Oh, those secret Water Department gay groups. I hear they meet at midnight on the third saturday of every month at the top of the Municipal tower for an all-night orgy, followed by a fabulous brunch.

(and, by the way, just why do you think the Municipal Tower is shaped the way it is? That was no coincidence. The secret AT&T/City/Architectural gay mafia planned that as a direct insult to defenders of conventional sexuality.)

@2: This imagery is fabulous.

I can only imagine flowing drapes coming out of the central elevator shaft of the Municipal Tower in a strange scene out of Caligula.

I side with Mr Savage here, I don't see the correlation here between those seeking signatures for I-71, they are not paid by the government neither are those who wish to sign it. If this shows anything is what an abysmal law this public records exposure laws is and how it can be used as a weapon against any group.

But, if the names get out, who will show up at the secret gay Illuminati meetings held every month at the Watertower in Volunteer Park at 2 am?

So, if shelters and services for victims of domestic violence are funded by the city, we should release the names of the people who use those services as well?

Bullshit. Fucking bullshit.

@6: In this alleged analogy of yours, who are the "clients" of the "social service" in question? What a stupid fucking comment -- there are plenty of arguments for why the names maybe should not be released, but it seems impossible to unravel your logic.

...Wait...EVERYBODY's gay at The Stranger?

*sidles up to Golob*

/I love my geeks

@7: Sometimes I do tend to obfuscate things, but I don't believe this is one of them.

Savage's argument is that if city funds are used, then the names of all people involved are public records. Yeah, no.

Leave aside the question of city-funded services, plenty of public employers directly provide services and support groups for their employees. If City Light had, say, an official cancer support group, should the names of all that group's members be public records?

C'mon. This is common fucking sense.

@4 FTW.

We agree Dan.

Sadly Dan I do not think you thought this one out. With the vivid and extremely common precedent for physical violence against gays there actually IS a good reason to protect the names of this group and not those of the people signing that petition for that anti-gay ballot. Those people don't need to fear people hunting them down and beating them senseless- they merely have to worry about being shunned and blacklisted for supporting hate. You really need to take these things into account before siding with someone so fully filled with hate.

There's a huge difference between taking a political stand in public and joining a club that serves a minority viewpoint. Particularly when that minority viewpoint is a target of violence.

@6 is right - just because someone uses city resources doesn't mean their life is automatically subject to public scrutiny. @7 is an incoherent dipshit.

I'm just surprised that there's a LGBTQ&T support group at the utility. I'm all for support groups but is it really appropriate in the workplace? Why use city resources in the first place?

There are several "affinity groups", and a surprisingly large number of them are based out of the water department for some reason. There's groups for Asians, Blacks, American Indians, people who are older than 50, and even one for those who identify with their "European Heritage".

They're just social clubs: Some of them have celebrations that involve meals and performances. Others just meet and talk about stuff. Pretty boilerplate, non-controversial activities. Unless you're a right-wing tool, of course.

I seriously doubt that anyone who has problems exposing their sexual orientation would join a workgroup about it - these groups get articles written about them, and get their pictures in the various internal publications all the time. I don't see any violation of privacy in releasing the names - city employees and their organizations are accountable to the public, after all - but let's see all the names, in all the groups.

@15: By all means, submit a public records request asking how many visits, say, Tom Carr makes to his workplace restroom on a weekly basis and the time and length of each visit. Let me know where you get with that.

Workers do not waive all of their privacy rights by working for a public company.

Hobgoblin of small minds, anyone?

"And if SPU's gay group is an official city group, and it receives funding from the city, it should be subject to the same rules and regulations regarding openness and public disclosure that all other city groups, agencies, individual employees, etc., are subject to."

I quote from Dan's comment above, largely in response to 6. Dan is exactly right. IF every affinity group of City Employees must release its roster (which I seriously doubt) THEN the LGBTQ&F group should be subject to the same rules. If you sign up to form/join a sponsored group like that, the rules are the rules.

The analogy between the roster of that group and the signers in support of I-71 is absolutely stupid. Same rule applies - all petition signatures are public. You don't want to associate your name with a bigoted, stupid position that will hold you up to vitriol in you community DON'T SIGN.

I have a few things I would like to point out in response to this.

1. Phil Irvin has no legitimate reason to need the names of the city employees. He is requesting them as a form of targetted harassment. In the past other stunts that he has pulled are things like Attending the LGBT affinity group SeaGLE (Seattle Gay Lesbian Employees) in the 1990's and quoting Leviticus and Romans and Dueteronomy at the group until finally he was informed that he was not welcome to be there. His response was to file a discrimination suit based on Religious discrimination which ultimately resulted in the LGBT group being shut down. I am fairly certain that if someone from the Arian Front decided to attend the CLBEA (City Light Black Employee Association) and quote the biblical passages that they believe support their discrimination against non white races they would be ordered not to attend the meetings and a religious discrimination suit wouldn't go very far. However because we are gay the religion argument won on the grounds that it was a city affinity group on city property.

2. Why should a group of city employees that meet basically to discuss National Coming out Day events, Reel to Real films for the City about LGBT issues, and Planning the pride parade have their names released to someone who is a self described Soldier of Christ drawing his sword against the LGBT community when the amount of violent attacks against the LGBT community has escalated since Prop 8 was voted in by CA voters?

3. Phil Irvin has gone virtually unchecked without any resistance from the Gay Community in his harassment of LGBT employees under the guise of Religious Freedom and now his latest is Political Ideology. Every time he has reared up and started his harassment the group has rolled over and folded for a couple of years. I think it is GREAT That individuals of the group are shouldering the cost of the court fees and have secured a lawyer to actually push back for once rather than playing dead. There is a difference between passive resistance to a hate monger like him and being a doormat that he can wipe his feet all over while saying he is an Ex-Gay and you too can be saved.

Dan try and put yourselves in the shoes of the people filing the injunction and his repeated attacks against them. This in my opinion clearly falls under the same situation of when the Supreme Court blocked the disclosure of the names of the members of the NAACP from the hands of the KKK on the grounds that even though membership lists from 501(c)3 are public record they should not be accesible by openly hostile entities or individuals.