Two sides to every story – right? As an exmo I'm sensitive to the possibility of being a hypocrite and closed minded and a bigot and everything else I accuse TBMs of being. So I'm investing some time trying to really think through this Gay Pride Parade vs. Cop issue.

When the story first broke it was a slam dunk for me to label the guy as a bigot and agree that putting him on leave was a no brain-er. Then in a follow up story I read that he didn't refuse to work the parade, he only requested that he not ride his motorcycle in a choreographed routine as part of the actual parade. This gave me pause. Yes, he may still be a bigot, but should he have the right to refuse participation in an event to which he is religiously apposed?

Then I start thinking, wait a minute, is that really what happened? Did he approach his supervisor with his hat in his hand and say “please sir, could I just work crowd control rather than ride in the parade itself?” Or is that just how his attorney is painting things after the fact? We'll probably never know and probably we don't need to know but, I'm sure there is far more to the situation that has been portrayed by either side.

If that cop is part of an elite motorcycle squad, and if his pay is at least partly related to that position and if that squad was hired or otherwise officially assigned to ride in the parade then I'm going to stick with my original thinking. However, if riding with that group is completely voluntary and if his absence could have easily been covered by another and if indeed he was respectful in his request for another assignment then I may change my mind. Yeah, that's a lot of “ifs”.

I'm trying to think of a scenario from the opposite side. What if the cop were openly gay instead of openly Mormon? What if the assignment was to ride the motorcycle in a Straight Pride parade? Would I still label him a bigot in that situation? Is that a completely outrageous comparison? Because in that situation I would hope that the supervisor would be sensitive and grant a re-assignment. Why am I still so hesitant to think this guy should have been shown the same courtesy?

How about a Never-Mo or Ex-Mo cop refusing to ride in the days of 47 parade? Perhaps they could ask for a less conspicuous role so as to not be confused as Mormon

He has resigned.
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/06/utah_cop_at_center_of_pride_controversy_resigns.php

An old physics law is now being applied to life!
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

English law used to be more reasonable:
"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed"

But that's not good enough anymore.

I've been over-thinking this particular story also.

If he really did go in and respectfully say he didn't feel personally comfortable riding in the parade, but would rather work the sidelines and was then suspended, I think this is exactly the kind of situation all the anti-gay fear-mongers will grab onto to show that their freedoms are being taken away.


But, on the other hand, if he went in intent upon being a good mormon example to the world by living "the gospel" in the face of worldy adversity, (which I admit my exmo self suspects, having dealt with a couple of them in my life) then I think the suspension for refusing an assignment is justified.

Either way, I sure wish it hadn't gotten out to the news.
Like you said, we'll never really know the whole story, and because performing in a parade for something you are opposed to is vastly different than baking a cake for a wedding you will not even be attending, I see this incident as influencing more of the middle-ground people.