Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[fm93]

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.

Having freedom of speech means the authorities can't prosecute or incarcerate you for saying something, not that you're immune to being fired if your employer believes that you've represented the organization in a bad/detrimental light. He's not being arrested for publishing this book, nor is he being forbidden to publish such books, so no, he isn't having freedom of speech stripped away.

Additionally, if you had ACTUALLY read the post carefully, instead of merely focusing on one part and ranting about "insane logic" when it's apparent that you don't actually understand the logic involved, you might've noticed that I said one of the problems was that he distributed the book in the workplace. Of course he can hold a religious belief privately; however, that's clearly different from expressing it in the workplace in a manner that could legitimately create a hostile work environment. You can believe traditional religious teachings about homosexuality without being inflammatory and grouping it with bestiality and pederasty...which I also said in that post that you quoted. It's not his religious belief itself that got him in trouble, but the way in which he expressed it.

And again, as I also mentioned, Mayor Reed himself has claimed to be a Christian, which makes it even more unlikely, per Sparko's declaration in the thread title, that Cochran was fired for being Christian.

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.

Thank you. Yes, this is correct. I remain amazed at how yet another person accurately understands my posts despite lilpixieofterror's constant insistence that I'm actually the one making things unclear.

[One Bad Pig]

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

For what it's worth,

[Teallaura]

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.

In that case he is setting policy - assuming no one higher up the food chain stops him, then yes, it is (probably) an official act and unconstitutional. However, it's because the policy is unconstitutional - not because of Bob's belief system.

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?

Eh, close. Calling X a religion doesn't make it so. The courts are loathe to deal with this but even they recognize that not everything claiming religious exemption has the right to it and 'creating your own church' does not count as a valid religion without some sincerity of belief at the very least.

[Teallaura]

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.

Non-issue unless they had a workplace policy that employees cannot give things away. As long as he was on break and didn't use force or intimidation to make people take the things there is zero problem with this.

[Teallaura]

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.

A fire chief is usually a merit employee.

[lilpixieofterror]

Having freedom of speech means the authorities can't prosecute or incarcerate you for saying something, not that you're immune to being fired if your employer believes that you've represented the organization in a bad/detrimental light. He's not being arrested for publishing this book, nor is he being forbidden to publish such books, so no, he isn't having freedom of speech stripped away.

So you too believe that your employer can hold your job as ransom, if you say things that go against the party line they hold to? So I take it that you wouldn't have a problem with your employer saying you can't say some things here on tWeb because it might 'embarrass' them and they can fire you for saying somethings that go against what they say you can say. You support blackmail now and the right for your employer to hold your job above your head, to make you say/do things that they approve of? Nice because last I checked, holding something above your head and using it as a threat, for you to do what they say, was blackmail and that is pretty much considered universally wrong and even illegal. Glad to see where your true views sit.

Additionally, if you had ACTUALLY read the post carefully, instead of merely focusing on one part and ranting about "insane logic" when it's apparent that you don't actually understand the logic involved, you might've noticed that I said one of the problems was that he distributed the book in the workplace. Of course he can hold a religious belief privately; however, that's clearly different from expressing it in the workplace in a manner that could legitimately create a hostile work environment. You can believe traditional religious teachings about homosexuality without being inflammatory and grouping it with bestiality and pederasty...which I also said in that post that you quoted. It's not his religious belief itself that got him in trouble, but the way in which he expressed it.

