• 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

Kal'Stang said:
Beyond stupid imo. Hypocritical, against equal treatment under the law also.
Click to expand...

I edited it after you replied, but yeah, its constitution vs constitution as the house being subject to its own rules is here

constitution said:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member
Click to expand...
 
matchlight said:
A state can obviously disadvantage white males in its graduate school admissions policies--they've been doing it for many years now. Why would a state not have authority to do the same in its government jobs? Surely you don't think it's unfair to punish white men for what someone may have done long before they were even born.
Click to expand...

We don't agree that white men have been punished or have in disadvantage.
 
jmotivator said:
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.



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.





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
Click to expand...

Jeez, I think I'm getting the flu and the last thing I need to do or want to do is read through city and state statutes and handbooks. At this point I can say that Fairfax County does have a policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and religion among other things. Fairfax County even specifically addresses discrimination by supervisors. Good for Fairfax County.

The City of Fairfax web site provides little to no information that I can find regarding its employees other than for people searching for employment with the city.

The Commonwealth of Virginia states the following in its department of human resources site (I'm not plowing through state statutes):

A. ProhibitedConduct

1. Harassment

The Commonwealth strictly forbids harassment of any employee, applicant for employment, vendor, contractor or volunteer on the basis of an individual’s race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, veteran status, political affiliation, genetics, or disability.

Policy amended January, 11, 2014 per Executive Order Number 1 (2014) Equal Opportunity.

2. Retaliation

The Commonwealth will not tolerate any form of retaliation directed against an employee or third party who either complains about harassment or who participates in any investigation concerning harassment.

------

C. Policy Violations

1. Engaging In Harassment

Any employee who engages in conduct determined to be harassment or encourages such conduct by others shall be subject to corrective action, up to and including termination, under Policy 1.60, Standards of Conduct.

2. Allowing Harassment to Continue

Managers and/or supervisors who allow workplace harassment to continue or fail to take appropriate corrective action upon becoming aware of the harassment may be considered parties to the offense, even though they may not have engaged in the harassment behavior.

-----

Workplace Harassment

Any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct that either denigrates or shows hostility or aversion towards a person on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, veteran status, political affiliation, genetics, or disability, that: (1) has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; (2) has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee's work performance; or (3) affects an employee's employment opportunities or compensation.
Click to expand...
 
tacomancer said:
It seems previous court rulings would disagree with this assessment.

Government as Employer: Free Expression Generally :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
Click to expand...

The case you cited (whatever it may be) apparently had to do with political activity. That is not on point--this is not about the Hatch Act. The Supreme Court has not yet decided the exact question involved here clearly.



Per the SCOTUS, government interest in maintaining a civil work place overrides the first amendment for employees.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate--it may, or may not. The Supreme Court, only this past summer, called it just the other way in Lane v. Franks, holding in that case that the First Amendment took precedence. The decision begins with this:


Almost 50 years ago, this Court declared that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment. Rather, the First Amendment protection of a public employee’s speech depends on a careful balance “between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968) (emphasis added)
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The pendulum will swing the other way, and when it does, those on the wrong had better hope that those of us on the right do not choose to avail ourselves of the precedents that those on the wrong are now setting, in order to attack those who dare to express wrong-wing opinions in the manner that they currently are attacking right-wing opinions. It seems to be one of the defining characteristics of wrong-wing ideology that they never think about such long-term consequences as this.
Click to expand...

please dont speak for right wingers your views are factually not representative of theirs, millions of right wingers respect peoples rights, the constitution and UNDERSTAND THEM. Millions of right wingers support equal rights for gays. So once again your claims are factually false and cant be supported with any facts.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Show us, PLEASE, 5 or 10 situations comparable to the OP involving other religions where the outcome was different. Source it out here. We will wait.

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.
Click to expand...

Prove it! Give a City of Atlanta source that validates your statement above. Prove it. Show us.
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.
Click to expand...

We have already provided what has been reported and what has been stated by the City of Atlanta, Mayor, City Council and Mayor's spokesperson.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I did. Nothing in your post countered the notion that he claimed his first priority as police chief was to cultivate a culture that glorifies god. To the contrary the link you just provided absolutely acknowledges that he DID state that.

It goes on to try and explain why he thinks it shouldn't matter...but that's massively different than claiming he didn't say it.

I don't know why you keep reposting the "uncleanness" quote since it has zero to do with my statements regarding his claims of his priorities on the job.
Click to expand...

because that is what he was fired over.
yes I did because that is part of his religious belief. Part of the Christian faith is to glorify God in all that we do. whether you are a garbage man a police chief or president.

He wasn't fired for anything else other than expressing his religious beliefs. on that note it wasn't even him expressing them he was writing a book for a bible study at his church. one of the chapters covered sexual morality. he puts quotes in their directly from the bible and was fired over it.

all of this of course is illegal.


This is rich considering I addressed that in the very post you're linking and yet you're acting like I didn't.

For the third time...I've acknowledged that he claims to have already contacted legal and got the approval. I've acknowledge that in every instance that I've talked about the cities claim that he did not.

His CLAIM that he did does not inherently disprove the cities CLAIM that he did not.

Both are making conflicting claims. There is no evidence to verify his CLAIM or theirs. It's a "he said / she said" situation, unless you're aware of evidence I'm not and can link to it.

Does that mean his CLAIM is incorrect? No it does not. But it does mean it is dishonest to claim as definitive fact that he was fired for stating his beliefs, when the city has publicly and clearly claimed otherwise, UNLESS you somehow also provide evidence that the cities claims are wholey fraudulent.
Click to expand...

the state has not proven their case that he violated any discrimination laws.
the state has not proven that he was fired for anything other than his religious views.
which is against the law.

Prove that he is lying when he says he contacted legal. that is where the burden proof lays so far no one has proven anything that he did anything wrong to be fired.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Show us, PLEASE, 5 or 10 situations comparable to the OP involving other religions where the outcome was different. Source it out here. We will wait.



Prove it! Give a City of Atlanta source that validates your statement above. Prove it. Show us.
this guy was fired for not reason that expressing a religious view point outside of work.



We have already provided what has been reported and what has been stated by the City of Atlanta, Mayor, City Council and Mayor's spokesperson.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what you are talking about because this post is incoherent.
I could careless what the mayor said he is trying to justify his illegal actions.

yes he was fired for that. there is no record anywhere that he ever discriminated against anyone not only with his job as fire chief but when he worked for the President of
the US.

so the only reason that he was fired was for writing a bible study book for his church group outside of work and someone didn't like what it said.
 
Fletch said:
Of course they are. How could you possibly not know this?
Click to expand...

Not everywhere and not federally.

They are in WA St and some other states.
 
WCH said:
There's nothing discriminatory about it.

discriminate. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:

He did none of that.
Click to expand...

It's an indication of how he views people personally. If it didnt matter to him professionally as well, he wouldnt have distributed them among employees.

Therefore, subordinates may see it as a threat against advancement or even firing if they dont conform.
 
ludin said:
yes I did because that is part of his religious belief. Part of the Christian faith is to glorify God in all that we do. whether you are a garbage man a police chief or president.
Click to expand...

First, then why did you claim he DIDN'T say that?

Second, there is a difference between stating as a religious person you try to glorify god in all that you do....and stating that your first priority as a professional is to cultivate a culture that glorifies him.

The first is talking about you personally and your own actions. The second, talking about cultivating a CULTURE, suggests your acting on your environment and the things around you. That is different.

However, again I note...there's a difference in saying "I think it's okay that he said it" and denying he said it at all, which you did initially.

He wasn't fired for anything else other than expressing his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Again, stop ignorantly claiming your opinion and guesses as if they're undisputable facts. They're not. There are a number of official reasons given by the city as to why he was terminated; none were "expressing his religious beliefs".

the state has not proven their case that he violated any discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen where they've definitively claimed he has violated discrimination laws, and that claim is not seemingly the basis of their termination of him.

If HE is alledging that they terminated him due to discrimination its on him to prove that, as discrimination is an affirmative defense.

Prove that he is lying when he says he contacted legal.
Click to expand...

Prove a negative. That makes sense.

He is the one making the claim that an action DID take place. He is the one alledging that his termination was due to fraudulent reasons. He needs to provide the proof that he did what they claim he did not. If he did, he should be able to provide evidence of it either through his own means or via legal means in obtaining their records.
 
Lursa said:
Not in the workplace to people he supervised.
Click to expand...

You're not keeping up. There's no evidence saying it was in the work place and giving them out was not why he was dismissed.
 
Lursa said:
It's an indication of how he views people personally. If it didnt matter to him professionally as well, he wouldnt have distributed them among employees.

Therefore, subordinates may see it as a threat against advancement or even firing if they dont conform.
Click to expand...

Every bit of that is assumption. and not a reason to fire someone.
 
Lursa said:
Not in the workplace to people he supervised.
Click to expand...

