• 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

JoeTrumps said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the same reason that any captain in the Navy would be relieved of command if he did the exact same thing, because as soon as the book was published:

- every LGBT under that captain's command would fear for his or her career if his or her sexual orientation were exposed, and

- every homophobe in a position of authority would feel empowered to make things tougher on anyone under their authority whom they suspected (or knew) was LGBT.

And the combination of the two - especially in the modern day when marriage equality is legal in a majority of our states - is a serious detriment to the effectiveness of the command.

This retired Navy man is telling you that YES, it DOES work this way. It's not a PC thing, it's a LEADERSHIP thing.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really?

So if I worked for a federal agency in 2012 and came into the office wearing a "NO BAMA" pin on one side of my shirt and a "VOTE MITT" on the other...that'd be okay? The government would be required ot "protected" that speech? That wouldn't be a punishable offense?

Or say I worked for the FBI as a non-LEO and I was passing around campaign pamplets regarding Mitt to people in the office....that'd be okay? Something that the governmnet would be "defending"?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Government employment is public. That's why they are called public servants.
Click to expand...

public space bob, government property isn't necessarily that or else we could just walk onto a battleship whenever we felt like it.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. The issue is whether they win the court cases. An agency that makes sound legal decisions that are upheld in court reduces the frivolous lawsuits while one that runs scared and preemptively fires personnel opens the doors for frivolous lawsuits.

Look at it this way: Since the city fired the chief, would they have any standing when a former employ steps forward and claims discrimination? No, they wouldn't. They have already tacitly sided with all future plaintiffs regardless of the evidence because they have already bypassed any evidence of actual discriminatory acts in their firing decision. If someone sues the city now and the city takes the position that there is no evidence to support the claim then they add credibility to any lawsuit the chief brings.

The city is screwed.

Good thing "hate speech" has nothing to do with this
Click to expand...


The City of Atlanta better hope it does because it is the only hope they have of winning a lawsuit.


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.
Click to expand...

And the suspension had everything to do with his statement of religious beliefs. Attempting to further silence him during that suspension is not really a point on the scoreboard for them.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...


Did you not read my post I included it in there?

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 if the chapter you are reading about is regarding what the bible says about sexual morality which it was.

yes I do I just posted it
here is a link from an interview.

INTERVIEW: Former fire chief says inflammatory anti-gay language taken straight from Bible - LGBT Georgia | Gay Georgia | Gay Atlanta | LGBT Atlanta

you evidently didn't read my post at all.
He had already contacted legal and got approval.

The city can claim whatever they want to. they have to prove that he was discriminating on the job in order to fire him.
they cannot fire him for writing a study book for his church group.

his religious views are a protected class whether you agree with them or not.
if he wasn't discriminating in his job and there is no evidence that he was then the city has committed religious discrimination and is liable.

and if people know anything about the English language than they know that a , is used to separate items in a list. yet that doesn't draw the headlines compared to
Chief compares gays to pedophiles.
 
Risky Thicket said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone posting here can clearly understand an issue of constitutional law that courts have not yet settled. The city's policy would mean nothing if it violated a constitutionally protected right, for example the freedom of speech. Whether it does in this case is a difficult question that may go to court, and I can only give my opinion that under the circumstances this was protected speech. Neither I nor anyone else can know for certain that a court would hold that it was, any more than anyone here can know for certain that Atlanta's enforcement of this rule or policy did not violate any of this man's constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
It says no where that he did it AT WORK.
Click to expand...

It would be ok if he went to their homes and delivered them? Or mailed them?

@_@
 
Zyphlin said:
Really?

So if I worked for a federal agency in 2012 and came into the office wearing a "NO BAMA" pin on one side of my shirt and a "VOTE MITT" on the other...that'd be okay? The government would be required ot "protected" that speech? That wouldn't be a punishable offense?

Or say I worked for the FBI as a non-LEO and I was passing around campaign pamplets regarding Mitt to people in the office....that'd be okay? Something that the governmnet would be "defending"?
Click to expand...

You are giving examples where the person has broken specified laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

The actual analogous scenario would be suspending an employee because you fear they MIGHT wear a campaign button to work.
 
jmotivator said:
You are giving examples where the person has broken specified laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

The actual analogous scenario would be suspending an employee because you fear they MIGHT wear a campaign button to work.
Click to expand...

exactly. they have no evidence that he did anything wrong on the job. they fired him for a protected right. they are in major trouble.
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...
please feel free to point out anythign i called a strawman and use facts to prove its not, thank you
also, by defintion, what i just wrote is FACTUALLY not a strawman lol
facts win again
 
JoeTrumps said:
I agree he was wrong to do it. but to fire him for it is absurd.
Click to expand...

Strangely, I kind of agree here. Outright termination seems like the wrong choice here...unless this is a politically appointed position (I honestly don't know). IF what is claimed to have been stated in the book WAS stated (in terms of the "cultivating" the "culture" comment), action to remove him from a supervisory role absolutely seems reasonable. But it would see to be more prudent to simply remove him from the chain of command rather than terminate him entirely.

The one caveat to that is I don't know what their regulations and history is as it relates to publicly discussing an ongoing investigation; which may be a firing offense.
 
jmotivator said:
You are giving examples where the person has broken specified laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

The actual analogous scenario would be suspending an employee because you fear they MIGHT wear a campaign button to work.
Click to expand...

ludin said:
exactly. they have no evidence that he did anything wrong on the job. they fired him for a protected right. they are in major trouble.
Click to expand...

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

In United Public Workers v. Mitchell,664 the Court answered in the affirmative. While the Court refused to consider the claims of persons who had not yet engaged in forbidden political activities, it ruled against a mechanical employee of the Mint who had done so. The Court’s opinion, by Justice Reed, recognized that the restrictions of political activities imposed by the Act did in some measure impair First Amendment and other constitutional rights,665 but it placed its decision upon the established principle that no right is absolute. The standard by which the Court judged the validity of the permissible impairment of First Amendment rights, however, was a due process standard of reasonableness.666 Thus, changes in the standards of judging incidental restrictions on expression suggested the possibility of a reconsideration of Mitchell.667 But a divided Court, reaffirming Mitchell, sustained the Act’s limitations upon political activity against a range of First Amendment challenges.668 It emphasized that the interest of the Government in forbidding partisan political activities by its employees was so substantial that it overrode the rights of those employees to engage in political activities and association;669

....


662 53 Stat. 1147 § 9(a), (1939), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a)(2). By 54 Stat. 767 (1940), as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-08, the restrictions on political activity were extended to state and local governmental employees working in programs financed in whole or in part with federal funds. This provision was sustained against federalism challenges in Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127 (1947). All the States have adopted laws patterned on the Hatch Act. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 604 (1973).
Click to expand...

Per the SCOTUS, government interest in maintaining a civil work place overrides the first amendment for employees. Which makes sense because in this context the governments role is employer, not securer of rights.
 
Last edited:
the bottom line is based on the info we know, this moron used very poor judgment to think this would have consequences, VERY POOR judgement

also some facts
he was NOT fired because of his religion which is the same as mine
he was NOT fired based on his religious views/beliefs
he was NOT fired for writing a book outside of work
he was NOT fired for expressing views people simply disagree with
hence his 1st amendment rights were not infringed


unless theres MORE to this story that hasnt come out yet its basic common sense he was going to get canned, its nonsensical to even think otherwise :shrug:
 
ludin said:
Did you not read my post I included it in there?
Click to expand...

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.

you evidently didn't read my post at all.
He had already contacted legal and got approval.
Click to expand...

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.
 
So here's a question...if we're supposed to fire people in government positions every time they mention religious views or show religious materials...why is Obama still in Office? Or any of the other numerous congressmen/senators that have continuously talked about their religious stances? After all, separation of church and state according to so many here means that no government employee has a right to express their religious views will "on the clock".
 
jmotivator said:
You are giving examples where the person has broken specified laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry...I could've swore you just stated:

the government is required to protect the free speech of everyone, including those working for the government
Click to expand...

Is political speech not "free speech"?

There was no caveats in your statement about protecting free speech, unless there's laws that disallow it.

But thanks now for admitting the first step....you acknowledge the government absolutely CAN legally limit free speech in a government work place or by a government employee.

Whether or not the legally could do it in this case is a different question....but up till now you've been presenting your argument as if that is simply not constitutioanlly allowed. Thanks for admitting it is.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So here's a question...if we're supposed to fire people in government positions every time they mention religious views or show religious materials...why is Obama still in Office? Or any of the other numerous congressmen/senators that have continuously talked about their religious stances? After all, separation of church and state according to so many here means that no government employee has a right to express their religious views will "on the clock".
Click to expand...

The issue was in creating a hostile work place per typical EEOC regulations, not religious views per se.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So here's a question...if we're supposed to fire people in government positions every time they mention religious views or show religious materials...why is Obama still in Office? Or any of the other numerous congressmen/senators that have continuously talked about their religious stances? After all, separation of church and state according to so many here means that no government employee has a right to express their religious views will "on the clock".
Click to expand...

I dont think anybody condones that and if they are they are mistaken on how the law and rights work
 
the speed at which liberals are willing to destroy people's entire CAREERS based on religious beliefs(and the expression thereof) is really terrifying. It's just a big game to them.
 
whysoserious said:
Are you really trying to say a white male has a disadvantage getting a government job?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tacomancer said:
The issue was in creating a hostile work place per typical EEOC regulations, not religious views per se.
Click to expand...

So there's no one in all of our government that is pro-gay and doesn't feel hostility from those senators/congressmen/POTUS because of their views? Or does that only happen in Fire Departments?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So there's no one in all of our government that is pro-gay and doesn't feel hostility from those senators/congressmen/POTUS because of their views? Or does that only happen in Fire Departments?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I agree its stupid, but thats how it seems to work, elected officials dont have to follow the same rules but are free to enact their own rules in many cases as the constitution states that the congress make their own rules internally.

constitution article 1 section 5 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...
 
JoeTrumps said:
the speed at which liberals are willing to destroy people's entire CAREERS based on religious beliefs(and the expression thereof) is really terrifying. It's just a big game to them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tacomancer said:
Honestly, I agree its stupid, but thats how it seems to work, elected officials dont have to follow the same rules but are free to enact their own rules in many cases as the constitution states that the representatives make their own rules internally.
Click to expand...

Beyond stupid imo. Hypocritical, against equal treatment under the law also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom