Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Sparko]

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.

1. Nobody has the right to "not be offended" by something. But Cochran does have the right to express his beliefs in a private publication as long as he doesn't make it official government policy. Which you admit he hasn't.

2. Reed says he is a Methodist. So why does he act surprised at what Cochran believes about homosexuality as a Christian? Christians have never kept it secret and have denounced homosexual acts for 2000 years based upon the bible. Yet all of a sudden people are acting like it is something new, like the plague or something, when a Christian says homosexual behavior is sinful.

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,...

1 Tim 1:10 ...the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,...

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


And as I said above, Adultery and other sexual sins, liars, etc, are all in the same category. Nobody would dare claim that believing adultery is wrong should be fired. Nor would they be accusing Cochran of discrimination if he wrote that adultery is wrong in a privately published book and didn't distribute it or make it official policy. Yet the fact that they are doing it for homosexuality shows that it IS about the gay lobby and trying to control someone's religious beliefs despite the constitutional protections we all have.

I am betting that if he sues Atlanta and the Mayor, he will win.

[Sparko]

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.

He gave out a few copies to friends who he already had a Christian relationship with. Like if I wrote a book and gave a copy to my co-worker who I go to church with. He did not just hand out copies of his book to anyone, or "distribute" them. Stop making up stuff square_peg or get the hell out of my thread.

[Sparko]

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.

My god. do you even have a job?

Even "at will" organizations can't fire someone for protected reasons, like religion, race, or creed. Now, being "gay" isn't a protected category in most places, but religion is. And the government isn't an "at will" organization either.

The utter stupidity expressed by some people in this thread (like you and firstfloor) completely astounds me.

[fm93]

1. Nobody has the right to "not be offended" by something. But Cochran does have the right to express his beliefs in a private publication as long as he doesn't make it official government policy. Which you admit he hasn't.

Already answered.

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."

Yes, it was in a private publication, but he did give it to people in the workplace, and the contents were ultimately made public. It's a moot point.

2. Reed says he is a Methodist. So why does he act surprised at what Cochran believes about homosexuality as a Christian? Christians have never kept it secret and have denounced homosexual acts for 2000 years based upon the bible. Yet all of a sudden people are acting like it is something new, like the plague or something, when a Christian says homosexual behavior is sinful.

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,...

1 Tim 1:10 ...the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,...

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Answered above.

He gave out a few copies to friends who he already had a Christian relationship with. Like if I wrote a book and gave a copy to my co-worker who I go to church with. He did not just hand out copies of his book to anyone, or "distribute" them. Stop making up stuff square_peg or get the hell out of my thread.

What the heck? Giving out copies is the same thing as distributing them. And the fact that he gave them to friends doesn't change the fact that he was still doing so in the workplace. There is nothing being made up here.

[firstfloor]

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

That’s a bit slippery if you ask me. A rhetorical question is making a point in an argument. But I suppose it does spice things up a bit.

[firstfloor]

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?

Particularly if you get caught. Yeah, but okay, I will for the moment most reluctantly accept that adultery is wrong, or at least I wouldn’t want it done to me even though I can see the upside were it the other way about. This is trickier than it looks.

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.

If he wrote a book saying that water is wet, no one would complain because it is not controversial in the least. The sensitivity of the subject matter to people outside his religious circle is a significant part of the problem. Public officials have to represent everybody.

[Mountain Man]

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

Given Mayor Reed's conduct, I don't think his claims are worth very much.

[Jedidiah]

There is some truth to what you say, but sometimes extreme stupidity or intentional obtuseness get the better of me.

[Sparko]

1. Nobody has the right to "not be offended" by something. But Cochran does have the right to express his beliefs in a private publication as long as he doesn't make it official government policy. Which you admit he hasn't.

Already answered.

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."

wrong. it was not in an inflammatory manner and even if it was, that has nothing to do with it. The first amendment doesn't just protect nice religious expression, but all religious expression. And you obviously are new to the workforce or you have never held a job either. Because you can't fire someone because of their religious beliefs. Now if he instigated a policy of firing anyone who was not Christian or who was gay, then they had a right to fire him. He did not do that.

Yes, it was in a private publication, but he did give it to people in the workplace, and the contents were ultimately made public. It's a moot point.

He gave it to friends at work who already were his Christian peers. Apparently they asked him for it. No different from me giving the guy who works next to me a Christian book since I know he is a Christian and shares my beliefs. He did not give it to everyone or make it available to everyone at work. He gave a copy to the mayor and that is how it became "public" - but he was only doing what was right, letting his boss have a copy. It was not meant to be distributed. If it was, then it was the mayor who distributed it.

2. Reed says he is a Methodist. So why does he act surprised at what Cochran believes about homosexuality as a Christian? Christians have never kept it secret and have denounced homosexual acts for 2000 years based upon the bible. Yet all of a sudden people are acting like it is something new, like the plague or something, when a Christian says homosexual behavior is sinful.

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,...

1 Tim 1:10 ...the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,...

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Answered above.

Bull crap. utter bull crap. which is all that ever comes out of your posts. The mayor can't claim that this was news or that the fire chief was acting unchristian, or different than any christian in the last 2000 years. No big revelation. And the mayor has no right to even claim that Cochran's beliefs are wrong and fire him for them. Cochran, as has been stated over and over, got permission to write the book, published it privately, did not distribute it to everyone at work, and did not institute any work policies based on his beliefs. There is nothing to suggest he had been anything but fair and undiscriminate toward all of his employees, whether Christian or not, or straight or gay. He even said he didn't have any idea of who was gay in the work force.

He gave out a few copies to friends who he already had a Christian relationship with. Like if I wrote a book and gave a copy to my co-worker who I go to church with. He did not just hand out copies of his book to anyone, or "distribute" them. Stop making up stuff square_peg or get the hell out of my thread.

What the heck? Giving out copies is the same thing as distributing them. And the fact that he gave them to friends doesn't change the fact that he was still doing so in the workplace. There is nothing being made up here.

see above. Giving out religious literature to fellow adherents of said religion who ask for it is not "distributing" it in the way you meant it. He was not passing out his book to everyone or even asking anyone to read it.

[phank]

wrong. it was not in an inflammatory manner and even if it was, that has nothing to do with it. The first amendment doesn't just protect nice religious expression, but all religious expression. And you obviously are new to the workforce or you have never held a job either. Because you can't fire someone because of their religious beliefs. Now if he instigated a policy of firing anyone who was not Christian or who was gay, then they had a right to fire him. He did not do that.

I think what we're looking at here is a judgment call on the part of both Reed and Cochran. I'm reminded of Dave Barry's distinction between men and women. Asked if it's OK to take the toboggan off the ski jump, women asked if they should do this - that is, if it's a good idea. Men asked if they CAN do it - that is, if it's possible and legal. In this case, certainly Cochran CAN do what he did. Does that reflect good judgment? Apparently Reed was known to be disapproving. Reed is the boss. Does that matter?

Reed, a politician, was concerned that the book would reflect poorly on the administration. He didn't need to be a political genius to predict that the LGBT community would paint Cochran as a raving bigot being protected by the Atlanta good old boy system. It was a matter of "I don't think the ranger's gonna like this, Yogi." What Cochran went ahead and did was not illegal, it didn't even violate any written guidelines. But it was clearly a foolish thing to do anyway, and Reed can't afford to be seen protecting fools.

Are politicians too sensitive? I think it comes with the territory. Obama can't even play golf without being attacked. Attacks that can easily be avoided, are probably best to avoid.

[Mountain Man]

The first amendment doesn't just protect nice religious expression, but all religious expression.

As someone once said, offensive speech is protected speech by definition because polite speech needs no protection.

[firstfloor]

There is some truth to what you say, but sometimes extreme stupidity or intentional obtuseness get the better of me.

If we all agreed on everything the world would be silent. Instead we have wonderful frustration, alarm, pity, anger, enmity and all the other emotions of vigorous debate. This is highly desirable in my view. I wish that you would accept that I am playing with a straight bat and take some amount of misunderstanding in both directions as unavoidable. That’s what I am learning to do.

Stupidity would be an interesting thread topic by itself because I am pretty sure that posters here are not stupid. So what’s going on?

[Sparko]

As someone once said, offensive speech is protected speech by definition because polite speech needs no protection.

exactly.

[Sparko]

Stupidity would be an interesting thread topic by itself because I am pretty sure that posters here are not stupid. So what’s going on?

In your case? Trolling.

[Mountain Man]

Stupidity would be an interesting thread topic by itself because I am pretty sure that posters here are not stupid.

I'm willing to grant you an exception.