Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Sparko]

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.

Yes it has to be ironed out. But no matter what the ethics officer says, if he didn't make this some official policy, then he was not breaking any rules.

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

The mayor has already made comments that make it sound like he fired Cochran because of his beliefs. Now he is trying to wiggle his way out saying it has nothing to do with that.

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.

I think the mayor can fire the chief, but it has to be for a just cause. Religion is a protected area. He can't fire him for his religious beliefs. That is why he is trying to now claim it isn't about religion, when it clearly is.

And I don't think you understand what the mayor meant by "judgment" - I don't think he meant that Cochran was using poor judgment in writing the book. I think he is trying to claim that Cochran was Judging LBGTs in his position as fire 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?

yeah. we would. A person's religion and beliefs, as long as they are not affecting his job in an official capacity should not be reason to fire them. In fact, it is against the law to do so.

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

In your not so humble opinion.

But it sure looks like it was to me and to most people who have read the story. Granted, we don't have all the facts and it might come down to a lawsuit, but if the facts are as represented, then it was a religion-based firing.

[Sparko]

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.

"private" in this context has to do with "as a private citizen" -- not "behind closed doors"

You moron.

[Darth Executor]

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.

Liberalism is also divisive but I don't see you getting upset over that.

[firstfloor]

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/...is-own-firing/

[firstfloor]

Liberalism is also divisive but I don't see you getting upset over that.

Really? Liberty Island, New York – what’s that all about then?

[phank]

Yes it has to be ironed out. But no matter what the ethics officer says, if he didn't make this some official policy, then he was not breaking any rules.

I don't know if this is quite on target. Poor judgment doesn't mean breaking rules, it means not being reliable when it comes to acting appropriately.

The mayor has already made comments that make it sound like he fired Cochran because of his beliefs. Now he is trying to wiggle his way out saying it has nothing to do with that.

Ah, so we have another case of "Christian persecution". The mayor is concerned, and understandably so, that a member of his administration has publicly taken a politically controversial position.

I think the mayor can fire the chief, but it has to be for a just cause. Religion is a protected area. He can't fire him for his religious beliefs. That is why he is trying to now claim it isn't about religion, when it clearly is.

This is clearly NOT about religion, despite your religious compulsion to see everything in religious terms. Reed thinks Cochran has extolled bigotry, and this gives Reed's administration a black eye. Whether or not you, or Cochran, sincerely believes Christ hated queers is beside the point. Cochran could have done so because his mama told him to. Doesn't matter Cochran's motivation. Only his behavior.

And I don't think you understand what the mayor meant by "judgment" - I don't think he meant that Cochran was using poor judgment in writing the book. I think he is trying to claim that Cochran was Judging LBGTs in his position as fire chief.

As I recall, there was a prior legal case pending at the time, about which administration officials were not supposed to comment. Cochran commented anyway. Poor judgment. However, you do make a good point. What do you suppose an LGBT persons' chances of being hired at all, or being treated equally by Cochran, might be? Reed is being placed in the position where he must either can Cochran, or come out and say "I have full confidence that Cochran can set his powerful and highly derogatory convictions aside in his equitable performance of his duties." And see who can keep a straight face.

yeah. we would. A person's religion and beliefs, as long as they are not affecting his job in an official capacity should not be reason to fire them. In fact, it is against the law to do so.

And who would believe that Cochran's religion and beliefs would not affect his job in handling LGBT firemen?

In your not so humble opinion.

But it sure looks like it was to me and to most people who have read the story. Granted, we don't have all the facts and it might come down to a lawsuit, but if the facts are as represented, then it was a religion-based firing.

I know, because you see everything through religion-colored glasses. I'm reminded of the creationist who was laid off from JPL along with plenty of other people, and sued because he claimed he was laid of because of his creationist faith. Or the guy who failed to get tenure at Iowa State (after 5 years of no grants, no research, no publications, no PhD students) and hollered that it was his religious faith that was being discriminated against. In these and other cases, religion is being used by incompetent or untrustworthy people as an excuse for why their bungling must be someone else's fault. After all, they are Christians, so why ELSE would they be fired? Even though Reed and everyone else in the administration is also Christian, but let's ignore that, right?

[Darth Executor]

Really? Liberty Island, New York – what’s that all about then?

No matter where you go you will always find more conservatives than gays.

[pancreasman]

My liberal non-Christian position: anybody should be able to write a book no matter how stupid his/her position without fear of losing their job as long as their stupid position does not effect their competence at said job.

[Darth Executor]

My liberal non-Christian position: anybody should be able to write a book no matter how stupid his/her position without fear of losing their job as long as their stupid position does not effect their competence at said job.

Your conservative opinion, you mean, as liberals have gotten much worse than conservatives are at insisting that people be fired for deviating from doctrine.

[fm93]

I knew someone was going to start a thread on this soon.

I agree that ex-Chief Cochran wasn't technically being discriminatory, and that he wasn't making such statements in his official capacity as fire chief. And although I disagree with his stance concerning homosexuality, I believe it's entirely possible that he's overall a good, respectable man. That said, the city of Atlanta has a relatively large and thriving LGBT population, and I believe one of the articles mentioned that there was at least one employee who is gay. Cochran represents both the department and the city, and even though he might not've technically been discriminating, the many gay residents of Atlanta and the gay employee(s) in his department understandably are unlikely to think "Yeah, he used a significant and fundamental part of who I am to group me with legitimately evil people who molest and exploit non-consenting young children, but he didn't fire me because I'm gay or force me to use a separate bathroom, so it's all good." To the contrary, it's hard to see how that wouldn't create the feeling of a hostile (at the very least, deeply awkward and uncomfortable) work environment, antagonize many city residents and reflect poorly upon all parties involved. (Yes, he wrote this privately and allegedly only distributed it to Christian friends who may have shared his beliefs, but it was still done at the workplace, and the book's content has been made public now, so that point's been rendered moot.) And it's within Mayor Reed's jurisdiction to fire someone who reflects poorly upon the city/company.

Besides, there are ways to openly speak about your religious beliefs without creating a feeling of antagonism in people. Linking homosexuality (especially when so many expressions of it in the Western world involve consensual, mutual relationships) with things like bestiality and pederasty isn't one of them. It's not as if merely speaking about his beliefs would've automatically gotten him fired.

Finally, for what it's worth, Mayor Reed has claimed to be a Christian himself.

[KingsGambit]

For the sake of argument; couldn't the same logic be applied to bar any Christian or Muslim from public office because they believe that nonbelievers are going to an adverse eschatological destination? I think a better side to err on is whether there is evidence that the person has actually discriminated in their course of duty. One of the more notorious members of Westboro Baptist Church is a social worker, and apparently she actually does a good job in her course of work without any evidence of discrimination.

[fm93]

I know, because you see everything through religion-colored glasses. I'm reminded of the creationist who was laid off from JPL along with plenty of other people, and sued because he claimed he was laid of because of his creationist faith. Or the guy who failed to get tenure at Iowa State (after 5 years of no grants, no research, no publications, no PhD students) and hollered that it was his religious faith that was being discriminated against.

Or on a different but similar-in-spirit note, Curt Schilling saying he wasn't voted into the Hall of Fame because he's a Republican.

[KingsGambit]

Or on a different but similar-in-spirit note, Curt Schilling saying he wasn't voted into the Hall of Fame because he's a Republican.

I still want to know what the truth is on whether Keith Law was really suspended from ESPN for questioning Schilling's claims about evolution.

[fm93]

For the sake of argument; couldn't the same logic be applied to bar any Christian or Muslim from public office because they believe that nonbelievers are going to an adverse eschatological destination?

It seems that the issue with Cochran was that he distributed copies of his book to employees at the workplace, unlike Christian or Muslim politicians who hold to discomforting beliefs but don't spread them within their workplace.

[pancreasman]

It seems that the issue with Cochran was that he distributed copies of his book to employees at the workplace, unlike Christian or Muslim politicians who hold to discomforting beliefs but don't spread them within their workplace.

Ah, that makes a difference. Imagine if he was a Muslim and passed out a book he wrote defending Jihadists.