• 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


The chief was fired for his religious beliefs


Well, that's rather in dispute.

From what I've been able to gather it seems he was suspended after giving his subordinates a copy of a book containing some of his beliefs, and seemingly at least one of those employees went to his superiors to complain about him distributing his book to his subordinates. This suspension was seemingly to look into if there was a potential issue regarding the cities anti-discrimination laws.

This was due to a passage in his book which suggested his first priority as the fire chief was "to cultivate its culture to the glory of God". When you then proceed to equate homosexuals...a protected status by Atlanta's anti-discrimination laws....to those who engage in pedorasty and beastiality (both illegal acts) after stating that your top priority on the job is to cultivate a culture that fits your religious views then it reasonably sets off alarms of potential anti-discrimination issues.

He was reportedly fired for talking about an ongoing investigation while on suspension, publishing the book without authorization which supposedly is required by his employment contract (the former part of that he disputes), and because of the potential liability that the city of Atlanta would face keeping him employed in a supervisory role.

Him remaining in any kind of supervisory position would be a gigantic "COME SUE US" sign for any homosexual employee who was unhappy with shifts/promotions/treatment or any homosexual applicant who was not offered a job....as they could point to this individuals book, his statements about homosexuality, his claim that his job as chief is to cultivate a culture pleasing to god, and alledge then that it was his efforts to create such a culture that led to their treatment.
 
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.

I don't think you could wear a thong to work, even if some random Bible passage said you should. Meanwhile, even the Pope has said: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Are you so sure your religion requires you to hate homosexuals?
 
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-

The job I just left was in the Federal Government in Washington DC a block from the White House. Risky would have had a conniption if he witnessed their Christmas decoration competition, overlooking the White House Christmas tree, no less!
 
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.

I already have religion is a protect class. you seem to be ignoring this fact.

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.

yes that was in the book BECAUSE IT WAS A STUDY GUIDE FOR THE BIBLE. that is what the BIBLE SAYS. in a chapter about sexual morality. boy for someone that thinks he knows it all you know nothing.



No, that is not true. Stop attributing things to me that I have not said!
that is your view point. he spoke out against homosexuality and gay marriage while also speaking out against sex outside of marriage among other things. he should have his life ruined. because a few people get their panties in a bunch.


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.

I already have a job and trust me I see HR violations everywhere however guess what people I work with don't wear their friggen heart on their sleeve.
PS by posting this on a forum you should be fired. you are disparaging against religious people and their view point.

you should be fired and you should lose your job.

he didn't express them at work he expressed them outside of work.
what part of that don't you understand or don't comprehend?

I guess the whole thing. the city violated his rights to express his religious views outside of work and fired him over it. I hope he sues.
religious discrimination is against the law.

Former Atlanta fire chief considers suing city over termination - LGBT Georgia | Gay Georgia | Gay Atlanta | LGBT Atlanta

The book includes this passage: “Uncleanness—whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”

Cochran said the language he used was lifted directly from biblical text.

“My intent was not to hurt anyone. I wrote straight from the words of the Bible,” he said.

he has never had 1 complaint against him for discrimination even when he did work for the President. ooppsss left that one out didn't they.
 
Well, that's rather in dispute.

From what I've been able to gather it seems he was suspended after giving his subordinates a copy of a book containing some of his beliefs, and seemingly at least one of those employees went to his superiors to complain about him distributing his book to his subordinates. This suspension was seemingly to look into if there was a potential issue regarding the cities anti-discrimination laws.

This was due to a passage in his book which suggested his first priority as the fire chief was "to cultivate its culture to the glory of God". When you then proceed to equate homosexuals...a protected status by Atlanta's anti-discrimination laws....to those who engage in pedorasty and beastiality (both illegal acts) after stating that your top priority on the job is to cultivate a culture that fits your religious views then it reasonably sets off alarms of potential anti-discrimination issues.

He was reportedly fired for talking about an ongoing investigation while on suspension, publishing the book without authorization which supposedly is required by his employment contract (the former part of that he disputes), and because of the potential liability that the city of Atlanta would face keeping him employed in a supervisory role.

Him remaining in any kind of supervisory position would be a gigantic "COME SUE US" sign for any homosexual employee who was unhappy with shifts/promotions/treatment or any homosexual applicant who was not offered a job....as they could point to this individuals book, his statements about homosexuality, his claim that his job as chief is to cultivate a culture pleasing to god, and alledge then that it was his efforts to create such a culture that led to their treatment.

In the same way that the actions against the chief is a gigantic "COME SUE US" sign planted on the Chief's front lawn. As I pointed out earlier, the SCOTUS is pretty clear on when and where hate speech can be enforced, namely when violence against the target group is immanent. If the Chief fired a gay person for no actionable reason then they could indeed sue him for discrimination, but that would be a case for the courts. What the City of Atlanta has done is punish the Chief for a crime they think he might commit which is a violation of his first amendment freedoms.
 
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.

Oh, really? Did you retire in the early 1960s? Tell us what state and local governments.

How is the policy of the City of Atlanta "abnormal and illegal". Spell it out for us.

The attorneys working for the City of Atlanta participated in the 30 day investigation of Chief Cochran and advised the city administration as to what violations occurred, what actions could be taken and what actions could be legally upheld. That is the way it works. I've been that and done there a few times. I have participated directly in the process and have worked with government attorneys and human resources. It is a grave process. It would surprise the hell out of me if the city's decisions were not carefully deliberated. Apparently you know more than the rest of us, please share.
 
I don't think you could wear a thong to work, even if some random Bible passage said you should. Meanwhile, even the Pope has said: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Well, first, is the Chief Catholic? If not then what difference does it make what the Pope says? Second, is there any evidence that the Chief managed his gay employees any differently than his heterosexual employees? THAT would be the case the City could could have fired him for. If they never fired him it would because his personal beliefs never demonstrably interfered wit his public duty.

Are you so sure your religion requires you to hate homosexuals?

My religion doesn't require me to hate homosexuals, but then my religion also separates the individual and the sin (I'm Catholic). Love for all humanity doesn't mean we have to love what all humans do.
 
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.

I was pointing out that your can't treat government as an entity and that government employment is the same as private employment in terms of following eeoc regulations. Your interpretation of my statements seems to be from somewhere having nothing to do with me.
 
Well, that's rather in dispute.

From what I've been able to gather it seems he was suspended after giving his subordinates a copy of a book containing some of his beliefs, and seemingly at least one of those employees went to his superiors to complain about him distributing his book to his subordinates. This suspension was seemingly to look into if there was a potential issue regarding the cities anti-discrimination laws.

He was suspended because someone gave one of the only gay council members the book. they chose to ignore the context of the book. The people he gave it to at work were people he had a personal relationship with.

it appears that someone else took one of the books probably without permission.

This was due to a passage in his book which suggested his first priority as the fire chief was "to cultivate its culture to the glory of God". When you then proceed to equate homosexuals...a protected status by Atlanta's anti-discrimination laws....to those who engage in pedorasty and beastiality (both illegal acts) after stating that your top priority on the job is to cultivate a culture that fits your religious views then it reasonably sets off alarms of potential anti-discrimination issues.

Good thing he didn't say that. yes the bible says to go out and to sow seeds of God's glory in all that you do.
he has never had a complaint of discrimination.

He was reportedly fired for talking about an ongoing investigation while on suspension, publishing the book without authorization which supposedly is required by his employment contract (the former part of that he disputes), and because of the potential liability that the city of Atlanta would face keeping him employed in a supervisory role.

all of that is not true either.
1. He gave a personal testimony in church.
2. he had already contacted the legal department to see if it was ok for him to write the book.

