Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

jmotivator said:

No, they are simply the legal arm of institutional discrimination.

Click to expand...

No, but there is a definition for hate speech and you have failed to show it fits within those guidelines. Clearly, a manager who claims a group of citizens acting within the law are equal to that of a pedophile is espousing hate.

tacomancer said:

the city of atlanta is not responsible for federal eeoc regulations

bzzt try again

Click to expand...

So they aren't responsible for their interpretation and enforcement of federal regulations?

bzzt try again

ludin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Legal porno magazines are uh, you know, legal. How are they not? But you admit handing out porno mags at work to people who you assume want them would likely screw up your career.

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.

Click to expand...

Now we are getting somewhere. What law says legal porno mags cannot be handed out at work to people you think want them? What law says religious material can be handed out at work to people you think want them? Look into that and get back to me.

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.

Click to expand...

In the book based on Christian values, Cochran identifies himself as Atlanta’s fire chief and says his first priority as chief is to run the department “to cultivate its culture to the glory of God.”

Click to expand...

Cochran states in his book that he distributed at work that homosexuality as a “perversion” akin to bestiality and pederasty and also states that his first duty as chief is to change the fire department so that it glorifies God and in essence believes as the chief believes. That's wrong.

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.

Click to expand...

No, that is not true. Stop attributing things to me that I have not said!

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.

Click to expand...

My workplace has very specific policies related to workplace behavior. My workplace does not tolerate harassment based on religion, gender, race, sexual orientation or disability. You are free to believe anything you want but it is against policy for you to express those personal opinions at work. Employees are made aware of these policies when they become employed during their initial processing through human resources. They sign forms acknowledging this and are given a copy of this policy (and others). They are also informed as to the procedures for inquiring about a policy and/or a violation of a policy and/or how and to whom the violation is reported, and the procedures relating to how the complaint will be investigated.

One day when you start work you'll likely have the experience when you go through human resources.

tres borrachos said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. And I suspect Jay Sekulow or some other top-notch First Amendment lawyer will want to go to bat for the fire chief on this. These issues showcase just how intolerant and undemocratic many people who like to call themselves "liberals" really are. Their beloved doctrine of political correctness, which was invented by communists, is specifically designed to suppress the freedom of speech. A homosexual who was a real liberal would be defending the chief's right to do what he did.

It was less than forty years ago that Jewish lawyers fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right of a group of Nazi goofballs to parade, in full regalia, including swaztikas, through a community they chose because many of the residents were Jews who had survived concentration camps. The freedom to say despicable things is more important than hurt feelings--even when the hurt is as severe as that. Today's ersatz liberals, who are really leftist radicals who resent this country and its Constitution, would be fighting to silence the Nazis.

matchlight said:

I agree with you completely. And I suspect Jay Sekulow or some other top-notch First Amendment lawyer will want to go to bat for the fire chief on this. These issues showcase just how intolerant and undemocratic many people who like to call themselves "liberals" really are. Their beloved doctrine of political correctness, which was invented by communists, is specifically designed to suppress the freedom of speech. A homosexual who was a real liberal would be defending the chief's right to do what he did.

It was less than forty years ago that Jewish lawyers fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right of a group of Nazi goofballs to parade, in full regalia, including swaztikas, through a community they chose because many of the residents were Jews who had survived concentration camps. The freedom to say despicable things is more important than hurt feelings--even when the hurt is as severe as that. Today's ersatz liberals, who are really leftist radicals who resent this country and its Constitution, would be fighting to silence the Nazis.

Click to expand...

How could you possibly not know that there are laws against discrimination in the work place? And if you do know about them, how could he possibly manage without discriminating when holding those types of views?

Are you telling me you think a gay person would have a fair shake at a job in his fire house?

whysoserious said:

No, but there is a definition for hate speech and you have failed to show it fits within those guidelines. Clearly, a manager who claims a group of citizens acting within the law are equal to that of a pedophile is espousing hate.

Click to expand...

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women." - (source)

The chief was fired for his religious beliefs, stating that those with such beliefs should be fired, in fact SHOWING that those with such beliefs should be fired, is in fact hate speech.

The problem with Hate Speech law, and why they will eventually be undone by saner future generations, is that they are themselves intolerant and can not be enforced without the use of base hypocrisy and more damaging than those who are being punished for their beliefs.

jmotivator said:

You are trying to separate Government from laws and regulations. The laws and regulations ARE the Government and in this case the laws and regulations are demonstrably intolerant of certain religious views such that you can lose your job for expressing them.

Click to expand...

No religion in the workplace. None. Not yours, not mine, not anyone's. NONE. Problem solved. I would assume that that is the policy relating to employees for the City of Atlanta.

Risky Thicket said:

No religion in the workplace. None. Not yours, not mine, not anyone's. NONE. Problem solved. I would assume that that is the policy relating to employees for the City of Atlanta.

Click to expand...

That is YOUR desire and YOUR belief. You are simply enforcing your desires on other people and pretending it is rational equality.

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...

100% YES. But then some people are simply more aware that infringement of First Amendment rights on anyone is infringement on First Amendment rights of everyone. Others are more self centered and choose to wait until they disagree with the government enforcers.

jmotivator said:

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women." - (source)

The chief was fired for his religious beliefs, stating that those with such beliefs should be fired, in fact SHOWING that those with such beliefs should be fired, is in fact hate speech.

The problem with Hate Speech law, and why they will eventually be undone by saner future generations, is that they are themselves intolerant and can not be enforced without the use of base hypocrisy and more damaging than those who are being punished for their beliefs.

Click to expand...

They are pretty simple... really. Here you go:

1) Is what you are talking about a group of people.
2) Are you defining that group of people by something that is perfectly legal (such as homosexuality or color of skin)
3) Are you talking negatively about that entire group of people?

Ok, great job, you've just committed hate speech. If there is a group of people who are unhirable in your eyes... you don't get to ****ing manage people. I wouldn't talk about that **** at work, or you're going to get ****ing fired.

Use your ****ing head.

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...

There is no guarantee to employment. In right to work states and employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. Maybe we should all encourage employers not to fire based on an employee's sexuality or political or religious beliefs.

jmotivator said:

That is YOUR desire and YOUR belief. You are simply enforcing your desires on other people and pretending it is rational equality.

Click to expand...

And mine as well. There is nothing inequitable about it. Everyone is free of the imposition of every other person's religious beliefs, including atheism. If you permit one religion you must permit all.

jmotivator said:

So they aren't responsible for their interpretation and enforcement of federal regulations?

bzzt try again

Click to expand...

They are, but the point remains government is not a singular monolithic entity that you portrayed it as.

jmotivator said:

That is YOUR desire and YOUR belief. You are simply enforcing your desires on other people and pretending it is rational equality.

Click to expand...

Nope. You are wrong. It is to my knowledge a fairly standard workplace policy. Certainly in government workplaces the policy is standard. It is a condition of employment. According to Atlanta City Council members, Mayor Reed who is Mayor of Atlanta, and Anna Torres who is the spokesman for Mayor Reed it is the policy of the City of Atlanta as well.

whysoserious said:

They are pretty simple... really. Here you go:

1) Is what you are talking about a group of people.
2) Are you defining that group of people by something that is perfectly legal (such as homosexuality or color of skin)
3) Are you talking negatively about that entire group of people?

Ok, great job, you've just committed hate speech. If there is a group of people who are unhirable in your eyes... you don't get to ****ing manage people. I wouldn't talk about that **** at work, or you're going to get ****ing fired.

Use your ****ing head.

Click to expand...

So are you arguing that the Chief's beliefs are uniquely his and not the belief system of a larger group? You don't think the actions of the government would apply to all people in that group who chose to express their beliefs? How many people does it take to qualify as a group?

I mean great if you think that because you will have only helped undermine the validity of the hate speech laws themselves. They need to die anyway because they are anti-First Amendment.

In fact, the Supreme Court held 8-1 in favor of protecting hate speech in Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. The Chiefs freedom to speak is indeed protected against such government action. The court held in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that hate speech is legal when it is not reasonably expected to contribute to an immanent act of violence. The chief's book wouldn't meet that qualification.

jmotivator said:

So are you arguing that the Chief's beliefs are uniquely his and not the belief system of a larger group? You don't think the actions of the government would apply to all people in that group who chose to express their beliefs? How many people does it take to qualify as a group?

I mean great if you think that because you will have only helped undermine the validity of the hate speech laws themselves. They need to die anyway because they are anti-First Amendment.

In fact, the Supreme Court held 8-1 in favor of protecting hate speech in Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. The Chiefs freedom to speak is indeed protected against such government action.

Click to expand...

snyder vs phelps covers a public area, not the work place. It doesn't apply.

AGENT J said:

this is what i want . .

for the handful that think this is somehow not right

tomorrow right a short story about how you want jews to burn or are going to; how niggers are vile and dirty; that you think fags are evil and will unleash a plague on us; or christians are filthy infidels that deserved killed etc etc Then take it to work and distribute it amongst your co workers.

than let us know what happens, thank you

Click to expand...

If they want to material, what's the beef? What do you or anyone else care as long as they're not out there inciting violence, what law has been broken, and oh, for someone calling other posters out for strawmen, and analogies, I think you need to re-read what you just wrote cupcake..

Tim-

Risky Thicket said:

Nope. You are wrong. It is to my knowledge a fairly standard workplace policy. Certainly in government workplaces the policy is standard. It is a condition of employment. According to Atlanta City Council members, Mayor Reed who is Mayor of Atlanta, and Anna Torres who is the spokesman for Mayor Reed it is the policy of the City of Atlanta as well.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. That is not in any way a standard workplace policy. I have worked in state, local and federal government for 30 years and NEVER has what you stated been the policy of the workplace. If that is the policy in the city of Atlanta then it is both abnormal and illegal.

jmotivator said:

So are you arguing that the Chief's beliefs are uniquely his and not the belief system of a larger group? You don't think the actions of the government would apply to all people in that group who chose to express their beliefs? How many people does it take to qualify as a group?

I mean great if you think that because you will have only helped undermine the validity of the hate speech laws themselves. They need to die anyway because they are anti-First Amendment.

In fact, the Supreme Court held 8-1 in favor of protecting hate speech in Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. The Chiefs freedom to speak is indeed protected against such government action. The court held in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that hate speech is legal when it is not reasonably expected to contribute to an immanent act of violence. The chief's book wouldn't meet that qualification.

Click to expand...

You're comparing speech on a public sidewalk to speech of someone who hires/fires/manages for the government (or even in general). It's no the same. You can walk around in a thong on the sidewalk too, but I wouldn't try it at work.

matchlight said:

I agree with you completely. And I suspect Jay Sekulow or some other top-notch First Amendment lawyer will want to go to bat for the fire chief on this. These issues showcase just how intolerant and undemocratic many people who like to call themselves "liberals" really are. Their beloved doctrine of political correctness, which was invented by communists, is specifically designed to suppress the freedom of speech. A homosexual who was a real liberal would be defending the chief's right to do what he did.

It was less than forty years ago that Jewish lawyers fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right of a group of Nazi goofballs to parade, in full regalia, including swaztikas, through a community they chose because many of the residents were Jews who had survived concentration camps. The freedom to say despicable things is more important than hurt feelings--even when the hurt is as severe as that. Today's ersatz liberals, who are really leftist radicals who resent this country and its Constitution, would be fighting to silence the Nazis.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you clearly understand the issue. Cochran's religious views were written by him in a book with his name on it and distributed at work to his subordinates. In his book he expressed his views regarding homosexuality and he stated that his primary mission as chief was to cultivate the culture of the fire department to glorify God. His book containing those statements were distributed in a work environment on city property to his subordinates.

It wasn't specifically his religious beliefs, and the Atlanta city administration made that clear back in November, but rather that he distributed a book he wrote stating his religious beliefs in a work environment on city property to subordinates. THAT violated city policy and THAT is the stated reason given by the City of Atlanta.

Bob Blaylock said:

Unfortunately, our society has reached the point of granting immoral sexual perverts a much stronger “protected class” status than religious faith, such that hard violations of the rights of the latter are now often deemed acceptable and necessary, in order to protect the former from having their feelings hurt.

Click to expand...

Only fi you are Christian. if you are any other religion then they bow down and get out of the way for you.
it is only if you are Christian do they actually get the pitchforks and torches down.

I wouldn't go that far it does nothing to call people names and I don't do that. I respect the choices that they make even though I don't have to agree with it.
this guy was fired for not reason that expressing a religious view point outside of work.

there is no documentation anywhere that he discriminated against anyone.

tacomancer said:

They are, but the point remains government is not a singular monolithic entity that you portrayed it as.

Click to expand...

That was more your point than it was mine. You were the one who tried to foist responsibility off of the local authorities onto the big monolithic structure of federal regulation as if the city's hands were tied... being just a cog in said monolithic regulatory machine.

jmotivator said:

No it isn't. That is not in any way a standard workplace policy. I have worked in state, local and federal government for 30 years and NEVER has what you stated been the policy of the workplace. If that is the policy in the city of Atlanta then it is both abnormal and illegal.

Click to expand...

Thing that gets me in all of this is the fact that any of these words are merely a mouse click away from ANYONE wanting them, public, private, it matters little, both spaces have the internet and MOST web filters do not subscribe to politically correct speech, so they don't work well.. Maybe we need more progressives to design software to keep us all safe from those pesky neoconservative liberty seekers..

Tim-

whysoserious said:

You're comparing speech on a public sidewalk to speech of someone who hires/fires/manages for the government (or even in general). It's no the same. You can walk around in a thong on the sidewalk too, but I wouldn't try it at work.

Click to expand...

If your religion required you wear a thong then you'd have a case.

Also you don't give up the right to first amendment protection of religious expression because you are a manager. Again, the SCOTUS is very clear on this in case law.

Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:

There's no evidence that Mr. Cochrane “tried to impose his lifestyle or beliefs on his subordinates”. The argument is that simply because he made it known that he disapproves of a certain form of immorality, that his leadership would create a hostile work environment for perverts who hold to that form of immorality. That being the case, wouldn't a leader who lets it be known that he engages in a certain form of immorality also create a hostile environment for subordinates who hold to decent moral standards?

Click to expand...

If any captain had done the same in the Navy, he would be relieved of command. Why? Because if a captain published something like that, everyone in the command would soon know about it, every homosexual would be fear for his career if his sexual orientation were exposed, and every homophobe among the officers and senior enlisted would feel empowered to go after such people working for them.

And YES, this retired Navy man can tell you it DOES work this way. It's not a PC thing, it's a LEADERSHIP thing.

One just wonders what y'all would have been saying if he had been a Muslim and done the same thing. Actually, we don't have to wonder - we all know what the right-wing Islamophobes on DP would be saying...but since it was a right-wing evangelical, well, THAT means that Real 'Muricans must stand up for him!