That's just an assertion. You don't know whether dismissing this fire chief for what he did violated his constitutional rights, and neither does anyone else.
 
matchlight said:
The case you cited (whatever it may be) apparently had to do with political activity. That is not on point--this is not about the Hatch Act. The Supreme Court has not yet decided the exact question involved here clearly.





That is not accurate--it may, or may not. The Supreme Court, only this past summer, called it just the other way in Lane v. Franks, holding in that case that the First Amendment took precedence. The decision begins with this:


Almost 50 years ago, this Court declared that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment. Rather, the First Amendment protection of a public employee’s speech depends on a careful balance “between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968) (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
Your case doesn't invalidated the one I cited, but I think you are seriously splitting hairs here.
 
matchlight said:
That's just an assertion. You don't know whether dismissing this fire chief for what he did violated his constitutional rights, and neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: if he was fired from a private institution for this would you have the same* feelings? Is it just that he was fired from a public institution that makes you think this was wrong?

*Edit: Typo
 
Last edited:
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Glen Contrarian said:
Problem is, NP, that he wrote (according to your reference):

“Uncleanness – whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”

“Naked men refuse to give in, so they pursue sexual fulfillment through multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex, and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body – temple and dishonor God.”

So this means that if there's an LGBT firefighter working underneath him, that firefighter would know that his boss thinks that he or she - as an LGBT - is right down there with pederasty, bestiality, et al. And you would know down deep in your gut what that means for your chances for advancement.

What's more, when the leader has that attitude, it trickles down the the chain and affects the whole supervisory chain. As a Navy veteran, you should know this instinctively from how a crew's performance and attitude changes when a new captain takes command of the ship.

So...yeah. The guy had to be fired. If he wasn't aware enough of how his words and actions can affect his people, and how this can affect their job performance, then the guy had to go. It wasn't a PC thing - it was a LEADERSHIP thing.
Click to expand...

Such detailed sexual discussion is not allowed in the workplace under most HR's following the guidelines for sexual harassment. Not for supervisors, not for peers. It certainly isnt appropriate in a book that clearly demonstrates his personal opinions.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

tres borrachos said:
Anti-Christian books that the state employee wrote himself, and handed out to only a few people who he knew or believed shared the same views as he did? Why would that be a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Alot of people probably presume to know my views on guns...and would be wrong. I never discuss guns at work, ever. Because the blowback from other opinions could definitely affect my job. So you cant really know what someone thinks because most people know you cant just air your views: religious, political, on sex, etc at work.
 
matchlight said:
That's just an assertion. You don't know whether dismissing this fire chief for what he did violated his constitutional rights, and neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...

I didnt say it violated his Constitutional rights. It most likely violated workplace and Human Resource policies.
 
tres borrachos said:
Just curious. Are you saying he should have been prohibited from handing out copies of a book he wrote to anyone who works for or with the Fire Department...period? You say "he handed them out at work and in uniform". How do you know he did it while in uniform and at work? That hasn't been reported anywhere.

Yes, he could have given it to them in the parking lot while wearing jeans. Or in the supermarket. Or at church.
Click to expand...

Can your boss sexually harass you in street clothes in the parking lot? Or at the supermarket? This can be classified in much the same manner...supervisors have to be extremely careful about perceived or real influence over subordinates.
 
WCH said:
You're not keeping up. There's no evidence saying it was in the work place and giving them out was not why he was dismissed.
Click to expand...

How exactly did his employees end up with them?
 
tacomancer said:
Your case doesn't invalidated the one I cited, but I think you are seriously splitting hairs here.
Click to expand...

I may sometimes seem to split hairs, but I don't do it to be disagreeable. I didn't see you identify the case you cited, but I think the Hatch Act of 1939 and the partisan political advocacy by government employees it meant to restrict form a special, distinct issue that isn't all that relevant here. Cases on sexual harassment in the workplace are more relevant to this one, but even there, the issue of First Amendment rights is not settled in the courts. Eugene Volokh has a very good summary of these cases online, at least as they stood when he wrote it.

The Supreme Court made a suggestive comment about offensive gender-related speech at work in R.A.V. v. Minneapolis, a First Amendment "fighting words" decision, but it was only dicta. The Court's decision in Lane last year, which I mentioned above, does not deal with either gender-related speech or speech like that in this case, but it's interesting because the Court strongly and unanimously favored First Amendment protection in the government workplace. Whether that shows how a court would probably call this case is not clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom