• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

'cept Whites.

When was the last time a hate crime [formally charged] was committed against a White person?

Ferguson
 
[emphasis added by bubba]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/god-gays-and-the-atlanta-fire-department.html?_r=0
finally it appears we have identified why the fire chief was terminated: "dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits"
before i get into this let's also observe what the fire chief was NOT terminated for doing: "the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians"
this is a very important distinction. there is NO evidence that the fire chief acted in any discriminatory manner. however, he was fired because he could have exposed "the city to possible discrimination lawsuits". but we now know that he did not so so. once again, there is NO evidence that the fire chief discriminated against any of his staff. but he was terminated because he might. how just is that as a basis of termination?
let's go to the issue that he failed to get approval for writing this book. the fire chief insists he cleared it with the ethics official and the ethics official does not say he did not. however, the mayor now objects insisting that the fire chief failed to seek and obtain the mayor's approval. now, why would the fire chief, after obtaining the OK from the designated ethics official, feel the need to pursue this matter at a higher level?
and while the city of atlanta placed the fire chief on suspension it forbade him from commenting publicly about the matter. a matter he did discuss while in his church, while not having received any compensation from the city. so, it is OK to withhold one's salary but then tell them that they cannot discuss a matter that impacts them. and yet there are those who will still insist this is not a first amendment matter, where the city of atlanta believes it can deprive a citizen of free speech and then terminate him for exercising that right
personally, i abhor the position the fire chief took in his book. but i similarly dislike those who tout their pro-life viewpoints to the detriment of personal choice. i don't like it when trim managers express a dissatisfaction with those who allow themselves to be out of shape. but this is not about what i or anyone else likes or dislikes about one's personal opinions. one's actual performance should be determinant about how the employee comported him/herself on the job. and as was shown above, in no way has the fire chief acted in a discriminatory fashion, despite what he has written
here is the mayor's expectation: [this case is] about making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against
and we find that NO one was actually discriminated against. that's the fact of the matter. but how realistic is the mayor in expecting no employee should be "without fear of being discriminated against". we cannot control an employee's fearfulness. the mayor's expressed expectation is an unreasonable one. one that should not result in the termination of a fire chief who, after investigation, was found to have not engaged in discrimination
this is a bogus termination

"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.

And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)

We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.
 
No, actually not. As I told WHC, he decided to make his beliefs a work issue, and that's what's at heart here. Now, if you told me that one of his employees followed him after work to his church where they recited anti-gay statements, and then reported back to the Mayor's office thus getting the chief fired, then that would certainly be different (and would open an entirely separate can of worms best left for another thread*). But as the Chief he brought his beliefs into the workplace and made it a departmental issue. So, to recap...

1. He was not fired for his beliefs, he was fired for making his beliefs a workplace issue.
2. He was not arrested for stating his beliefs, thus his first amendment rights were not infringed.

I doubt you have the vaguest idea whether his First Amendment rights were violated. If you think you do, please cite the case law that supports your claim.

I detest even more that it must still be said. People who believe that free speech has no exceptions would probably be surprised to learn about laws against libel and slander. But then, you'll notice how often that speaking out against [fill in undesirable demographic here] is protected by the first amendment, yet criticizing that person's belief is suddenly no longer free speech, but rather "infringing on that person's freedom of speech." Convenient that, no?

You're right that the First Amendment doesn't protect defamatory speech. Doesn't protect obscenity either, or "fighting words," or, as you suggest, speech that creates a clear and present danger of lawless action.

But since when is criticizing a person's belief "suddenly no longer free speech?" What on earth are you talking about?

Sexual orientation is protected under the EEOC. But since you brought it up, if the Chief had handed out books condemning black people or Jews this thread would have ended on page three.

An administrative rule doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates something in the Constitution. And your hyperbole is pretty transparent. The speech quoted from the booklet did not even come close to "condemning" homosexuals as persons. It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.

a school teacher who made a pornography video on her own time, some parents found out about it (wonder how they did that?), and the teacher got fired.

What of it? Teachers, especially ones involved with young children, have moral responsibilities that might not apply in other jobs. If she had casually joked to parents at a parent-teacher meeting about the bestiality parties she hosted at her house, should they just have shrugged it off because it took place on her own time? How about if she belonged to some cult that tortured small animals to death for fun on weekends? What if a third-grade teacher had mentioned having sex with young boys on his NAMBLA camping trips? What the hell says parents have to tolerate degenerates teaching their kids?
i
 
Who was the White person the hate crime was committed against?

The officer.

Perpetrated by much of society, esp. the media and black spokes people.

He wasnt convicted but his life is ruined.
 
The officer.

Perpetrated by much of society, esp. the media and black spokes people.

He wasnt convicted but his life is ruined.

I agree but, the guilty will never be brought to justice.
 
"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.

And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)

We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.

yep
once again its just common sense this guy was fired, i dont understand how the guy was THAT dumb
anybody that would do this and not expect there to be consequences including being fired is an idiot
 
"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.
i don't disagree with you one iota
but here is the point
you terminate someone for the wrong doing he actually committed
NOT for that which he might commit

And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)

We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.
what that NYT board editorial tells us is that the investigation revealed NO instance of discrimination by the fire chief
because he published his views, if he actually engages in discriminatory behavior - as you noted above - his own words will reveal that his discriminatory actions were consistent with his discriminatory views
but we don't have that. there are no discriminatory actions
because nothing other than his publication indicates a personal bias. one not evident in the work place. he has not acted on his personal bias
it's a bogus termination
i hope he takes it to the courts for a jury of his peers to decide whether this was a justifiable termination action
 
i don't disagree with you one iota
but here is the point
you terminate someone for the wrong doing he actually committed
NOT for that which he might commit

Having worked for an HR dept, I can tell you that is wrong.

For example: People can be fired for sexual harassment. Did they attack someone? Force themselves on someone? No, but the implied threat thru their words is actionable.

People can also be fired for creating a 'hostile work environment.' In 'at will' work states, people can be fired for being assholes, period.
 
An administrative rule doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates something in the Constitution. And your hyperbole is pretty transparent. The speech quoted from the booklet did not even come close to "condemning" homosexuals as persons. It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.

It looks to me like the main core of your issue is a beef with gays in general than about any supposed infringement of the first amendment. But understand that just because you happen to agree with a particular bigoted sentiment doesn't mean that creating a hostile workplace environment is acceptable. It just means that it's your accepted bigoted sentiment.
 
It looks to me like the main core of your issue is a beef with gays in general than about any supposed infringement of the first amendment. But understand that just because you happen to agree with a particular bigoted sentiment doesn't mean that creating a hostile workplace environment is acceptable. It just means that it's your accepted bigoted sentiment.

For all anyone here knows, it is your sentiments that are bigoted, rather than mine. And what some stranger on the internet imagines about my personal motives does not interest me. I am damn sick and tired of seeing people make offensive suggestions about the motives of anyone who dares disagree with them. That is weak stuff, and it has become standard procedure for many people who call themselves--ironically--"liberals." They are in fact the very opposite. A true liberal understands that if we want to keep this a free country, it is exactly the most repugnant speech that must be defended most strongly.

That is exactly why the people who fought hardest forty years ago for the right of a group of Nazi goofballs to march through a town full of concentration camp survivors, in uniform, with swaztikas--and fought for it all the way to the Supreme Court as a matter of freedom of speech--were Jewish lawyers. We are not living in a kindergarten with some sweet young woman setting the rules, but in a hard world where people have strong feelings, and voice them loud and clear. The notion that no speech can be tolerated if it bruises someone's precious feelings is for crybabies with a penchant for political correctness, usually accompanied by a dictatorial streak. Hardly surprising these same weak sisters tend to have a taste for totalitarian government.

Understand that just because you are holding out the crying towel out for a currently fashionable grievance group--unlike you, I won't ascribe a motive to you for doing that--it doesn't mean it's acceptable to violate any American's constitutional rights. There is not enough case law on the issue of speech in the workplace involved here for anyone to know for sure if the dismissal of this fire chief violated any of his First Amendment rights--but as a lawyer, I'm sure it is quite possible. The mere fact an administrative agency publishes a rule does not make that rule constitutional as applied. Many hundreds of rules and laws, both state and federal, if not thousands, have been struck down as unconstitutional, either on their face or as applied.
 
For all anyone here knows, it is your sentiments that are bigoted, rather than mine.

For all anyone here knows, they'd need merely read your words:

It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.

That's bigoted. Oh, I know you don't think it's bigoted because it's the object of your distaste, but in actuality that's still bigotry. And just because you think this makes it acceptable to create a hostile workplace for them, that doesn't mean you really can.
 
Back
Top Bottom