Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Teallaura]

It protects individuals from the government. If Cochran had been voicing his opinion in his official capacity as a representative of the government he would have been in violation of the 1st Amendment.

However, as I agreed in my initial post, it does not seem that he was voicing his opinion in his official capacity as a representative of the government. Rather, he was doing so as a private citizen. There is no violation, there. In fact, perhaps ironically, it is precisely because Mayor Reed is utilizing his official capacity as a representative of the government to voice his opinion on Cochran's religious convictions that Cochran's firing is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

No, he would NOT have been 'violating the First Amendment' - ONLY government can do that in that way. He would have been misrepresenting his employer - the government - and in that case subject to dismissal.

We agree that this case does not merit the dismissal and isn't a constitutional issue as framed by the City of Atlanta (it is a constitutional issue but the other way around). The disagreement is that you think the law governing it comes from the incorporation of the First Amendment (which didn't happen when you think it did) and it doesn't. Even in the hypothetical case, he's acting as an individual, not as an actual representative of government. If his office issued some actionable policy that denied or restricted a citizen's rights then there is constitutional issue. But not when Bob, the sewer cleaner, tells people something they don't want to hear - even if Bob steps outside the constitutional protection (porn, yelling fire) - Bob being a government employee does not make his pronouncements constitutional issues even if he misrepresents his department (that is a fraud issue and actionable).

[firstfloor]

I don’t know what the exact infringement is but it seems that the citizenry are entitled to have confidence in their various officials and if a particular group are singled out for disapprobation by an official (while he is in office) then that is clearly unsatisfactory. If he had withdrawn the publication and apologised he might have been allowed to stay.

[Teallaura]

I don’t know what the exact infringement is but it seems that the citizenry are entitled to have confidence in their various officials and if a particular group are singled out for disapprobation by an official (while he is in office) then that is clearly unsatisfactory. If he had withdrawn the publication and apologised he might have been allowed to stay.

Total bull crap. There is no infringement and there's no mythical guarantee that everyone has the same confidence in a public official sharing their particular beliefs - that would mean no one could be elected since they obviously violate the rights of the people that voted against them.

He didn't do anything wrong, morally, ethically or legally. he doesn't need to retract anything - the City of Atlanta, however, needs to do so fast retractions or they are gonna be on the losing end of a big lawsuit.

[Sparko]

I don’t know what the exact infringement is but it seems that the citizenry are entitled to have confidence in their various officials and if a particular group are singled out for disapprobation by an official (while he is in office) then that is clearly unsatisfactory. If he had withdrawn the publication and apologised he might have been allowed to stay.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

This ain't jolly old England, my chap. Here in America, our religious freedom of belief and practice is protected by the constitution. As long as he didn't try to make it official policy or act on it in an official capacity, he had a right to do and say what he wanted as a private citizen.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, he would NOT have been 'violating the First Amendment' - ONLY government can do that in that way. He would have been misrepresenting his employer - the government - and in that case subject to dismissal.

When acting in his official capacity as a representative of the government, he is a part of the government. That is what "representative of the government" means. The Fire Chief is not a private contractor employed by the government. He is a government official.

We agree that this case does not merit the dismissal and isn't a constitutional issue as framed by the City of Atlanta (it is a constitutional issue but the other way around). The disagreement is that you think the law governing it comes from the incorporation of the First Amendment (which didn't happen when you think it did) and it doesn't.

I'll grant you that I was mistaken to imply that the 1st Amendment was incorporated immediately with the ratification of the 14th, but we seem to agree that the government is prohibited from supporting any one religion over another, right?

Even in the hypothetical case, he's acting as an individual, not as an actual representative of government.

My hypothetical case was specifically formulated around his acting as an actual representative of government. I explicitly related the discussion to Cochran acting in his official capacity. That is to say, acting as an actual representative of government.

[Teallaura]

When acting in his official capacity as a representative of the government, he is a part of the government. That is what "representative of the government" means. The Fire Chief is not a private contractor employed by the government. He is a government official.

Yes, he is - BUT if he is representing his views improperly as those of his official capacity he is not in actuality representing the government. Since only government can violate the First Amendment that way and he's acting ex officio despite the misrepresentation, there is no violation of the First Amendment protection. There would be actionable misrepresentation - he could and should be fired in such a case - but it's not because he managed to do what only government can.

I'll grant you that I was mistaken to imply that the 1st Amendment was incorporated immediately with the ratification of the 14th, but we seem to agree that the government is prohibited from supporting any one religion over another, right?

I think that's too vaguely worded. Government cannot endorse one religion over another - specifically, Congress can't. Providing material support is not necessarily such an infringement - never was seen so historically - and would only be at issue if there were a denial of another valid religion's similar request (Church of Bob idiocy need not apply - but the nice synagogue should be able to put up their menorah if they want).

My hypothetical case was specifically formulated around his acting as an actual representative of government. I explicitly related the discussion to Cochran acting in his official capacity. That is to say, acting as an actual representative of government.

Unless his office actually endorses those views the issue isn't constitutional, it's statutory. Bob is acting under the color of authority but (deliberately) misrepresenting that authority - that's not an official endorsement, it's actionable fraud.

I'll grant if can get murky - if no one bothers to stop Bob then the question becomes at what point is Bob now setting policy and if that's tacitly allowed THEN yes, it could be a constitutional issue. But Bob spouting his personal views without clarifying that they are his (either deliberately or mistakenly) isn't a constitutional issue, even under the color of authority.

[Epoetker]

Seems that BP is trying to make up for his previous

When acting in his official capacity as a representative of the government, he is a part of the government. That is what "representative of the government" means. The Fire Chief is not a private contractor employed by the government. He is a government official.

Last I heard, representatives are elected, rather than appointed/hired. Most people don't directly elect fire chiefs, that's the sort of thing you need actual organizing talent and intelligence for (other than blindly parroting whatever collegiate foolishness makes you popular with college-educated fools, which serves our puppet representatives very well.)

I'll grant you that I was mistaken to imply that the 1st Amendment was incorporated immediately with the ratification of the 14th, but we seem to agree that the government is prohibited from supporting any one religion over another, right?

Can you not even read your sympathizers in this tawdry affair?

“This is about judgment,” Mayor Reed said during a Tuesday press conference. “This is not about religious freedom. This is not about free speech. Judgment is the basis of the problem.”

I heartily agree. The reflexive disgust for homosexuality among those who see it firsthand crosses all religions, and those who fight battles on behalf of its community possess extremely poor long-term judgment, and should not be elected or allowed to remain in office, given that one just removed a man charged with saving lives for reasons unrelated to his qualifications.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, he is - BUT if he is representing his views improperly as those of his official capacity he is not in actuality representing the government. Since only government can violate the First Amendment that way and he's acting ex officio despite the misrepresentation, there is no violation of the First Amendment protection. There would be actionable misrepresentation - he could and should be fired in such a case - but it's not because he managed to do what only government can.

I can agree with this. However, it is also possible for him to actually represent the government when presenting his views in his official capacity. For example, if he were to pass over a Wiccan firefighter for promotion to Deputy Chief solely because he believed that firefighter's religion to be a sinful stain on her character, he would be presenting his views in an official capacity, actually representing the government, and therefore violating the 1st Amendment.

I think that's too vaguely worded. Government cannot endorse one religion over another - specifically, Congress can't. Providing material support is not necessarily such an infringement - never was seen so historically - and would only be at issue if there were a denial of another valid religion's similar request (Church of Bob idiocy need not apply - but the nice synagogue should be able to put up their menorah if they want).

Another point of agreement, here, though I'm not sure what you mean by "Church of Bob idiocy." I'm guessing you're referring to organizations whose beliefs are not sincerely held?

[Darth Executor]

I don’t know what the exact infringement is but it seems that the citizenry are entitled to have confidence in their various officials and if a particular group are singled out for disapprobation by an official (while he is in office) then that is clearly unsatisfactory. If he had withdrawn the publication and apologised he might have been allowed to stay.

There isn't a single person on this planet that doesn't disapprove of some other group. By this standard no position would ever be filled.

[Sparko]

There isn't a single person on this planet that doesn't disapprove of some other group. By this standard no position would ever be filled.

Yeah I can see it now "Police Chief fired because criminals object to his anti-crime stance"

[Knowing Thomas]

Does anyone know is a lawsuit is being filed? I sure hope so. This nonsense needs to stop immediately! I'm so upset right now.

[phank]

Here's what I think is the meat of the original article:

“This is about judgment,” Mayor Reed said during a Tuesday press conference. “This is not about religious freedom. This is not about free speech. Judgment is the basis of the problem.”