Here in reality land (you know, that place you don't live), most of us in the work place tend to become pretty close because of how much time we spend together. Do you know how much time a firehouse crew spends together? They likely see one another more than they see their own family. I know how this works because the military family can become rather close nit because of the common bonds you share with your fellow military members (they have to trust one another, with their own lives). When you spend 10+ years with somebody, you tend to develop some pretty close bonds with them. What is my point here? Likely, his 'distributing' was to people who expressed interest in his book and wanted a copy for themselves, so he brought them a copy because they wanted to read it for themselves and this exchange likely occurred at work. I do this all the time, with my buddies at work with all sorts of objects. We borrow books, movies, games, etc from one another all the time and happen to trade them at work because that is where we see each other the most. So instead of trying to demonize those who dare not to pull your party line, why don't you look at the reality of the situation? Likely, he was giving copies of his book to people who expressed interest in his book and wanted a copy for themselves. An perfectly innocent thing I've done dozens of times with dozens of different objects, but it somehow becomes 'wrong' when the subject is somebody dares to disagree with what Square_Peg deems as being 'alright' to distribute and seeks any excuse he can to see the worst in others. So much for that grace and compassion that you claim to uphold, eh? Why do you want to see evil intentions, in something that likely is an innocent as giving stuff to your close friends, that become almost like family?

And again, as I also mentioned, Mayor Reed himself has claimed to be a Christian, which makes it even more unlikely, per Sparko's declaration in the thread title, that Cochran was fired for being Christian.

And I said anything about that, where at? Sorry, but if you want to argue the thread title, argue it with Sparko, not me. I just care about the logic of the idea that your employer can tell you what you can say or not say and hold your job over your head to ensure compliance. Something you and Phank, seem to support. Would you support this behavior, if your employer decided to say what you can and can't post, on tWeb, even if what you say here has nothing to do with your work?

Thank you. Yes, this is correct. I remain amazed at how yet another person accurately understands my posts despite lilpixieofterror's constant insistence that I'm actually the one making things unclear.

Got to give that praise to people who agree with you eh? Sorry SP, but this your logic at work, not my fault you don't think before you post.

[fm93]

So you too believe that your employer can hold your job as ransom, if you say things that go against the party line they hold to? So I take it that you wouldn't have a problem with your employer saying you can't say some things here on tWeb because it might 'embarrass' them and they can fire you for saying somethings that go against what they say you can say. You support blackmail now and the right for your employer to hold your job above your head, to make you say/do things that they approve of? Nice because last I checked, holding something above your head and using it as a threat, for you to do what they say, was blackmail and that is pretty much considered universally wrong and even illegal. Glad to see where your true views sit.

For the final time, the problem is that he expressed his beliefs in an inflammatory (and gratuitous) manner, not that he simply had beliefs or stated them. Believing traditional teachings about homosexuality doesn't require one to go linking it to bestiality and pederasty. Portraying this as "employers holding your job as ransom" is disingenuous. It's not "If you make any statements about your Christian beliefs, we'll fire you," but rather "If you make statements in an inflammatory manner that creates a hostile work environment, regardless of whether it pertains to your religious beliefs, you're being detrimental to the company (not to mention unnecessarily reflecting badly upon it), and because we have to remove detrimental forces from our company to keep it running smoothly, firing you may be an option that we have to take."

Here in blah blah blabbity blah, most of us in the work place tend to become pretty close because of how much time we spend together. Do you know how much time a firehouse crew spends together? They likely see one another more than they see their own family. I know how this works because the military family can become rather close nit because of the common bonds you share with your fellow military members (they have to trust one another, with their own lives). When you spend 10+ years with somebody, you tend to develop some pretty close bonds with them. What is my point here? Likely, his 'distributing' was to people who expressed interest in his book and wanted a copy for themselves, so he brought them a copy because they wanted to read it for themselves and this exchange likely occurred at work. I do this all the time, with my buddies at work with all sorts of objects. We borrow books, movies, games, etc from one another all the time and happen to trade them at work because that is where we see each other the most.

Oh my goodness, I technically already addressed this too, when I said "Yes, he allegedly distributed this to Christian friends, but it was still in the workplace and the book has been made public now, so that point is moot."

So instead of trying to demonize those who dare not to pull your party line, why don't you look at the reality of the situation? Likely, he was giving copies of his book to people who expressed interest in his book and wanted a copy for themselves. An perfectly innocent thing I've done dozens of times with dozens of different objects, but it somehow becomes 'wrong' when the subject is somebody dares to disagree with what Square_Peg deems as being 'alright' to distribute and seeks any excuse he can to see the worst in others. So much for that grace and compassion that you claim to uphold, eh? Why do you want to see evil intentions, in something that likely is an innocent as giving stuff to your close friends, that become almost like family?

"Seeing evil intentions?" Good God, I explicitly stated in my post that "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 is the exact opposite of "seeing evil intentions."

Would you support this behavior, if your employer decided to say what you can and can't post, on tWeb, even if what you say here has nothing to do with your work?

Of course not, and it's irrelevant because that's not at all what happened here. Obviously an employer can't fire me for what I say off-duty about my religious beliefs in a private forum, but if I got on TWeb and made inflammatory statements about my boss (such as comparing him/her to someone who has sex with animals and children), co-workers and the company that were later made public, it would be entirely within his/her right to fire me, because I would've cast the company in a bad light and created unnecessary discord leading to a hostile work environment. However, the employer could never have me arrested for saying such things, nor could the government take any action to prevent me from making inflammatory statements about a boss, co-workers or a company in the future. I'd always be free to say such things in such a manner, and employers would always be free to fire me for it if it causes hostile work environments.

Got to give that praise to people who agree with you eh? Sorry SP, but this your logic at work, not my fault you don't think before you post.

As has repeatedly been shown in this post and others, there is little reason to trust your judgment in assessing such matters.

[pancreasman]

I gotta back up square_peg here, I can't see any problem with anything he's posted and I think he's taking great pains to be even handed. Sure, disagree with him if you want, but it certainly doesn't merit some of the 'you're so stupid' type of responses he's getting.

Personally I don't think he should have been fired, HOWEVER, if he did hand out the book at work AND he acts in the capacity of a supervisor of those beneath him, I can see how this might create a problematic workplace. I think that's poor judgement on his part but not punishable by death.

[Epoetker]

but if I got on TWeb and made inflammatory statements about my boss (such as comparing him/her to someone who has sex with animals and children)

By what standard do you claim something is 'inflammatory'? Furries and NAMBLA would see such statements as neutral at worst and praiseworthy at (best?)

co-workers and the company that were later made public, it would be entirely within his/her right to fire me, because I would've cast the company in a bad light and created unnecessary discord leading to a hostile work environment.

Why are you appealing to the ultimate primacy of a businessman's independent judgment and freedom of action when the mandated existence of the Human Resources Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and its rules gives the lie to such a notion? Liberals have never defended a man's right to hire people to run his own business as he sees fit(look up Griggs v. Duke Power) the right to associate with whom one wishes in a professional capacity (look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and any right to independent human judgment, especially by white males (look up the entire history of feminist thought.)

The man got fired over something that would have been seen as completely innocuous by a majority of the citizenry and that no one was complaining about because the mayor wanted to remove an independent thinker, who may have been a threat to the power of him and his fellow oligarchs. Nothing else passes the smell test.

[firstfloor]

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

Have you counted the gay conservatives?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-le...b_3512857.html

[Darth Executor]

Have you counted the gay conservatives?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-le...b_3512857.html

They could all be conservative, they'd still be 2-3% of the population.

[firstfloor]

Are you an idiot, a jackass or both?

[firstfloor]

They could all be conservative, they'd still be 2-3% of the population.

True.

[Sparko]

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

Let's say he wrote a private book about how a man and woman should respect their marriage and not cheat on one another, and that adultery was wrong. I am sure even a liberal such as yourself will agree that adultery is wrong, eh?

Now as a leader of all those people, I am sure that some of them are cheating on their spouses. It's a common enough flaw. So using your own reasoning, he shouldn't say that adultery is bad, even in a privately published book, because it might offend some of his fire-fighters who are cheating on their spouses. I think even you will agree that would be a stupid reason to fire the guy. I don't think you would be arguing that he was discriminating against those who were committing adultery, would you?

Well, to a Christian, homosexual relationships is in the same category as adultery.

[One Bad Pig]

Surely, this is ad hominem.

He wasn't making an argument, so there's no fallacy involved. It's called a rhetorical question.