ol' homo.
> I'm sincerely
>sorry if I offended or hurt you. Its simple - I know that you are
>homosexual because you have told me so. I might feel uncomfortable if I
>were to meet you. Why? I don't know.
Well, lately my SO and I have been doing our best to make our ACE memberships
pay off. If you see two guys who always share a car and occasionally hold
hands and discreetly kiss on the lift hill (EEEEWWWWWWW!!!!!!), that's us.
I can't really imagine we'd freak you out that much, though. At most of
these functions, we end up sharing coaster chat with folks in line. The best
thing about ACE is that everyone there has one thing in common--we all
love coasting, whether young or old, hetero or homo, disabled or abled, or
whatever the hell.
As for CP, I suspect if they sent everyone away that arrived in a T-Shirt
that said "Silly Faggot" or "Shut Up Bitch" or any of the more common trends
in hetero shirtwear, it would be a pretty quiet day at the park. Let me know
if they ever do that. Until then, it sounds like they were picking on the
gay guy, and I'd love to hear their side of it.
-------------------------
Eric Holeman Chicago, Illinois USA eh...@tezcat.com
"Slowly, gently, feelin' better ment'ly"--Allan Lloyd-Sherman
Pete643
In article <52njl7$5...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
dal...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Dave Althoff) writes:
>CONSPIRACY THEORY:
>I'm guessing that CP's various departments have a code of "you don't make
>me look stupid." It may not be an official code, but it would not
suprise
>me if such a "gentleman's agreement" exists simply to make sure that
there
>are no employee->employee confrontations in the park in front of the
>guests. So a CPP officer, then, would back up a ride-op's decision in
>such a matter, even if that same CPP officer would not have taken any
>action against the guest (and his shirt) in another circumstance.
Dave's theory of what happend is excellent and well thought out. As
someone who goes to the park frequently I can see that as being exactly
what happened. The comment above is something that I haven't thought of in
thinking about the incident, but I bet it's true. Where I work we have a
few departments doing similar work at times, or work that the customers
(students) think comes from our dept. when it actually comes from another
dept. On occassion, as happens anyplace, someone messes up and some of the
customers complain. We have a long standing custom, nothing official, of
not making a sister dept. look bad in an incident like that, rather we
support the other dept. while at the same time we try to solve the
problem. I bet many companies that deal with customers have similar
"gentleman's agreements".
>Furthermore, I am not sure of this, but I *think* that when beer is
>unavailable on the midway, it can still be obtained in the hotels, or
>possibly even in the sit-down restaurants. Again, though I am not a
>teetotaler, I don't go to the park to drink beer, so I haven't checked it
>out.
I know that alcholol sales continue at the hotels and outside the park
restaurants when beer sales in the park are discontinued. I'm not sure
about the in park sit-down restaurants however. I would bet (although I
have no way of knowing) that alcholol sales will also continue at next
years new adult only pool at Soak City. This is a great idea, it'll have a
swim up bar with under water bar stools, according to an article I read.
To me, a perfect way to enjoy a cold brew or frozen drink in hot weather.
Cp Irvine
>Pete Babic
>Using my AOL account
>For Email replies please use p...@po.cwru.edu
heya!
I'm in a big hurry to get my butt out of this discussion, but what the
hey, might as well respond to a non-flame post! :-)
Where ARE these really bad tees like "Silly" coming from? They seem
like the kind of thing that you'd wear to an underground high school
party rather than a park filled with impressionable kids.
For myself only, my biggest beef in this case is the fact that little
kids, very very vunerable and impressionable, are seeing _truly_
tasteless, and in some cases, sick, shirts like the "Silly" tee. I mind
my own business when it comes to tees like that even if they are
offensive to myself, but it would be nice for *people* to give children
and families JUST ONE PLACE to go without being bombarded with
negative/sexist images. If it isn't gangs in one park, it's something in
another. GIVE THE KIDS A BREAK! Childhood has become so short for kids of
today, and you'd think that visitors would have the decency to give
children a place to not be subjected to adult images, but it seems that
isn't so. IMHO, those shirts that TRULY do present a negative image, and
especially ones showing extremely sexist/lewd images, should be saved for
bars, etc, where innocent children are not going to form opinions by
seeing them. I'm all for non-censorship, freedom of speech and rights for
all, but can't these people find better places to wear the honestly lewd
shirts, (no, I'm not saying to stop wearing them at all! It's never going
to happen), than in direct, full, stuck-behind-them-in-line contact with
parents and children?
I remember a saying: You'd never wear a lewd shirt again if you were
a parent all of a sudden. Maybe for once someone visiting a park could
consider that an amusement park is not truly an adult resort/bar, and
that it is a place where kids are supposed to be having fun with their
families along with other types of visitors. It might be interesting to
see what would happen if a park, instead of saying simply "Offensive
shirts are prohibited," stated in a sign outside each gate and in guides,
"Remember our children: Please avoid wearing profane/offensive/lewd
shirts while in the park to protect precious childhood." Opinions may be
one thing; young children and "adult" images are another.
Cp Irvine
heya all!
(Gee, nothing to do with Cedar Point going on here, just a mutual
relating)
Hmmm....all this talk about who's "normal" or not got me thinking. You
know, I can relate with the whole topic of being rejected, being called
not normal, a threat to all-American values, etc etc etc. And it's in
such a strange way, not a natural orientation such as for gays' case but
actually in the "I made a choice" way. I made a choice to do something
_many_ frown upon, is considered un-American, un-Midwest, "un-normal,"
weird, and on and on and on. This may sound pretty surface when it comes
to the deeper issues gays face, but it's an honest effort to at least
connect to the mutual feeling.
I'm vegetarian. No big deal? Not so! You would not believe what I have
been through. Virtually shunned by parts of my family, and told to be
weird, irrational, unusual, by them, I fight a battle to show everyone
I'm "just like everyone else" except I do something different than
"everybody else," as much as I resent having to feel that way. Who is
"everybody else" anyway? Aren't we all different? Well, I guess not.
It's impossible for me to eat a "normal," (again, I say, what's normal?
Chinese food is normal in China but it's "exotic" here.....), meal in a
restaurant, unless it's a vegetarian restaurant. When I go to a park or
such sometimes I feel shunned by not having anything there to eat really,
but I manage and don't have any hard feelings, (just doing what the
majority market insists, honestly good business tactics). Although it's
getting better for "veggies," it's still tough. "What? You don't eat meat?
What's wrong with you?" "When are you going to be like everyone else?"
What makes it worse is that I'm also a vegan, which means I don't eat
meat, fish, dairy or eggs. In some ways, it's the dietary version of
being gay in today's society. Although I'm a human being, meaning I'm not
a werewolf or a centaur <;-)>, and I have two arms, two legs, eyes, ears,
etc., I do something "different" from "the rest" of the "normal" people.
What's different? What's rest of? What's normal? Normal for me is what's
"not normal" for others so that makes me "un-normal"? Yet for some people,
they just can't accept me for what I am, what is normal for me and is
natural, and want me to be "like everyone else."
Well, you know, in vegetarian circles, a meat-eater would not be
"normal" in that group. Does that mean that they are not "normal" then
either? Or even among the circles of veggies, would someone in a group of
vegans who eats dairy be "not normal" there? There are some veg people
who choose to press their beliefs onto everyone, others merely teach,
others keep their mouth shut. Some criticize those who eat meat, others
don't....there's many variations. And then after a while some look at the
_meat eaters_ as not being "normal"!
What appears to me is that in cases of dietary patterns, white bread,
hamburgers, Coke, sundaes the size of tankers and such are "normal." You
don't eat them: Bzzzt! Out of the "normal" gang! (Why are there veggie
hotdogs? Hotdogs are "normal," so say the people that eat them so they
make them to make veg people feel "normal"! What a crock!) Meat eaters
come on rec.food.veg and slander like all get out, "Oh, I love animals!
Tasty!" Big deal! Yet to them it is, you know? Everyone's on an equal
playing field inside. Such patterns exist in every other matter from
religion on down. Is having no veg food at an eatery discrimination? I
mean, we're out there! We have to eat too! I've come to accept that for
now I'm looked at as "different" even though I'm truly not. Things have
changed in my favor; the same can be said for gays I'd say. But it's
still sometimes an uphill battle, trying to tell myself that what's
normal for me isn't normal for the guy next to me, and what's normal for
the guy next to him isn't to himself, etc etc. (There really is such a
thing as coming out of the vegetarian closet!) We all have things normal
to us that aren't for others yet there's always that pressure to conform
to an unexisting normalcy, both businesses and people. It reminds me of
the pressures women face to become like the unrealistic, completely fake
images of beauty in photos. We're all not really like that, even the
models themselves, so all we females are damaged goods, so we're made to
think.
I guess I'd just add that I'd actually rather NOT try to switch
everyone to vegetarianism and make everyone else "like normal for me"
even though life would be easier. It's not right for everyone; it's not
built in to everyone; it doesn't come naturally to everyone. I'd just
rather live my life in what's normal for ME and not feel the pressure to
NOT be what's normal to ME. Am I ringing any bells? I get
heckled/insulted/sneered at if I wear a veg shirt myself. I wish it could
be that everyone did accept people for what they were instead of trying
to change them all the time....... Anyway, I just wanted to say that I
know, in some backhanded way, how the gays feel..... :-( But I'm also
happy with who I am and that's all that matters! :-)
(hey, folks, I know "off topic, opinionated, unnecessary" whatever.
Please no flames, I'm really just trying to at least understand where
*everyone's* coming from in this case....it's a tender issue to me. Both
sides are feeling the pressure to be "normal" to themselves or others -
it's tough! Best of luck to all involved and ABSOLUTELY THE LAST POST I
make on the issue....I always get myself into a pickle! :-) I don't think
I'm even going to read this topic anymore: I know everyone's going to
hate me for this! :-( )
David Rigg
In article <52tgfc$o...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
Cp Irvine <HKA...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>heya all!
>(Gee, nothing to do with Cedar Point going on here, just a mutual
>relating)
>
> Chinese food is normal in China but it's "exotic" here.....), meal in a
Of course in China, they just call it food.
(sorry couldn't resist)
David (Friends fan) Rigg
Not the views of this fine company...
--
David Rigg, Software Engineer, | email : dav...@europe.shiva.com
Terminal Servers Development, | fax : +44 131 467 7749
SHIVA EUROPE LTD, Edinburgh, Scotland. | phone : +44 131 561 4000 x4213
Cp Irvine
dav...@spider.co.uk (David Rigg) wrote:
>
>In article <52tgfc$o...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Cp Irvine <HKA...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>(Gee, nothing to do with Cedar Point going on here, just a mutual
>>relating)
>>
normal?
>> Chinese food is normal in China but it's "exotic" here.....), meal in
a
>
>
>
>
>(sorry couldn't resist)
>David (Friends fan) Rigg
Good point...... ;-)