• 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

blarg said:
I just don't know if its right for your boss to be handing out statements condemning your religion dose seems discriminatory
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen where he did it at work and who actually received them. I seriously doubt he would pass them out to people he thought would be offended.

BTW: the mayor office isn't talking about the details of the investigation.
 
Actually this action is good. It can be used as a precedent for future incidents. Future incidents such as members of religions such as Islam that are not content to just practice their religion but feel it is very rightful duty to convert everyone around them.
 
Fletch said:
Do you have evidence that that is what he was doing here?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm looking for. I'm seeing the use of "forcing religion on subordinates" without any evidence of that being the case. IMO him "forcing" his religion on his subordinates would involve requiring them to pray at work, participate in his church teachings while on the job, requiring them to live outside of work in the lifestyle he demands, requiring them to read religious materials on the job, requiring them to deny service to people he doesn't want served, etc. None of this happened.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It meant exactly what I said. No one is taking away his free speech - as long as he is not representing the city or giving the appearance of representing the city while doing it. Simple as that.

Put him in uniform and have him proselytize and it is an issue. At that point it can be construed that he represents the City of Atlanta. Allow him to do it at work or in a work related function and the city is in essence giving its approval, at least tacitly, for him to use the bully pulpit. That too is a no, no.



If his actions took place in uniform and/or at a work, or related event, the very fact that you are saying if no one complains the behavior OK is exactly what would encourage abuse! You are placing the burden on the employee to out themselves. That is often tantamount to professional suicide. The employee should not be placed in the position to begin with.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by your post. I'm not placing burdens on anyone. And I believe this is taking away his right to free speech. No action was required on the part of the people who received a copy of his book. I'm not aware of something that prohibits us from writing about our religious (or in my case, lack of religious) views and sharing them with co-workers. It doesn't say in any article I've read that he expected something in return, or that he imposed his views on people, or that he demanded or expected behavioral changes from these people. So what I see is a man sharing his published religious views with other people. That is, IMO, his First Amendment right.
 
AGENT J said:
i dont really understand how this is an issue, unless theres more to the story this is just common sense

if i go to work tomorrow and give some co workers copies of a book I wrote and in the book it says that i hate a gender, race, religion etc or that i think women, blacks or christians are vile dirty people guess what . . . . im getting fired LMAO

and thats not a violation of my religion or free speech in anyway whatsoever lol and saying otherwise is just dishonest

the chief seems to be a moron that wasnt thinking to clearly BUT like i said maybe theres more to the story maybe im missing something

I just know what would happened to me if i did the above and i would be fired and rightfully so, so i dont understand why anybody thinks this guy is different
Click to expand...

I'm a manager of a rather large team of people and have had to terminate employees in the past. I'm quite familiar with the rules I need to follow and I am not aware of any rule that would enable me terminate an employee for writing a book that contains views I disagree with. Please cite the HR law that would enable your employer to terminate you for writing a book.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Firing a good man for having written a book upholding decent moral values, in order to placate a whining bunch of immoral perverts, brings discredit on an organization.
Click to expand...

No but distributing it within his organization can be interpreted as representing the position of the organization and that could bring discredit to it. Personally, I think he should have been reprimanded rather than fired, depending, of course, on how well he did his job. The firing could have been a public statement designed to mask other motivations. One simply doesn't know.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm a manager of a rather large team of people and have had to terminate employees in the past. I'm quite familiar with the rules I need to follow and I am not aware of any rule that would enable me terminate an employee for writing a book that contains views I disagree with. Please cite the HR law that would enable your employer to terminate you for writing a book.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that your HR rules apply to everyone outside of your company? Perhaps the better question is why do you think there is any standard in employment agreements?
 
tacomancer said:
I wonder how people would feel if this same person was distributing satanic or kkk pamphlets. Would they still cry first amendment?
Click to expand...

I would. I would disagree with the message but I don't see that it's any different. It annoys me when my religious co-workers get religious in discussions with me, but at the same time, I wouldn't go running to HR to complain about it unless it became a burden to me or my life or my staff.

If someone on his force published a book about Islam, and gave copies to some of the people at work, would you support the termination of that employee?
 
OrphanSlug said:
What makes you think that your HR rules apply to everyone outside of your company? Perhaps the better question is why do you think there is any standard in employment agreements?
Click to expand...

Because HR rules are federal.

What is the law that enables an employer to terminate an employee for writing a book?
 
tres borrachos said:
Because HR rules are federal.

What is the law that enables an employer to terminate an employee for writing a book?
Click to expand...

How about an agreement signed by the employee. And BTW, there are state HR regulations as well just as there are industry specific HR regulations.
 
blaxshep said:
The publishers and distributors of the Gideon Bible are not going around to people's work places and forcing their religious non-sense on other people.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have a problem with someone forcing their views on this fire chief. It's ok to force thought onto American citizens, as long as you agree with it? Is that right?
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm a manager of a rather large team of people and have had to terminate employees in the past. I'm quite familiar with the rules I need to follow and I am not aware of any rule that would enable me terminate an employee for writing a book that contains views I disagree with. Please cite the HR law that would enable your employer to terminate you for writing a book.
Click to expand...

first nobody was fired for soley "writing a book" or stating "views people disagree with" thats just dishonesty

and if so id say your company sucks and needs to have its HR department seriously revamp before your company is sued for violating laws and rights. Im also a manager and this is the second time I also do recruiting and have had to do some low level HR being a manager.

its not "views one disagrees with" or a "book" that was written nobody educated and objective would take that claim seriously

in fact a friend of mine was fired because he made some joke about me that got out (it was a top ten list) and it was taken to HR by a third party that didnt know they were friendly jokes. I defended him and he was fired anyway because HR said its to much of a liability, while "i" wasn't directly insulted, it was done at work, others could be offended and that creates a hostile work place for them.

so far based on the INFO WE HAVE, its a direct insults of coworkers and thier own religions, sexual orientations etc which can get someone easily fired for insulting coworkers, verbal assault, verbal discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, employee conduct etc

are you honestly telling me if i work for your company and come in to work and tell people all fags are dirty sinners and should burn in hell nothing happens? or better yet I hate all jews and all niggers are dirty nothing will happen because im just "expressing a view others disagree with?" :lamo

please stop, unless theres new info that the mayor lied your rewording of what actually happened is not true.
 
tres borrachos said:
I would. I would disagree with the message but I don't see that it's any different. It annoys me when my religious co-workers get religious in discussions with me, but at the same time, I wouldn't go running to HR to complain about it unless it became a burden to me or my life or my staff.

If someone on his force published a book about Islam, and gave copies to some of the people at work, would you support the termination of that employee?
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't either, but rules are rules. If the organization did not feel the rules were needed, then they wouldn't have been written (at least this is a reasonable assumption). if there is selective enforcement, then this person has a good EEOC case.
 
WCH said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/atlanta-ousts-fire-chief-who-has-antigay-views.html?_r=0

ATLANTA — Mayor Kasim Reed announced Tuesday that he had fired the chief of the city’s Fire Rescue Department, Kelvin Cochran, after Mr. Cochran gave workers a religious book he wrote containing passages that condemn homosexuality.

Mr. Reed had suspended Mr. Cochran for a month without pay in November, opening an investigation into whether Mr. Cochran’s authorship and distribution of the book to workers violated the city’s nondiscrimination policies. That move sparked a debate about religious liberty and freedom of expression: Last month, the 1.4-million member Georgia Baptist Convention began an online petition that called for Mr. Cochran’s reinstatement and suggested his First Amendment rights had been violated.

The matter also presents a challenge for Mr. Reed, a second-term Democrat who presides over a metropolis whose social mosaic is defined by strong expressions of Christianity and large and politically powerful gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual groups.

snip...

Homosexual Agenda strikes again
Click to expand...



We are.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because HR rules are federal.

What is the law that enables an employer to terminate an employee for writing a book?
Click to expand...

I can't smoke a cigarette on work property or its immediate termination (i dont smoke, but I still have to abide by the rule). There is no law at any level covering this, but the rule is there because some idiot almost burnt down a building last year.

