Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Psychic Missile]

Try logical incoherence - in this case, yours.

No, it isn't. So what? The only passages in the OT are Det and Lev, if memory serves.

The Bible is a buffet because books were chosen to be canon. If someone does not believe in what you call Biblical coherence, they are under no obligation to accept all the books of the Bible as reliable or true.

[Psychic Missile]

And that has what to do with anything? What rule says something needs to be mentioned several times, in order to be true? Did you make up that rule?

What rule says a Christian has to rely on Paul for the word of God?

[Darth Executor]

What rule says a Christian has to rely on Paul for the word of God?

Coherence.

[Cerebrum123]

It certainly appears to say that, yes. But nowhere does it include child molesters in there.

snip

Because "sexual immorality" doesn't include child molesters, right?

[lilpixieofterror]

What rule says a Christian has to rely on Paul for the word of God?

Do yourself a favor PM, step away from the keyboard. It might make you sound smarter, at this point.

[Psychic Missile]

Do yourself a favor PM, step away from the keyboard. It might make you sound smarter, at this point.

I see you are cowed by my wisdom. Good thing you memorialized it in your signature.

[lilpixieofterror]

I see you are cowed by my wisdom. Good thing you memorialized it in your signature.

You were being serious and not just trying to win a contest, by making the most absurd comment, you could think of? Wow... but Sorry PM, but it isn't anymore 'wisdom' than trying to tell sick people that they should 'just stop being sick'. Throwing out things you don't want to hear, is a terrible thing that leads to all sorts of absurd comments and beliefs. It isn't that hard to figure out, why your comments and silly:

1. Paul wrote most of the NT, many Christian understandings have a huge bases, in his writing. Thowing out his writing, would throw out a lot of things that are quite accepted and even are seen as being some of the best examples of writing there is.
2. Paul is accepted as an apostle, by every Christian branch, since well... the beginning of Christianity. His writings have been accepted cannon for 2,000 years now that was made into critical parts of both the Bible and Christian theological teachings.

So how could somebody say they are 'a Christian' when they want to just outright reject over 50% of the scriptures, just to hold onto what they want to believe? Just throw the whole thing out and call yourself something else because it sure isn't 'Christian' by any stretch.

[fm93]

You say things like:

"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."

Yet you accuse him of stuff you have zero evidence that he did.

What, pray tell, did I accuse him of without evidence? That he could've created a hostile work environment? It would seem like common sense that the gay employee(s) in the department would have a tough time feeling that a man who grouped them in with child molesters would treat them fairly. After all, most people do not enjoy being associated with such. Same applies to the city residents whom Cochran is supposed to represent and work for.

Did you say the above statement?

Obviously.

Do you think somebody should be fired for making inflammatory comments and creating a hostel work environment?

Should be? No. Can be? Yes.

Do you have any evidence that anything he said is anymore 'inflammatory' than the comments made by Paul?

I'm not sure how that really matters, but there is a degree of subjective interpretation for Reed and legal councils.

Do you have any evidence that he created a 'hostel work environment'?

I've explained that there's good reason to believe that he might've with those comments.

1. What law says you can't give material to people you work with, if they ask for it?
2. What Fire Dept policy was violated, for doing that?
3. What law says he couldn't write a book, expressing unpopular opinions?
4. What specific Fire Dept or city policy was violated, in him writing this book?

I have already answered these. Nothing was violated. What you seem to be missing is that it's not just an issue of Cochran's rights, but also of Mayor Reed's rights. Cochran is free to write whatever he wants, and if they're made public and Mayor Reed believes that they would have a detrimental effect on the workplace, Reed has the right to fire him. The Civil Rights Act allows for a caveat that an employer can discharge someone if he can demonstrate that he's unable to accommodate the individual's religious practices/beliefs with the conduct of the workplace.

I keep looking for these answers, but I don't find any of them.

I have repeatedly answered them throughout this thread.

I just get piles of assertions, unbacked claims, statements that people can't freely express their opinions, claims that your employer can hold your job for ransom to make you say/ do things they approve of, etc.

I have repeatedly explained why portraying it this way is not accurate.

[lilpixieofterror]

What, pray tell, did I accuse him of without evidence? That he could've created a hostile work environment? It would seem like common sense that the gay employee(s) in the department would have a tough time feeling that a man who grouped them in with child molesters would treat them fairly. After all, most people do not enjoy being associated with such. Same applies to the city residents whom Cochran is supposed to represent and work for.

Oh please, this has already been refuted before and is the same poor logic, that skeptics use to say the Bible says 'women are property' because it list out wives in the 'thou shall not covet' commandment. He no more 'compared them to child molesters' than he compared people caught up in adultery and fornication as being child molesters. If that is wrong, go ahead and prove it. Second, you show you've never been a supervisor and don't have a clue what you're talking about. I could count, on a single hand, the times I've been drunk and I refuse to do it now. If I wanted to get sick to my stomach, I could go and drink spoiled milk for far cheaper than buying cases of beer or bottles of boozes. Have I personally had subordinates, that do get drunk? Oh yeah, but your insane logic would say that I can't express my opinion on drinking because it might offend them and make them feel I am judging them unfairly (regardless of any evidence that I actually am)? Likewise, I've also had subordinates, that are atheist, by your insane logic, I can't go to church because they might feel that I would be unfair to them, for being atheist. Seriously SP, do you even think, before you make your absurd claims? Sorry, but how this one guy, 'might feel' (key word might, you have no evidence that he actually did) is neither grounds to strip people of their first amendment rights nor grounds to fire anybody. Again, evidence is what I want and you have absolutely none, but evidence doesn't matter to you, does it? Nope, only how people 'might feel offended' matters and therefore, others should be stripped of their first amendment rights because somebody might feel offended by an opinion they express. Showing how anti freedom, you really are, eh?

Obviously.

Good, now back it up or do you think that stripping people, of their first amendment rights, is ok because somebody might feel offended, if they are allowed to freely express their opinions? Since when did become a supervisor, mean you can't hold to private opinions? Where did you make that rule up at? Do you have evidence or just something you made up because you can't refute what was actually said?

Should be? No. Can be? Yes.

Why? Because the king has royally decreed that only things that meet the Square Peg Seal of Approval^TM are allowed and any other opinions, must be silenced. Since when did you become so anti freedom or does this happen when you accept the words of anti freedom, anti intellectual bigots that want to tell people what they can think, feel, believe, and say?

I'm not sure how that really matters, but there is a degree of subjective interpretation for Reed and legal councils.

You're the Christian, this is directed at you. Was his comments anymore 'inflammatory' than comments made by other figures, such as Paul?

I've explained that there's good reason to believe that he might've with those comments.

Key word, might, so the bottom line is that you have no evidence, but piles of assertions and nothing else. Sorry Mr Wanna be King, I go from evidence, not piles of assertions. Being a supervisor does not mean you can't have opinions and can't express them because your insane logic would say I can't go the church because I have an atheist subordinate and he might feel that I am going to judge him unfairly. Actual wrongdoings don't seem to matter to you, only what you THINK MIGHT of happened. Evidence, that is what I want, now give YOUR evidence or is YOUR evidence just more assertions and zero facts?

I have already answered these. Nothing was violated. What you seem to be missing is that it's not just an issue of Cochran's rights, but also of Mayor Reed's rights. Cochran is free to write whatever he wants, and if they're made public and Mayor Reed believes that they would have a detrimental effect on the workplace, Reed has the right to fire him. The Civil Rights Act allows for a caveat that an employer can discharge someone if he can demonstrate that he's unable to accommodate the individual's religious practices/beliefs with the conduct of the workplace.

And your EVIDENCE is? Oh that is right NONE, ZERO, ZIP, but evidence doesn't matter to the king, only what he THINKS MIGHT of happened, that he can't prove happened, can't show happened, and is unable to present a single piece of evidence to back up his demonized version of a man who dared to disagree with sacred doctrine. Second, the Civil Acts right actually protects your victim from religious discrimination, it doesn't protect gay people from feeling offended from what they THINK MIGHT OF HAPPENED. Bottom line, rights do not matter to and your anti freedom, anti intellectual, bigoted friends. All that matters is punishing people that dare step against doctrine. Thanks for showing why you're an idiot and why I treat you with the attitude you properly deserve.

I have repeatedly answered them throughout this thread.

No, you have stated your idiotic opinion, but you have not backed up a word of it with any facts. Do you think I'm too stupid to spot that 'might' is code speak for, "I don't have evidence, but it doesn't matter because I'm right and you're wrong, so nananananana!"? Now, show the FACTS and please give a single peice of ACTUAL evidence (IE not what you THINK somebody, MIGHT of felt like, but actual evidence) that your claims are true. This far, I have discovered:

1. You have zero evidence that you should be fired for saying 'inflammatory' things, but don't care because you're anti freedom anyway and what people stripped of their rights, for disagreeing with you.
2. You have idle speculation, about what you THINK MIGHT of happened, but no actual evidence that any 'hostel work environment' was created or even imagined as being created that you THINK, one person, MIGHT HAVE felt like, but you haven't even produced evidence of that either. Again though, it doesn't matter because idle speculation, is evidence and if you disagree, you're a bigot? Did I get that right or are you just going to accuse me of not 'reading what you said' or will you jump to your other defense that you're just 'repeating what other people are saying' and thus don't need to back up anything you say?
3. It's funny how my point that there is no law or policy against handing out religious material, to people who asked, actually exist has magically disappeared, without you acknowledging it or acknowledging that you're wrong. So what else will you try to sweep under the rug, from having to address/having to admit you're wrong about?

I have repeatedly explained why portraying it this way is not accurate.

No you haven't, you've made piles of assertions and try to pretend that your assertions, are evidence. Your own words bite you again:

"I've explained that there's good reason to believe that he might've with those comments."

Here is what the underlined word 'might' means (in this context):

(used to express possibility):

IE, possible, not actual facts. We are talking about a man's future here and his ability to provide for himself and his family (you know, that compassion thing you claim to hold to, well as so long as the object of your ire doesn't disagree with you too much), so we need FACTS not maybe and possible, but FACTS of any wrongdoings. The answer I keep finding is this... there is no evidence, at all, that any of the charges against him are actually true. Not a one. That doesn't matter though, he disagreed with set doctrine and will be punished for it by being bullied, lied about, demonized, fired, and thrown out on the streets like garbage; for daring to go against doctrine. Funny how your compassion goes out the window, for those who say things you disapprove of, huh? Congrads, you have become what you hate.

Edited to add: How about I review your two step dance, where you attempt to rewrite history into what makes you look best? Well, here I go:

You currently claims your position is:

"I've explained that there's good reason to believe that he might've with those comments."

Which is to say, that he might of (key term, pay attention to this word) created a 'hostel work environment.' Yet, in post 67, here is what you say:

"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."

Notice earlier, it was 'it did create a hostile work environment' to 'it might of' when challenged to back up yout claims. Oh no, let me guess:

1. I didn't read your post carefully and you always claimed 'might'.
2. You're repeating the words of what other people said and don't need to back up your subtle redefining of your position, without admitting your original position was wrong?

I enjoy watching you try subtlety (but an important difference, nonetheless) rephrase of your claims to something that you didn't say before, to make yourself look better. Do you think I'm not smart enough to remember what you previously said? Do you actually BELIEVE your claims that I don't carefully read your post? I have a very good memory of what I read and can almost repeat, things I've read, from memory, even if I only read the book once and over a decade ago. I did this just to make a point SP, I'm not an idiot and I do actually pay attention to what you say (despite your belief that I don't), so don't try to rewrite your words again. I do remember what you say and will likely remember it, next year.

[Psychic Missile]

You were being serious and not just trying to win a contest, by making the most absurd comment, you could think of? Wow... but Sorry PM, but it isn't anymore 'wisdom' than trying to tell sick people that they should 'just stop being sick'. Throwing out things you don't want to hear, is a terrible thing that leads to all sorts of absurd comments and beliefs. It isn't that hard to figure out, why your comments and silly:

1. Paul wrote most of the NT, many Christian understandings have a huge bases, in his writing. Thowing out his writing, would throw out a lot of things that are quite accepted and even are seen as being some of the best examples of writing there is.
2. Paul is accepted as an apostle, by every Christian branch, since well... the beginning of Christianity. His writings have been accepted cannon for 2,000 years now that was made into critical parts of both the Bible and Christian theological teachings.

So how could somebody say they are 'a Christian' when they want to just outright reject over 50% of the scriptures, just to hold onto what they want to believe? Just throw the whole thing out and call yourself something else because it sure isn't 'Christian' by any stretch.

It just depends on how you define "Christian". If you think Christians must believe that Paul's writings are exactly in line with the will of God, I think you're putting too much emphasis on a tertiary issue, not to mention excluding many early Christians who were born before the Bible was compiled.

[Sparko]

is allowed to if he genuinely believes and can make a case for it.


Backpedaling? You don't seem to understand what's going on. I specifically acknowledged that it was to his friends but that it was irrelevant. I never tried to retract a claim. I think this is just your go-to excuse whenever you're confused about something.


The mayor read it after other people brought it to his attention.


You ignored the second half of that quote, in which I specifically point out that people who do believe homosexuality is sinful don't have to group gay people in with child molesters. Performing an exegesis of certain Biblical passages is irrelevant to a thread in Civics, so I won't bother with that here.


This can equally apply to Mayor Reed's claim that he didn't know about the book and that Cochran didn't seek permission.

Would "child molesters" be included under "sexual offenders?"

I think that pretty much covers all sexual perversions. So yes, homosexual behavior is grouped with "child molesters" in the bible. As are liars, and adulterers, and those practicing bestiality, etc. They are all sexual sins and in the same "group"

Learn how to read.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So often non Christians use foolish arguments, like this confusing the OT ritual cleanliness with sin, that it is pathetic. If you don't know what you are talking about it is best not to say it.

You misunderstand me. Mountain Man said that homosexuality is clearly a sin because the Bible calls it an abomination. There are other things which the Bible calls an abomination, such as eating bacon, which Christians do not consider sinful. Therefore, the fact that the Bible calls something an abomination does not necessarily equate to that thing being sinful.

I am fully aware that some more sophisticated Christian theology attempts to separate the ritual laws which no longer apply from the moral laws which still apply. I was commenting specifically on Mountain Man's poor logic, and did not intend my statement to be an indictment upon all Christians who find homosexuality to be immoral.

[Teallaura]

Woke up with cold - on five hours sleep and I had stuff to do at church.

SL, I haven't read your post yet - I feel bad and am in a bad mood so I can't give it a fair reading. It may take me a while - a lot is going on right now - but I will come back to it and answer you.

[fm93]

Would "child molesters" be included under "sexual offenders?"

All child molesters are sexual offenders (in this case, I'm assuming you're using "offender" synonymously with "sinner"), but not all sexual offenders are child molesters. There is no necessary link between being gay and being a child molester. Hence, he doesn't have to mention them in the same group.

[Jedidiah]

All child molesters are sexual offenders (in this case, I'm assuming you're using "offender" synonymously with "sinner"), but not all sexual offenders are child molesters.

Not all liars are adulterers, and not all adulterers praactice bestiality yet these are all listed in the same list. Why a special handling for your special case?