Sam Adams Beer Pulls Out Of Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade Over LGBT Issues

[happyslug]

33. That is NOT what is reported in the Boston Globe:

In recent weeks, Walsh tried to broker a deal between MassEquality and parade organizers to end a controversy that has festered for two decades. He succeeded in getting parade organizers to invite MassEquality to allow 20 gay veterans who are members of the group LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] Veterans for Equality to march in the parade.

But the offer came with the condition that members refrain from making any reference to sexual orientation during the parade.

The parade sponsor, backed by a Supreme Court ruling, has said that gays and lesbians have always been allowed to participate and that any form of political activism is banned to maintain the spirit of the parade. MassEquality rejected the condition that its group not march as openly gay veterans.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/12/gay-veterans-push-back-against-organizers-patrick-day-parade/pcHlEjFzlLk14UeDZuxyRL/story.html

So an invitation was made, but on the condition that they do NOT mention sexual orientation. Thus they were offered the right to march with their name of their organization in front of them, but with the provision that they sexual orientation NOT be mentioned.

I hate to say this, the veterans who RUN the parade seems to have tried to come up with a compromise, but MassEquality does not want to compromise. To get you must often give and I just do not see any give by MassEquality. Now MassEquality MAY viewed the propose compromise as less then what the veterans could give, but does MassEquality willing to give up to show they are willing to address the concerns of the Veterans who run the parade?

It almost sounds like the Veterans were told they had to give in, but no such request was made to MassEquality. That is a recipe for failure and it failed. I have done negotiations and you have to be willing to address the concerns of the other side. You may reject those concerns, but that does not mean you can just ignore them. The more I read about this situation is MassEquality keeps on dismissing the concerns of the Veterans. I would say the same about the Veterans, but they appear to have MADE AN OFFER TO MassEquality, but with a condition MassEquality rejected.

My advice to MassEquality would have been to accept the offer with the restriction and March. Once in the parade you can expand what is permitted in coming years as the Veterans see you are NOT a harm to their parade. I suspect MassEquality wants in all now, and the Veterans are NOT willing to do that at the present time.

Remember the old rule of marketing, your customer's problems are also your problems. Thus the problems the Veterans have with having MassEquality in their parade in also a problem for MassEquality. The same with the Veterans. the problems of MassEquality as to conditions are also a problem for the Veterans. People have to work together and that does NOT mean I win, you lose, it means we work something out that works, even of both of us dislike it for different reasons.

As I said earlier, from reading the report of the Boston Globe I would blame MassEquality, for at least the Veterans did give in on the issue of them actually being in the parade. That was a huge change for the Veterans. MassEquality should have accepted offer with the the restriction and March, just to show the concerns of the Veterans are unfounded. Remember that offer AND acceptance could be grounds to expand later on, but sometime people need to go slow, and the offer with its restriction, while a small step is still a step.