Organizations employing people have this sort of discretion. Sexual harassment is another example, technically by telling some coworker i want to **** her isn't a violation of the first amendment, but people sure get fired for it all the time, this book this is no different from sexual harassment as both are cases where someone has a constitutional right to say something but businesses have a right to protect their own work place and to guard against things that would affect morale or productivity.

This is basic management 101, why are people confused about this?
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
I would. I would disagree with the message but I don't see that it's any different. It annoys me when my religious co-workers get religious in discussions with me, but at the same time, I wouldn't go running to HR to complain about it unless it became a burden to me or my life or my staff.

If someone on his force published a book about Islam, and gave copies to some of the people at work, would you support the termination of that employee?
Click to expand...

You keep saying co-worker.

Wasn't this a BOSS, not a co-worker?
 
justabubba said:
and what actions did he take, in his professional capacity, which gave cause for termination
Click to expand...

Handing out religious materials to subordinates in a public position, on the job.
 
tacomancer said:
I wonder how people would feel if this same person was distributing satanic or kkk pamphlets. Would they still cry first amendment?
Click to expand...

i certainly would
it's freedom of expression that is being denied
doesn't matter what is being expressed

now, if that person distributing those pamphlets compelled his subordinate employees to read them and/or discuss them, such that theirs was not a voluntary act, then that person would have intruded on their rights

but i have yet to see anyone express within this thread what that chief did to warrant termination from his career position

if anyone abused their authority, it would be those officials who have strong pro LBGT leanings who railroaded this man only because of their own personally held views about sexual orientation
 
tacomancer said:
I wonder how people would feel if this same person was distributing satanic or kkk pamphlets. Would they still cry first amendment?
Click to expand...

Take a look at the thread on a crazy religious lady destroying a satanic display...

A lot of people are in there defending her actions even though she clearly sought to silence the speech of another group.
 
justabubba said:
i certainly would
it's freedom of expression that is being denied
doesn't matter what is being expressed

now, if that person distributing those pamphlets compelled his subordinate employees to read them and/or discuss them, such that theirs was not a voluntary act, then that person would have intruded on their rights

but i have yet to see anyone express within this thread what that chief did to warrant termination from his career position

if anyone abused their authority, it would be those officials who have strong pro LBGT leanings who railroaded this man only because of their own personally held views about sexual orientation
Click to expand...

I think its a matter of interpretation. I see a manager distributing such literature to his subordinates as creating an implicit command to read the material. That is precisely where I see the issue.
 
tacomancer said:
wow sarcasm is totally lost on you isn't it? are you a bot?
Click to expand...

sarcasm is so obvious on the internet, with all of our body language and facial clues to tell us what is happening
sarcasm_font.jpg
 
Deuce said:
Handing out religious materials to subordinates in a public position, on the job.
Click to expand...

yes, giving a bible to a co-worker at Christmas time when gift exchanges are common
terminate that violating employee for daring to bring and disburse religious thought into the work place

just as we would not think of terminating that co-worker, neither should this chief be fired
he offered a gift. a compilation of his personal thoughts and beliefs. and gave that publication to his friends at work
they could have placed it in file 13. used it to fuel the fireplace. lined the parrot cage with its pages. or they could have CHOSEN to read it. maybe even learn what an insufferable dick he is based on his moral positions ... much as i think about quite a few of our fellow forum members after reading their screed. but nothing about reading his book, or even keeping his book, was compulsory. he did nothing wrong by his actions

now, i DO believe his views - many of them anyway - are wrong. he shows little tolerance himself, which probably explains why so little tolerance is now being extended to him. but our laws are tolerant. and they allow for free expression. i do not want my thoughts to be chilled in the work place because such a wrongful termination can proceed

and even tho bob blaylock and i are aligned in our objection to this wrongful termination, please recognize that we do NOT oppose it for the same reasons! i find his wanting to retain the chief because he has such hardline religious viewpoints to be the most stupid defense of the man that could possibly be conceived
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom