• 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

For sake of ease, lets say you're in a right to work state and your office has no dress code.

An employee walks into your business with a shirt they had printed up that says "I hate jews. They are a plague upon humanity and vile creatures that wil lbe judged by Allah"

You potentially (you don't ask people their religion) jewish employees and/or you potentially will have jewish customers.

Two questions.

First, COULD you concievably fire this person on the basis that the content he created (his t-shirt) and the message it's broadcasting in some fashion in the work place creates a hostile/intimidating/offensive work environment or would interfere in the business that is conducted due to customers reactions?

Second, do you think you SHOULD be able to fire the person in such a case.

Now, for those who answer...do you feel differently in terms of the book? If so, how is creating a book and creating a t-shirt any different stating views based on one's religious belief different? How is distributing your book at the work place (potentially on the clock?) different than wearing your message around on your chest in the work place?
 
Last edited:
Compliance Manual Section 12 - Religious Discrimination

As discussed in more detail in § IV-C-6 of this document, an employer never has to accommodate expression of a religious belief in the workplace where such an accommodation could potentially constitute harassment of co-workers, because that would pose an undue hardship for the employer. Therefore, while Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief in engaging in religious expression (e.g., proselytizing) in the workplace, an employer does not have to allow such expression if it imposes an undue hardship on the operation of the business. For example, it would be an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate proselytizing by an employee if it constituted potentially unlawful religious harassment of a co-worker who found it unwelcome, or if it otherwise interfered with the operation of the business.[114]

Because employers are responsible for maintaining a nondiscriminatory work environment, they are liable for perpetrating or tolerating religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage in conduct that rises to the level of unlawful harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and an effective procedure for reporting, investigating, and correcting harassing conduct.[115] Even if the policy does not prevent all such conduct, it will likely limit the employer’s liability where the affected employee allows the conduct to rise to the level of illegality by failing to report it. However, Title VII violations may result if an employer tries to avoid potential co-worker objections to employee religious expression by preemptively banning all religious communications in the workplace, since Title VII requires that employees’ sincerely held religious practices and beliefs be accommodated as long as no undue hardship is posed.

· Employer Best Practices ·

Employers should have a well-publicized and consistently applied anti-harassment policy that: (1) covers religious harassment; (2) clearly explains what is prohibited; (3) describes procedures for bringing harassment to management’s attention; and, (4) contains an assurance that complainants will be protected against retaliation. The procedures should include a complaint mechanism that includes multiple avenues for complaint; prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations; and prompt and appropriate corrective action.
Employers should allow religious expression among employees to the same extent that they allow other types of personal expression that are not harassing or disruptive.
Once an employer is on notice that an employee objects to religious conduct that is directed at him or her, the employer should take steps to end the conduct because even conduct that the employer does not regard as abusive can become sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the conditions of employment if allowed to persist in the face of the employee’s objection.
If harassment is perpetrated by a non-employee assigned by a contractor, the supervisor or other appropriate individual in the chain of command should initiate a meeting with the contractor regarding the harassment and demand that it cease, that appropriate disciplinary action be taken if it continues, and/or that a different individual be assigned by the contractor.
To prevent conflicts from escalating to the level of a Title VII violation, employers should immediately intervene when they become aware of objectively abusive or insulting conduct, even absent a complaint.
Employers should encourage managers to intervene proactively and discuss with subordinates whether particular religious expression is welcome if the manager believes the expression might be construed as harassing to a reasonable person.
While supervisors are permitted to engage in certain religious expression, they should avoid expression that might – due to their supervisory authority – reasonably be perceived by subordinates as coercive, even when not so intended.
Click to expand...

This is what the EEOC seems to have on the matter (as it applies to the first amendment concerns about this) and the fire chief, in my opinion, is in clear violation of the bolded parts.
 
Risky Thicket said:
No, you can't.

Take legal porno magazines to work tomorrow and hand them out to people. Let us know how that works out for you. Maybe distribute books about how to hook up and swing with co-workers. Stand up in the break room at work and read 50 Shades of Gray out loud to your friends everyday during lunch.
Click to expand...

strawman. a porno magazine is not protected by law. religious material can be more so if it was asked for. again he didn't hand it out to everyone just his friends at work.

Honestly, tell us, do you believe any of the above ^^^ would go unchallenged at work? Would doing the above be a wise career move or do you think it would be a rather stupid career move or do you believe it would have no bearing on your career whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Since a porno mag isn't protected by the law then well you can be fired.
bringing a bible or other religious material is protected by the law.

The issue is not what happened away from work. You are being disingenuous. Nothing I have read states that he was fired for writing a book on his own time away from work. If you know that is true please post a credible city government source that contains more information than we've seen so far. Otherwise, what you are asserting is not factual.
Click to expand...

actually it is. he wrote the book for a bible study outside of work. someone heard about it went and bought a copy of it and then went to one of the openly gay council members and went look. the problem is the chapter in question is what the bible has to say about sexual morality. not just homosexual but all sexual morality. that includes hetrosexual morality as well.

You see, the problem is we do not know all the details. We do know that the media, and unfortunately religious organizations, have chosen to label the issue as everything from Cochran distributing a "homosexual book" to, and most prevalently, Cochran being fired for his religious beliefs. Google it and see for yourself.

Just spend a few moments reading what very little information is available and make an attempt to be objective.
Click to expand...

yea I spent a few more minutes googling into it. there are plenty of facts out there.

you don't care what it was about because OMG someone said they don't agree with homosexuality or homosexual marriage therefore they should have their lives destroyed.
I think you should be fired for having a distain for religious view points. you are creating a hostile work environment for publicly announcing your disagreement with people with religious view points.

see I can present the same argument that you do.
 
He spoke against the gay agenda. Banish him from our society and kill his off spring.
 
CRUE CAB said:
He spoke against the gay agenda. Banish him from our society and kill his off spring.
Click to expand...

pretty much the point it is getting to already.
 
ludin said:
see I can present the same argument that you do.
Click to expand...

except the argument is factually not the same you only have the OPINION that it is but facts disagree.
 
tres borrachos said:
Even if he isn't right, I'm betting on a lawsuit anyway.
Click to expand...

yeah, unfortunately what should be a cut and dry case of justified termination has been muddied due to the political nature of the city of atlanta being a government organization. :(
 
AGENT J said:
except the argument is factually not the same you only have the OPINION that it is but facts disagree.
Click to expand...

yes your opinion disagrees with the facts I am finally glad you decided to admit it.
 
tacomancer said:
yeah, unfortunately what should be a cut and dry case of justified termination has been muddied due to the political nature of the city of atlanta being a government organization. :(
Click to expand...

religious discrimination is against the law it will be anything but cut and dry.
or did you not realize this?
 
CRUE CAB said:
He spoke against the gay agenda. Banish him from our society and kill his off spring.
Click to expand...

another failed strawman that nobody honest, educated and objective will take seriously

also tell us, using facts what is the gay agenda?
 
ludin said:
religious discrimination is against the law it will be anything but cut and dry.
or did you not realize this?
Click to expand...

good thing there was no religious discrimination unless you know more than the articles say and you have facts that show some of the articles already presented lied lol
 
Zyphlin said:
It's absolutely possible, however what you're providing here isn't enough content to suggest one way or another. For example, is the situation in your hypothetical happening in a right to work state? If it's not, yeah...it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason to fire you regarding that.

Another example where context is lacking, I most likely absolutely could be fired if I was a supervisor in the federal government, wrote a book concerning political views, and then on the clock gave it to my subordinates. That would quite possibly be a hatch act violation in that particular case.

I know, in a general sense, most businesses place a greater requirement on supervisors regarding actions towards subordinates than they do coworkers, as there is a natural suggestion of power there and an inherent potential for retaliation.

It seems you want to just pretend that the content of the writing doens't matter with your continual and non-stop attempt to reframe it simply as "a book". The reality is the content matters in certain situations. Political Positions and the federal government, as I pointed to above, is an example.

I've not suggested this guys firing was right or wrong. I honestly haven't looked at it deep enough to understand the full context and facts surrounding the case. However, I did know enough about it that the hypothetical you kept trying to suggest with your repeated statements of "co-workers" was an inaccurate one when trying to compare to this situation.

Why you decided to avoid my question and strawman me by responding as if I said he could or should be fired is beyond me...other than perhaps you simply not wanting to actually address what I said. My question wasn't whether or not this guy should've been fired. My question was regarding your attempted arguments which kept using a hypothetical that included a work relationship (co-workers, implying peers) that was significantly different than the situaiton at hand (boss and subordinates).
Click to expand...

Probably half of my team works in right to work states (they are all over the country). I have said that I don't believe I would have the right to fire one of my employees simply for publishing a book containing content I don't approve of and passing that book on to the other members of the team. I would probably have the right to issue a warning, and involve HR, but I don't think that would be grounds for termination, no.

It's taken me upwards of 6-9 months to terminate employees for performance issues. Federal laws make it very hard to terminate without clear and distinct cause, which can be anything from performance to lying/stealing/breaking the law to insubordination to downsizing and so on. But no, I really don't think I could just terminate someone for publishing a book I find offensive and for giving it to his co workers. Technically the book is the employees' property and is not an illegal substance or other item that isn't allowed to be distributed.

But I've never had to confront it so I have no idea. I'm just saying IMO it isn't as cut and dry as I think some people assume it is.
 
ludin said:
prove he harassed anyone at work.

expressing his religious views outside of work is not considered harassment. also that text violates state and federal law.
Click to expand...

The content of the materials equating homosexuality as "vile, vulgar and inappropriate” is harassment and creates a hostile environment for anyone who may be homosexual or have sympathies.
 
ludin said:
yes your opinion disagrees with the facts I am finally glad you decided to admit it.
Click to expand...

translation: you cant support you failed and proven wrong claim so now you resort to making things up that were never said.
facts win again

thanks, but please let us know when you can support your failed and proven wrong claims. thanks
 
tacomancer said:
yeah, unfortunately what should be a cut and dry case of justified termination has been muddied due to the political nature of the city of atlanta being a government organization. :(
Click to expand...

Finally. I was hoping someone other than myself saw this.

Does anyone not think that is at the core of this?
 
iliveonramen said:
So passing out a book that condemns say...homosexuality...wouldn't create a hostile work environment for gays?
Click to expand...

do a bit of research he condemned all sexual immorality. the pages in question where in a chapter what was dealing with what the bible said on sexual morality.
he also mentioned that sex outside of marriage is wrong. maybe you should get all the facts instead of jumping to conclusions.

I'm sorry, wrapping homophobia, bigotry, misogyny etc. in the blanket of religion doesn't mean you have the right to push it at the workplace. You can do whatever you want to in your private life but it's not meant for the workplace. The workplace is for working, not proselytizing.
Click to expand...

prove he did any of it. he handed the book out to personal friends that he worked with. he is allowed to do that.
the thing is they have no proof.

they committed religious discrimination and I hope they pay the price.
 
AGENT J said:
another failed strawman that nobody honest, educated and objective will take seriously

also tell us, using facts what is the gay agenda?
Click to expand...

Welp, this is part of it. Fire anyone that speaks poorly of gays.
 
tres borrachos said:
It's taken me upwards of 6-9 months to terminate employees for performance issues. Federal laws make it very hard to terminate without clear and distinct cause, which can be anything from performance to lying/stealing/breaking the law to insubordination to downsizing and so on. But no, I really don't think I could just terminate someone for publishing a book I find offensive and for giving it to his co workers. Technically the book is the employees' property and is not an illegal substance or other item that isn't allowed to be distributed.
Click to expand...

I had one lady who was a 55 year old disabled philipino woman. The amount of paperwork and time it took (it took over a year before the HR VP (yes it went up that far) would agree to it and they even had legal look at it)

Even though she clearly did not understand and we could not successfully train her on the technical aspects of her job.
 
tres borrachos said:
Finally. I was hoping someone other than myself saw this.

Does anyone not think that is at the core of this?
Click to expand...

I think its at the core of the controversy, but not necessarily the action.
 
AGENT J said:
translation: you cant support you failed and proven wrong claim so now you resort to making things up that were never said.
facts win again

thanks, but please let us know when you can support your failed and proven wrong claims. thanks
Click to expand...

I already supported my argument and you have proven nothing wrong.

Fact the book he made was outside of work for a bible study at his church (protected)
the chapter in question deals with what the bible says on sexual immorality (protected)
he handed the book out to people that he had personal relationships with.

there is no evidence that he discriminated against anyone.

so yea those are the facts your opinion is irrelevant.

see I have already supported my argument plenty of times you have yet to prove anything wrong.
you saying something is wrong doesn't make it so.
 
tacomancer said:
The content of the materials equating homosexuality as "vile, vulgar and inappropriate” is harassment and creates a hostile environment for anyone who may be homosexual or have sympathies.
Click to expand...

I agree with this concept. However, where does it stop?

I oppose puppy mills and back yard breeding with every fiber of my being. If someone who is my peer or even my superior wrote a book about the "Joys of breeding your bitch 4 times a year to produce pet store puppies", and it was published and he gave it to me and others, I'm not sure that would result in his termination. Nor do I think it should result in his termination. But it would make me hostile nonetheless. You can probably find something that creates a hostile environment for someone in every business and employer in this world if the definition is "bothers anyone who may have views or sympathies".
 
CRUE CAB said:
Welp, this is part of it. Fire anyone that speaks poorly of gays.
Click to expand...

The same should be applied to anyone who disparages any group, gays, christians, muslims, black people, white people, moonies, people who eat cheese, people with one bigger than another, blonds, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom