• 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

stonewall50 said:
He wrote the book. He is allowed to do that. He handed it out. Why is that against the rules? Did he do it under the auspices of the city? Or did he do it on his own?
Click to expand...

Because it declares a class of people which HR probably has a policy about (I dont know, but sexual orientation is becoming more and more a protected status by HR departments every day, so I think its a safe assumption that the city HR dept has it covered) to be evil or immoral. This creates a hostile or uncomfortable workplace environment.

Thats really all there is to it in this case as far as I can see and its pretty cut and dry.
 
tacomancer said:
I know, its amazing how many people don't get this obvious fact and chalk it up to religious discrimination for some reason I have yet to fathom.
Click to expand...

well its not that many, its like a handful. At least here it is.
But you are right its still amazing that there are that many.
Whats not amazing though is after 500+ posts theres not one of those posts that can support that false claim with anythign factual.

unless more comes out nothing will change

so far based on all the articles posted here and that ive read its ZERO surprise this guy was fired. He was a complete moron on this topic to think there would be no consequences for his ACTIONS. Im actually surprised he was suspended for a month.. If i did somethign that stupid at work i would expect to last a week and i would expect a straight termination . . no suspension prior.
 
stonewall50 said:
1.)He wrote the book. He is allowed to do that.
2.) He handed it out.
3.) Why is that against the rules?
4.) Did he do it under the auspices of the city? Or did he do it on his own?
Click to expand...

1.) correct, he is allowed to right a book
2.) correct he can do that
3.) thats not against the rules
4.) no
5.) yes
 
stonewall50 said:
He wrote the book. He is allowed to do that. He handed it out. Why is that against the rules? Did he do it under the auspices of the city? Or did he do it on his own?
Click to expand...

Why did several people complain to the union? Since they got the union involved, it's very possible it was at work or on work time.

If someone I worked with, manager or not, handed me a book *they wrote* with blatant racist or anti-feminist (women belong in the home!), or hate speech of any kind in it, I would be offended, may feel that my job was threatened. I would probably bring it to their superior's attention.

Because 'hate' and 'ignorance' are very strong identifiers about someone's personality....it's easy to believe that it would affect their views...and actions like promotion, firing, etc...at work.
 
Lursa said:
The other workers, more than one, complained to the union.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I saw. I didn't see anywhere that the people who actually got the books were the ones who complained either, unless I missed that somewhere.
 
Lursa said:
I worked in an HR dept of a large corp when I went back to night school. Very informative. And ALL about CYA. Protecting the company from liability.

Also learned alot about the personality types, triggers, and circumstances surrounding workplace shootings. The signs to look for, why you handle firings in a certain way and provide resources/pay after, etc.
Click to expand...

I've had to sit through trainings like that as well. Some of them are just downright comical. I remember once leaning to one of my peers and saying "Nobody told me I'd have to play psychiatrist too when I took on this role."

HR is a tricky and pretty nasty field to be in. At least once a week I pat myself on the back for making the decision to never go into that field, especially being a manager of people. That's hard enough.
 
tacomancer said:
Because it declares a class of people which HR probably has a policy about (I dont know, but sexual orientation is becoming more and more a protected status by HR departments every day, so I think its a safe assumption that the city HR dept has it covered) to be evil or immoral. This creates a hostile or uncomfortable workplace environment.

Thats really all there is to it in this case as far as I can see and its pretty cut and dry.
Click to expand...

protected status

These are the operative words here.

Unfortunately "hostile or uncomfortable work environment" only relates to protected classes.

If the situation was reversed here, and the Chief published a book about how great the gay lifestyle is and how everyone should support it and how those who don't are rotten bigots, and someone was uncomfortable with those sentiments and had concerns about how the Chief would view him because he abhorred the gay lifestyle, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a complaint. People who are not in favor of gay lifestyle or gay marriage are not a protected class, and in the eyes of the law, the hostile or uncomfortable work environment in the example wouldn't be addressed. The only HR issue I think would be if the Chief directly threatened his job, but I'm still having problems finding a law that confirms that.
 
tres borrachos said:
protected status

These are the operative words here.

Unfortunately "hostile or uncomfortable work environment" only relates to protected classes.

If the situation was reversed here, and the Chief published a book about how great the gay lifestyle is and how everyone should support it and how those who don't are rotten bigots, and someone was uncomfortable with those sentiments and had concerns about how the Chief would view him because he abhorred the gay lifestyle, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a complaint. People who are not in favor of gay lifestyle or gay marriage are not a protected class, and in the eyes of the law, the hostile or uncomfortable work environment in the example wouldn't be addressed. The only HR issue I think would be if the Chief directly threatened his job, but I'm still having problems finding a law that confirms that.
Click to expand...

I would agree this is a problem and those who are uncomfortable with celebratory views on gay rights should also be protected so long as they don't lash out like this guy did. In reality, I think we need a happy neutral.
 
tacomancer said:
I would agree this is a problem and those who are uncomfortable with celebratory views on gay rights should also be protected so long as they don't lash out like this guy did. In reality, I think we need a happy neutral.
Click to expand...

Don't fall into her trap. Her idea is ridiculous. If someone wrote some book that said all straight people deserve to go to hell and they are akin to people who **** horses... they would get fired too.

Her false dichotomy doesn't work here on this board.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
I would agree this is a problem and those who are uncomfortable with celebratory views on gay rights should also be protected so long as they don't lash out like this guy did. In reality, I think we need a happy neutral.
Click to expand...

Amen to that bolded part! I'm all for that. I think by correcting an issue that existed systematically in the past we ended up overcorrecting. A little moderation would be good, or a little parity...I don't know.
 
tacomancer said:
Thats really all there is to it in this case as far as I can see and its pretty cut and dry.
Click to expand...

its very cut and dry
i dont know anybody in real life that is surprised over this one bit everybody i have talked to about this all say the same basic thing

"man that guy was stupid, what was he thinkin, you cant do that"
 
whysoserious said:
Don't fall into his trap. His idea is ridiculous. If someone wrote some book that said all straight people deserve to go to hell and they are akin to people who **** horses... they would get fired too.

His false dichotomy doesn't work here on this board.
Click to expand...

of course they would
just like anybody else that did somethign this stupid
 
whysoserious said:
Don't fall into her trap. Her idea is ridiculous. If someone wrote some book that said all straight people deserve to go to hell and they are akin to people who **** horses... they would get fired too.

Her false dichotomy doesn't work here on this board.
Click to expand...

I dont think thats what she is saying.

my understanding is that praising lifestyles (gay, christian, ghetto, suburban, whatever) could make people very uncomfortable, this makes sense to me.
 
tacomancer said:
I dont think thats what she is saying.

my understanding is that praising lifestyles (gay, christian, ghetto, suburban, whatever) could make people very uncomfortable, this makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

But he didn't get fired for praising. He got fired for hating.

He wouldn't have gotten fired for writing a book that talks about the joy of straight people being in love.
 
whysoserious said:
But he didn't get fired for praising. He got fired for hating.

He wouldn't have gotten fired for writing a book that talks about the joy of straight people being in love.
Click to expand...

I know, she and I were discussing hypotheticals, not the OP itself
 
tacomancer said:
I know, she and I were discussing hypotheticals, not the OP itself
Click to expand...

Yes, her comparison was bull****. The two situations are not at all similar:

1) Those people are bad because having gay sex is unnatural, a sin, and comparable to having sex with kids.
2) Those people are bad because they are denying others a basic human right.

You can obviously tell the difference between the two view points, right? One is hate speech and the other is not. But even still, under her comparison, the police chief could be fired if the right words were used. For instance, "people who only have sex with those of the opposite sex and forbid homosexuality are akin to bestiality and pedophilia"... yeah he could get fired for that.

That's a fireable offense anywhere. Here's a pro tip to managers: don't publicly write that a group of people who could work for you are as bad as horse ****ers and you probably won't get fired.
 
whysoserious said:
Yes, her comparison was bull****. The two situations are not at all similar:

1) Those people are bad because having gay sex is unnatural, a sin, and comparable to having sex with kids.
2) Those people are bad because they are denying others a basic human right.

You can obviously tell the difference between the two view points, right? One is hate speech and the other is not. But even still, under her comparison, the police chief could be fired if the right words were used. For instance, "people who only have sex with those of the opposite sex and forbid homosexuality are akin to bestiality and pedophilia"... yeah he could get fired for that.

That's a fireable offense anywhere. Here's a pro tip to managers: don't publicly write that a group of people who could work for you are as bad as horse ****ers and you probably won't get fired.
Click to expand...

horse****ers are bad?
 
tacomancer said:
horse****ers are bad?
Click to expand...

Someone (not you) is posting melt down posts. If he was paying attention (which he wasn't), my post that got him all jacked up was about "hostile and uncomfortable workplaces" and my response with that same post to your correct reference to protected classes and workplaces, not this story.

That's why it's always better to read and comprehend the discussions and posts you're trying to tear down so you don't post really dumb posts.

By the way, just saw and posted in your thread about the new job. Nice work! I'm really happy for you. I hope the move isn't traumatic but I've been there, done that myself (had to relocate to report into the HQ). Best wishes for much success in it!
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, that's what I saw. I didn't see anywhere that the people who actually got the books were the ones who complained either, unless I missed that somewhere.
Click to expand...

Hadnt thought of that. Then it begs the question....how did they know about the content?
 
tres borrachos said:
I've had to sit through trainings like that as well. Some of them are just downright comical. I remember once leaning to one of my peers and saying "Nobody told me I'd have to play psychiatrist too when I took on this role."

HR is a tricky and pretty nasty field to be in. At least once a week I pat myself on the back for making the decision to never go into that field, especially being a manager of people. That's hard enough.
Click to expand...

It's really not that bad....but it's amazing what people bring on themselves or think they can get away with.
 
tres borrachos said:
protected status

These are the operative words here.

Unfortunately "hostile or uncomfortable work environment" only relates to protected classes.

If the situation was reversed here, and the Chief published a book about how great the gay lifestyle is and how everyone should support it and how those who don't are rotten bigots, and someone was uncomfortable with those sentiments and had concerns about how the Chief would view him because he abhorred the gay lifestyle, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a complaint. People who are not in favor of gay lifestyle or gay marriage are not a protected class, and in the eyes of the law, the hostile or uncomfortable work environment in the example wouldn't be addressed. The only HR issue I think would be if the Chief directly threatened his job, but I'm still having problems finding a law that confirms that.
Click to expand...

Do we know that sexual orientation isnt a protected class in that state? It is in some.
 
whysoserious said:
Yes, her comparison was bull****. The two situations are not at all similar:

1) Those people are bad because having gay sex is unnatural, a sin, and comparable to having sex with kids.
2) Those people are bad because they are denying others a basic human right.

You can obviously tell the difference between the two view points, right? One is hate speech and the other is not. But even still, under her comparison, the police chief could be fired if the right words were used. For instance, "people who only have sex with those of the opposite sex and forbid homosexuality are akin to bestiality and pedophilia"... yeah he could get fired for that.

That's a fireable offense anywhere. Here's a pro tip to managers: don't publicly write that a group of people who could work for you are as bad as horse ****ers and you probably won't get fired.
Click to expand...

common sense at its finest that will be ignored by a super minority
 
Lursa said:
Do we know that sexual orientation isnt a protected class in that state? It is in some.
Click to expand...

or that county, or municipality or that org
unless NEW info comes out this thing is so open and close its ridiculous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom