Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    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.
    Baseball players as a whole are relatively conservative. Considerably more so than say basketball players (although from what I understand golfers are probably the most conservative athletes as a group). It isn't very likely that Schilling being conservative negatively affected his chances for being inducted to the Hall of Fame. It isn't like Hollywood where folks are regularly snubbed for being conservative.

    It should be noted that his claim that fellow pitcher John Smoltz got inducted and he didn't because Smoltz is a Democrat is not only sour grapes by completely inaccurate. I can say with absolute certainty that Smoltz is in fact a Republican and even been courted by local Republicans to run for political office.


    ETA: The percentage of those voting to induct Schilling into the Hall of Fame actually climbed 10 points this year over last so that pretty much falsifies his claim that his recent outspoken remarks have harmed him.
    Last edited by rogue06; 01-08-2015, 05:29 PM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Baseball players as a whole are relatively conservative. Considerably more so than say basketball players (although from what I understand golfers are probably the most conservative athletes as a group). It isn't very likely that Schilling being conservative negatively affected his chances for being inducted to the Hall of Fame. It isn't like Hollywood where folks are regularly snubbed for being conservative.

      It should be noted that his claim that fellow pitcher John Smoltz got inducted and he didn't because Smoltz is a Democrat is not only sour grapes by completely inaccurate. I can say with absolute certainty that Smoltz is in fact a Republican and even been courted by local Republicans to run for political office.


      ETA: The percentage of those voting to induct Schilling into the Hall of Fame actually climbed 10 points this year over last so that pretty much falsifies his claim that his recent outspoken remarks have harmed him.
      But I think you are addressing an important point here. For what seems like most people, political orientation is the only relevant "merit" in the minds of others. One need only read through many of these threads, even those without Jorge, to notice that no fact can be objective enough to avoid being a political tool. Don't think there's global warming? Ah, it's a conspiracy of liberal scientists to get taxpayer money and push liberal policies. Are you bothered by the spate of shootings of unarmed black males? It's because liberals love thugs and hate cops.

      I think Schilling will eventually get into the Hall, and he probably deserves it. But how about McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, or Rose? I wonder if the voters will come to see things as the public is - that without these people, there IS no hall of fame.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        This book was something he wrote for church and was not something Cochran was espousing at work as some sort of policy. So he was fired because of expressing his religious beliefs.
        Can we say 'lawsuit is in their near future'?
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          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.
          In other words, Square Peg seems to think it's ok to strip people of their rights, if they are public employees, because they are not allowed to express an opinion that disagrees with the accepted doctrine. By that insane logic, guess public employees can't hold a religious belief because they might offend people. Do you ever think before you hit the 'submit post' button? Now, let me save you the trouble of your rants about me 'misreading you' and 'misquoting you' to give you precise quote where you say the above:

          "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."

          So what? Since when does that give the city the right to strip people of their first amendment rights because somebody might feel uncomfortable? Does that mean if an atheist is an employee, that nobody can express religious views because it might make the atheist guy uncomfortable? Sorry, but this is clearly absurd. Holding a position, within the government, does not give the government the right to strip you of your rights of freedom of speech. No matter how unpopular your speech is.
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
            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.
            Are you an idiot, a jackass or both?
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              Are you an idiot, a jackass or both?
              He just wants people stripped of their rights that dare disagree with him.
              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                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.
                Stil playing the fool.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by lilpixieoferror View Post
                  In other words, Square Peg seems to think it's ok to strip people of their rights, if they are public employees, because they are not allowed to express an opinion that disagrees with the accepted doctrine.
                  Or, to put it more honestly, he thinks public employees who embarrass politicians who happen to be their bosses, aren't going to be employed for very long.

                  Cochran was most certainly NOT "stripped of his first amendment rights". He can publish all he wants. He can also find a line of work where what he publishes does not undermine the stated policies of his boss. Doing so demonstrates very questionable judgment. And by golly, Reed says Cochran's judgment is questionable. Imagine that.

                  You seem to be saying that the right to free speech IS the right to hold a particular job. Sorry, there is no right to any particular job. Free speech is still free.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by phank View Post
                    You seem to be saying that the right to free speech IS the right to hold a particular job. Sorry, there is no right to any particular job. Free speech is still free.
                    You don't mind if a politician fires government employees for being gay then?
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      Stil playing the fool.
                      Sorry, but firstfloor is quite right. If you anger your boss and undermine his public policies, AND both of you are in the public eye, your job is history. But just like everyone else here playing the fool, you think the right to a job is somehow absolute. Alas, it's not. Not even for those who share your prejudices and start bellowing about religious discrimination and constitutional rights when they screw up.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        You don't mind if a politician fires government employees for being gay then?
                        If it's an "at will" organization, no reason need be provided at all. Perhaps IF (1) There is a statute expressly forbidding this; and (2) It can be demonstrated that this statute was violated, then a court may rule against it. Otherwise, I don't mind.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by phank View Post
                          Or, to put it more honestly, he thinks public employees who embarrass politicians who happen to be their bosses, aren't going to be employed for very long.
                          Sorry phank, but the mayor has no right to tell his employees what they can and can't say, as long as they don't say it in an official capacity. I know you like defending this sort of nonsense, but reverse the rolls. If the mayor was 'embarrassed' by the comments of an atheist city employee, should he be allowed to fire them for holding those views or do people have a right to hold to whatever unpopular opinion they hold to, as long as it isn't linked up to the official capacity of their office? I personally think the first amendment trumps how 'embarrassed' a politician is. Silly me, for assuming people still had first amendment rights.

                          Cochran was most certainly NOT "stripped of his first amendment rights". He can publish all he wants. He can also find a line of work where what he publishes does not undermine the stated policies of his boss. Doing so demonstrates very questionable judgment. And by golly, Reed says Cochran's judgment is questionable. Imagine that.
                          So phank says he should shut up and not write what he feels. Nice, again, only people who agree with phank are allowed to publicly express their views. Dissonance should be silenced. Got it. Go ahead phank, name a single law that Cochran broke and name a single actual reason why he shouldn't be allowed to publicly express his views. I might add, I would hold this view even if Cochran was an anti Christian and wrote a book that he believers Christians are holding to ancient myths or whatever he felt about any group of people. This is the US, not the USSR. He's allowed to publicly state whatever view he holds to, as so long as he does this as a citizen and not a public official.

                          You seem to be saying that the right to free speech IS the right to hold a particular job. Sorry, there is no right to any particular job. Free speech is still free.
                          So you wouldn't have a problem, if your employer said you couldn't post anti Christian post online and if he caught you, he can fire you. So you argue that your employer has the right to tell you what you can and can't say, in your private life and hold your job as ransom if you don't comply. Funny, I thought black mail was illegal, guess it isn't illegal to phank. So you'd support your employer holding your job as ransom, to make you say and do whatever they want. Understood.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by phank View Post
                            Sorry, but firstfloor is quite right. If you anger your boss and undermine his public policies, AND both of you are in the public eye, your job is history. But just like everyone else here playing the fool, you think the right to a job is somehow absolute. Alas, it's not. Not even for those who share your prejudices and start bellowing about religious discrimination and constitutional rights when they screw up.
                            So phank is in support of your employer holding your job as ransom and firing you, for saying things they disapprove of. So you wouldn't have a problem, with your employer saying that you have to support YEC views and if you don't, he will fire you for 'embarrassing him'. Glad to see you support blackmail and the right for freedom of speech to be stripped of people who disagree.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by lilpixieoferror View Post
                              So phank is in support of your employer holding your job as ransom and firing you, for saying things they disapprove of.
                              Reed says Cochran was instructed not to do so. You forgot this. But otherwise, you're right. Anyone's job is hostage to good behavior as well as good performance.

                              So you wouldn't have a problem, with your employer saying that you have to support YEC views and if you don't, he will fire you for 'embarrassing him'. Glad to see you support blackmail and the right for freedom of speech to be stripped of people who disagree.
                              If I were willing to work for such an employer, I would at least have enough sense to keep quiet about my religious views.

                              But it's good to see you come right out and say that waving a religious shield around should protect poor employees from consequences. Oh, only if they agree with you, of course.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by phank View Post
                                Reed says Cochran was instructed not to do so. You forgot this. But otherwise, you're right. Anyone's job is hostage to good behavior as well as good performance.
                                Here is from the article that Sparko quoted:

                                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


                                Try again or do you still support the idea that your employer has total control over you and anything you say? He got permission and unless you can prove the above is a lie, wrong, or didn't happen as we are told, what reason do you have not to trust the above? Besides, Reed is likely trying to save face from what might end up being a legal action against him. He reacted, before he thought, and it appears to me he's trying to cover his rear. If a case does come to trial, we'll see what version of events is true, huh?

                                If I were willing to work for such an employer, I would at least have enough sense to keep quiet about my religious views.
                                I guess you have no spine, but blackmail is illegal. I'm pretty sure that holding your job as ransom and saying that you can't hold a private view or else you get fired is not legal.

                                But it's good to see you come right out and say that waving a religious shield around should protect poor employees from consequences. Oh, only if they agree with you, of course.
                                Never said that, but I guess when you're too stupid to refute what a person wrote, I guess making up things people say is the easy position. Sorry, but you're wrong and very wrong, at that. Do you have any evidence that the fire chief is a 'poor employee' nope, you made that assertion up too because you can't deal with the facts given. I'm glad you admit that you support criminal acts of black mail; it really reveals your character and the fact you lack a spine to stand up for what you believe in. Sorry, but I don't think your employer has the right to blackmail you with threats like, "If you 'embarrass me' for holding views I disapprove of, I'll fire you for it." I guess if they wanted to have sex with female employees and held their job up as ransom, you're attitude wouldn't change there either? Gosh, what a lovely system you support, where employers are allowed to hold your job as ransom and make you into their puppet. Yet you say I'm the stupid one. Finally, do you have problem with basic reading? Here is what I actually said:

                                " I might add, I would hold this view even if Cochran was an anti Christian and wrote a book that he believers Christians are holding to ancient myths or whatever he felt about any group of people."

                                Oops, so you either didn't read what I said or did and just misrepresented me. How nice, so what one is it? Did you lie, are you too stupid to read what people plainly say, or is it a little of both?

                                Keep digging because anything is better than admitting you're wrong.
                                Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-08-2015, 09:03 PM.
                                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                382 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X