Seems the fire chief had previously spoken about a pending case when he wasn't supposed to comment. Seems he sought permission to self-publish this book, and was denied permission. In both cases, he went ahead and spoke (and published) anyway. The mayor was understandably peeved. The position of fire chief of Atlanta is, like it or not, a political position. The mayor must answer to the electorate for hiring and retaining someone whose views are embarrassing to his administration, and who is apparently insubordinate. He's not criticizing Cochran's religion, he's doubting the value of Cochran's judgment. The position of fire chief requires better judgment than the major thought he demonstrated.

The claim that Cochran was fired for being a Christian is simply flat false, and knowingly false. Imagine if Cochran had been Muslim and disobeyed orders. Would everyone here jump up and down about how he was fired for being Muslim, or would anyone be able to stand back and understand that bad judgment and insubordination put one's job at risk?

[Sparko]

Here's what I think is the meat of the original article:



Seems the fire chief had previously spoken about a pending case when he wasn't supposed to comment. Seems he sought permission to self-publish this book, and was denied permission. In both cases, he went ahead and spoke (and published) anyway. The mayor was understandably peeved. The position of fire chief of Atlanta is, like it or not, a political position. The mayor must answer to the electorate for hiring and retaining someone whose views are embarrassing to his administration, and who is apparently insubordinate. He's not criticizing Cochran's religion, he's doubting the value of Cochran's judgment. The position of fire chief requires better judgment than the major thought he demonstrated.

The claim that Cochran was fired for being a Christian is simply flat false, and knowingly false. Imagine if Cochran had been Muslim and disobeyed orders. Would everyone here jump up and down about how he was fired for being Muslim, or would anyone be able to stand back and understand that bad judgment and insubordination put one's job at risk?

Actually you are wrong. The mayor is claiming he didn't have permission, but Cochran said

-- "Did I have permission to write the book?"

The city's ethics officer, Nina Hickson, "unequivocally told me it was appropriate and gave me permission legally that I could do it and use my name in the book as long as the book was not about government or the fire department," Cochran said. http://www.bpnews.net/44000/atlanta-...profamily-book

Reading the Mayor's other comments it sounds like he is trying cover his rear after the fact. Cochran did not use his beliefs in policy, nor give the book away at work other than to a few people he had already an established Christian relationship with. This was entirely a private matter and the mayor had no right to fire him.

and as far as being muslim, I am betting if Cochran was muslim and insisted on doing prayers to mecca 3 times a day, even while at work, the mayor would not object and would probably be spouting about how inclusive he was to have a muslim police chief.

[phank]

Actually you are wrong. The mayor is claiming he didn't have permission, but Cochran said

And one of them must be wrong. I suppose if there is any legal case, these discrepancies will be ironed out. It certainly sounds like Reed and Cochran were butting heads long before this came up.

Reading the Mayor's other comments it sounds like he is trying cover his rear after the fact.

This might well be the case. The major's job is political.

Cochran did not use his beliefs in policy, nor give the book away at work other than to a few people he had already an established Christian relationship with. This was entirely a private matter and the mayor had no right to fire him.

This raises two issues:
1) Does the mayor have the authority to fire the fire chief? Is that authority limited? What are the limitations? Were any such limitations met in this case? I don't know.
2) LIke it or not, the position of fire chief is a political position. Public perception matters. Certainly Cochran would have been wiser to hold off until he's no longer in a political position. Again, questionable judgment.

and as far as being muslim, I am betting if Cochran was muslim and insisted on doing prayers to mecca 3 times a day, even while at work, the mayor would not object and would probably be spouting about how inclusive he was to have a muslim police chief.

IF doing so was perceived by Reed's constituency as a positive thing, I suppose you're right. But what I asked was, if Cochran as a Muslim expressed exactly the same sentiments (this is not far fetched, considering Islam's view of homosexuality), and was fired for giving the administration a black eye, would people here be using his religion, RATHER THAN his judgment and behavior, to get all twisty-pants over it?

Here's my problem: This was NOT NOT NOT a religion-based firing.

[firstfloor]

There isn't a single person on this planet that doesn't disapprove of some other group. By this standard no position would ever be filled.

Opinions, religious or otherwise, are of no concern as long as they are private. Public officials have to maintain the trust of the citizens so need to be careful how they act, what they say and what they write. They are usually quite easy to replace if they slip up and the citizenry are right to demand the highest standards of probity. Religious opinions are often divisive and people in the public gaze ought to act accordingly.