Cochran said the director of Atlanta’s ethics office had not only given him permission to write the book, but to also mention in his biography that he was the city’s fire chief.

Him remaining in any kind of supervisory position would be a gigantic "COME SUE US" sign for any homosexual employee who was unhappy with shifts/promotions/treatment or any homosexual applicant who was not offered a job....as they could point to this individuals book, his statements about homosexuality, his claim that his job as chief is to cultivate a culture pleasing to god, and alledge then that it was his efforts to create such a culture that led to their treatment.

unless he was actually discriminating of which there is no evidence that he was.

The book includes this passage: “Uncleanness—whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”

Cochran said the language he used was lifted directly from biblical text.

“My intent was not to hurt anyone. I wrote straight from the words of the Bible,” he said.


which would make sense. it was a bible study book and the chapter in question was dealing with what the bible says about sexual morality.
the problem is that we have thrown logic and commonsense out with window in exchange for what people feel.

so we have to bow down to every whim or want of someone that feels that they have been insulted.
for those people all I have to say is cry me a river build me a bridge and get over it.
 
Oh, really? Did you retire in the early 1960s? Tell us what state and local governments.

City of Fairfax VA, The State of Virginia, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Treasury. And no, my employment dates back to the 1980s and is ongoing. I attended a Department of Treasury Christmas party just a few weeks ago.

How is the policy of the City of Atlanta "abnormal and illegal". Spell it out for us.

It infringes on the individual's right to free speech. As I have already pointed out, in SCOTUS case law the criteria for limiting "hate speech" is very clear, and the Chief's book does not meet those criteria.



The attorneys working for the City of Atlanta participated in the 30 day investigation of Chief Cochran and advised the city administration as to what violations occurred, what actions could be taken and what actions could be legally upheld. That is the way it works. I've been that and done there a few times. I have participated directly in the process and have worked with government attorneys and human resources. It is a grave process. It would surprise the hell out of me if the city's decisions were not carefully deliberated. Apparently you know more than the rest of us, please share.

I realize that the City went through the motions to fire the Chief, that doesn't mean their decision was correct or that it would hold up in court.

The irony is that the City has fired an employee for stating his religious beliefs for fear that he might take negative action on an employee for their sexual orientation. So, in the end, the city violated EEOC regulations to prevent a potential violation of EEOC regulations. :lamo
 
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.

So wait....

Lets say a Supervisor wrote a book detailing his views on various things, specifically how Hitler and the Nazi regmine was correct. Part of said book equated Jews to conmen and thieves. It described them as some of the most vile creatures on the earth and an afront to the vision of Hitler. It then goes on to suggest that his first duty as a supervisor was to cultivate a culture in line with Hitler's views. He then gave said book to his subordinates

Are we seriously suggesting that the supervisor's bosses shouldn't have legitimate cause to potentially suspend said supervisor to see if he was indeed "cultivating" such a culture with regards to any Jewish employees or applicants? Or possibly even to terminate and/or demote said supervisor due to the potential liability on the part of potential discrimination claims from Jewish employees and/or applicants?

OR if you want to just focus on the religious aspect...

Change it from Hitler and the Nazi Regime to the supervisor holding radical islamist views. In his book suggests Jews are an infidel, a wretched vile race and religion, that will be judged with scorn from Allah and should not be embraced. In it, he suggests his first duty as a supervisor is to cultivate a culture in line with Allah. He then gave said book to his subordinates.

Again, same questions as above.

I just can't fathom how that would or should be viewed as acceptable. I can't imagine how that would not create a significant liability on the business or agency. I can't imagine how that would not foster a very hostile and problematic work environment.

It'd be one thing if it was JUST expressing those views. In such a case I can understand people possibly feeling uneasy in the work place, but at least in that such case there's no clear indication to lead one to believe the supervisor would let those views impact his PROFESSIONAL duties. However, when he's stating that his duty as Police Chief was to cultivate a culture in line with his gods it creates a reasonable question as to how his views are affecting his professional choices.
 
I already have religion is a protect class. you seem to be ignoring this fact.

Not at work and certainly not in a government workplace including Atlanta.

yes that was in the book BECAUSE IT WAS A STUDY GUIDE FOR THE BIBLE. that is what the BIBLE SAYS. in a chapter about sexual morality. boy for someone that thinks he knows it all you know nothing.

And that related to his job how for the City of Atlanta?

that is your view point. he spoke out against homosexuality and gay marriage while also speaking out against sex outside of marriage among other things. he should have his life ruined. because a few people get their panties in a bunch.

He violated conditions of his employment with the City of Atlanta.

I already have a job and trust me I see HR violations everywhere however guess what people I work with don't wear their friggen heart on their sleeve.
PS by posting this on a forum you should be fired. you are disparaging against religious people and their view point.

No religion in the workplace. None. Be religious all you want outside work.

he didn't express them at work he expressed them outside of work.
what part of that don't you understand or don't comprehend?

Chief Cochran distributed his book, that he wrote, with is name on it, regarding his religious views, and stated that his primary job as fire chief was to cultivate the culture of the glory of God within the fire department. He distributed that book in the workplace, on city property to subordinates.

I guess the whole thing. the city violated his rights to express his religious views outside of work and fired him over it. I hope he sues.
religious discrimination is against the law.

Stop guessing, show me. Give me the reason he was suspended and then fired and source the City of Atlanta as your documentation. Otherwise you are indeed guessing.
 
It has nothing to do with the viewpoint - it has to do with a person with hiring/firing/promotion/pay authority using that power over subordinates in the workplace to promote any viewpoint about religion - yeah the law is pretty settled on that one.

right, just as handing out atheist pamphlets promotes a viewpoint on religion. so any atheist would have to be fired for doing such a thing. right?
 
right, just as handing out atheist pamphlets promotes a viewpoint on religion. so any atheist would have to be fired for doing such a thing. right?

by rights they should

The only exception I can think of is if the mission of the organization is atheistic (which would probably mean its a nonprofit)
 
So wait....

Lets say a Supervisor wrote a book detailing his views on various things, specifically how Hitler and the Nazi regmine was correct. Part of said book equated Jews to conmen and thieves. It described them as some of the most vile creatures on the earth and an afront to the vision of Hitler. It then goes on to suggest that his first duty as a supervisor was to cultivate a culture in line with Hitler's views. He then gave said book to his subordinates

Are we seriously suggesting that the supervisor's bosses shouldn't have legitimate cause to potentially suspend said supervisor to see if he was indeed "cultivating" such a culture with regards to any Jewish employees or applicants? Or possibly even to terminate and/or demote said supervisor due to the potential liability on the part of potential discrimination claims from Jewish employees and/or applicants?

OR if you want to just focus on the religious aspect...

Change it from Hitler and the Nazi Regime to the supervisor holding radical islamist views. In his book suggests Jews are an infidel, a wretched vile race and religion, that will be judged with scorn from Allah and should not be embraced. In it, he suggests his first duty as a supervisor is to cultivate a culture in line with Allah. He then gave said book to his subordinates.

Again, same questions as above.

I just can't fathom how that would or should be viewed as acceptable. I can't imagine how that would not create a significant liability on the business or agency. I can't imagine how that would not foster a very hostile and problematic work environment.

It'd be one thing if it was JUST expressing those views. In such a case I can understand people possibly feeling uneasy in the work place, but at least in that such case there's no clear indication to lead one to believe the supervisor would let those views impact his PROFESSIONAL duties. However, when he's stating that his duty as Police Chief was to cultivate a culture in line with his gods it creates a reasonable question as to how his views are affecting his professional choices.

Hence the existence of such laws and policies.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Stephen Borders, presidents of the Atlanta Professional Firefighters union, said the union has not officially filed complaints over the matter, but he has heard from a number of employees about the book. Borders said the fire department has few, if any, openly gay firefighters.

“Even the employees that reach out to us don’t want us to be involved in their complaint because they are afraid it will get out to their officers and their chief and they will be labeled and outed just by being concerned about how they’re treated,” he said.

Borders said he hopes the controversy leads to a support group or office that works with employees who fear discrimination based on sexual orientation or religious views.

“He can have whatever beliefs he wants, but the fact that he’s representing himself as a fire chief and bringing this into the fire department, to me that’s not the message we need to send to employees nor the citizens.”
 
In the same way that the actions against the chief is a gigantic "COME SUE US" sign planted on the Chief's front lawn.

One potential litigation threat, from an individual without any concrete evidence that those making the decisions have a prejudice against the suggested protected class in this instance (religion) OR use believe it is their professional duty to cultivate said prejudices...

Vs

MULTIPLE potential litigation threats, from individuals with a tangible and concrete piece of evidence that said supervisor has such prejudices based on his religious views AND that he feels it's his duty to use his professional possition to cultivate a culture in line with his religious views.

Both aren't good for the city...the second is absolutely worse.

As I pointed out earlier, the SCOTUS is pretty clear on when and where hate speech can be enforced

Good thing "hate speech" has nothing to do with this

If the Chief fired a gay person for no actionable reason then they could indeed sue him for discrimination, but that would be a case for the courts. What the City of Atlanta has done is punish the Chief for a crime they think he might commit which is a violation of his first amendment freedoms.

Again, no they hadn't.

They suspended an individual while undergoing an investigation into alledged misconduct. This is something that happens routinely by government employers prior to any crime being proven to have been committed.

Then they claim to have fired him for talking about an ongoing investigation, for publishing a book without proper authorization from the department (again, I note he disagrees with this assertion), and due to the liability issues associated with his statements.

You may think they fired him because they disliked his religious speech; but the fact is that is not the official reason stated for his termination. And your continued attempt to paint your opinion and guess as to why he was fired as some kind of undisputable fact is not only dishonest but massively flawed.
 
So wait....

Lets say a Supervisor wrote a book detailing his views on various things, specifically how Hitler and the Nazi regmine was correct. Part of said book equated Jews to conmen and thieves. It described them as some of the most vile creatures on the earth and an afront to the vision of Hitler. It then goes on to suggest that his first duty as a supervisor was to cultivate a culture in line with Hitler's views. He then gave said book to his subordinates

Thread officially Godwined! And no, if that person can't be shown to ever perform their duties in such a way as they were discriminatory against Jews then they shouldn't lose their job. As is the age old refrain: The First Amendment doesn't only to protect speech you like.


Are we seriously suggesting that the supervisor's bosses shouldn't have legitimate cause to potentially suspend said supervisor to see if he was indeed "cultivating" such a culture with regards to any Jewish employees or applicants? Or possibly even to terminate and/or demote said supervisor due to the potential liability on the part of potential discrimination claims from Jewish employees and/or applicants?

Noted how you said "potentially" to squirm out of the very real and definite negative action taken in this case. We aren't talking potentials here. But the "potential" is certainly there IF they can show that the person actually violated EEOC regulations in his hiring and firing actions.


OR if you want to just focus on the religious aspect...

Change it from Hitler and the Nazi Regime to the supervisor holding radical islamist views. In his book suggests Jews are an infidel, a wretched vile race and religion, that will be judged with scorn from Allah and should not be embraced. In it, he suggests his first duty as a supervisor is to cultivate a culture in line with Allah. He then gave said book to his subordinates.

Again, same questions as above.

Again, it is protected speech whether you like it or not.

I just can't fathom how that would or should be viewed as acceptable. I can't imagine how that would not create a significant liability on the business or agency. I can't imagine how that would not foster a very hostile and problematic work environment.

Firing that person creates a significant liability for the business or agency. Businesses have more leeway though as they are not a government agency and not required to protect speech like a government agency is.

It'd be one thing if it was JUST expressing those views. In such a case I can understand people possibly feeling uneasy in the work place, but at least in that such case there's no clear indication to lead one to believe the supervisor would let those views impact his PROFESSIONAL duties. However, when he's stating that his duty as Police Chief was to cultivate a culture in line with his gods it creates a reasonable question as to how his views are affecting his professional choices.

But the City didn't bother to prove that the beliefs had in any way impacted his professional duties! They fired him preemptively which is a violation of the First Amendment.

If it was shown that you neo-Nazi or radical Muslim or the this chief had actually let their personal beliefs impact their hiring and firing and personnel decisions then he should be fired immediately because he would then be in violation of the law. The state can't punish people for what you think they MIGHT do.
 
Good thing he didn't say that.

He didn't? What are you basing this off of? Because I've seen numerous stories reporting that he absolutely did state that, including quotes which suggests a direct lift from his book.

Do you have anything of substance to verify that said reports are fraudulent and that his book does not contain such a claim?

As I suggested in another post...sans that claim, my view on the matter changes.

Also, I noted that he disputed the cities claim that he did not get the proper approval in the proper amount of time. That doesn't change the fact that the city is claiming that as one of the reasons of his termination. Currently it is a "he said/she said" situation unless he can provide some kind of evidence of himself going to them for authorization and recieving it.

I don't know if he did. I don't know if he didn't. But to suggest definitively he was fired for his religious views when the city has claimed multiple reasons for his termination OTHER than his religious views is simply a factually dishonest statement. My pointing out their claim was not to suggest their claim was legit, but merely to suggest that claiming WHY he was fired as some kind of undisputable fact...when the "why" you're claiming doesn't actually match what the city has officially claimed...is a misrepresentation.
 
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?

How could you possibly not know that a law doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates the Constitution?

Are you telling me a white male conservative would have a fair shake at a job in a government office run by non-whites who clearly were leftists and were lukewarm at best about whites? Or maybe, as in graduate school admissions, discrimination is only impermissible when the victim is a member of some grievance group so-called liberals have the crying towel out for.
 
I was pointing out that your can't treat government as an entity and that government employment is the same as private employment in terms of following eeoc regulations. Your interpretation of my statements seems to be from somewhere having nothing to do with me.

No, government and private employment is not the same in this case since the Private employer is not required to protect free speech of its employees while the government is required to protect the free speech of everyone, including those working for the government.
 
No, government and private employment is not the same in this case since the Private employer is not required to protect free speech of its employees while the government is required to protect the free speech of everyone, including those working for the government.

You're gonna have to cite case law for that one, heh. If you are correct, its going to be the best FOIA request ever because it completely invalidates all secret clearance and NDA clauses the government has currently in effect.
 
Sure. And so would any Muslim. Thank you for agreeing with us.

I agree he was wrong to do it. but to fire him for it is absurd. what if he was the best, most qualified fire chief in the city? what if your house burns down tomorrow because of an incompetent replacement?
suddenly this man's "crime" wouldn't seem so bad.
 
How could you possibly not know that a law doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates the Constitution?

Are you telling me a white male conservative would have a fair shake at a job in a government office run by non-whites who clearly were leftists and were lukewarm at best about whites? Or maybe, as in graduate school admissions, discrimination is only impermissible when the victim is a member of some grievance group so-called liberals have the crying towel out for.

Are you really trying to say a white male has a disadvantage getting a government job?
 
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.

There is no right to be shielded from the expression of beliefs that one finds disagreeable. Such a “right” cannot possibly coexist with the rights which the First Amendment affirms. The First Amendment, being an actual law, and, in fact, being part of the highest law in this nation, certainly takes precedence over wrong-wing fantasies about using the force of law to censor the expression of beliefs that they do not like.
 
Back
Top Bottom