- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,580
- Reaction score
- 75,505
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
'cept Whites.
When was the last time a hate crime [formally charged] was committed against a White person?
Ferguson
'cept Whites.
When was the last time a hate crime [formally charged] was committed against a White person?
[emphasis added by bubba]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/god-gays-and-the-atlanta-fire-department.html?_r=0
finally it appears we have identified why the fire chief was terminated: "dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits"
before i get into this let's also observe what the fire chief was NOT terminated for doing: "the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians"
this is a very important distinction. there is NO evidence that the fire chief acted in any discriminatory manner. however, he was fired because he could have exposed "the city to possible discrimination lawsuits". but we now know that he did not so so. once again, there is NO evidence that the fire chief discriminated against any of his staff. but he was terminated because he might. how just is that as a basis of termination?
let's go to the issue that he failed to get approval for writing this book. the fire chief insists he cleared it with the ethics official and the ethics official does not say he did not. however, the mayor now objects insisting that the fire chief failed to seek and obtain the mayor's approval. now, why would the fire chief, after obtaining the OK from the designated ethics official, feel the need to pursue this matter at a higher level?
and while the city of atlanta placed the fire chief on suspension it forbade him from commenting publicly about the matter. a matter he did discuss while in his church, while not having received any compensation from the city. so, it is OK to withhold one's salary but then tell them that they cannot discuss a matter that impacts them. and yet there are those who will still insist this is not a first amendment matter, where the city of atlanta believes it can deprive a citizen of free speech and then terminate him for exercising that right
personally, i abhor the position the fire chief took in his book. but i similarly dislike those who tout their pro-life viewpoints to the detriment of personal choice. i don't like it when trim managers express a dissatisfaction with those who allow themselves to be out of shape. but this is not about what i or anyone else likes or dislikes about one's personal opinions. one's actual performance should be determinant about how the employee comported him/herself on the job. and as was shown above, in no way has the fire chief acted in a discriminatory fashion, despite what he has written
here is the mayor's expectation: [this case is] about making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against
and we find that NO one was actually discriminated against. that's the fact of the matter. but how realistic is the mayor in expecting no employee should be "without fear of being discriminated against". we cannot control an employee's fearfulness. the mayor's expressed expectation is an unreasonable one. one that should not result in the termination of a fire chief who, after investigation, was found to have not engaged in discrimination
this is a bogus termination
Ferguson
No, actually not. As I told WHC, he decided to make his beliefs a work issue, and that's what's at heart here. Now, if you told me that one of his employees followed him after work to his church where they recited anti-gay statements, and then reported back to the Mayor's office thus getting the chief fired, then that would certainly be different (and would open an entirely separate can of worms best left for another thread*). But as the Chief he brought his beliefs into the workplace and made it a departmental issue. So, to recap...
1. He was not fired for his beliefs, he was fired for making his beliefs a workplace issue.
2. He was not arrested for stating his beliefs, thus his first amendment rights were not infringed.
I detest even more that it must still be said. People who believe that free speech has no exceptions would probably be surprised to learn about laws against libel and slander. But then, you'll notice how often that speaking out against [fill in undesirable demographic here] is protected by the first amendment, yet criticizing that person's belief is suddenly no longer free speech, but rather "infringing on that person's freedom of speech." Convenient that, no?
Sexual orientation is protected under the EEOC. But since you brought it up, if the Chief had handed out books condemning black people or Jews this thread would have ended on page three.
a school teacher who made a pornography video on her own time, some parents found out about it (wonder how they did that?), and the teacher got fired.
Who was the White person the hate crime was committed against?
The officer.
Perpetrated by much of society, esp. the media and black spokes people.
He wasnt convicted but his life is ruined.
"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.
And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)
We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.
i don't disagree with you one iota"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.
what that NYT board editorial tells us is that the investigation revealed NO instance of discrimination by the fire chiefAnd according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)
We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.
i don't disagree with you one iota
but here is the point
you terminate someone for the wrong doing he actually committed
NOT for that which he might commit
An administrative rule doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates something in the Constitution. And your hyperbole is pretty transparent. The speech quoted from the booklet did not even come close to "condemning" homosexuals as persons. It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.
It looks to me like the main core of your issue is a beef with gays in general than about any supposed infringement of the first amendment. But understand that just because you happen to agree with a particular bigoted sentiment doesn't mean that creating a hostile workplace environment is acceptable. It just means that it's your accepted bigoted sentiment.
For all anyone here knows, it is your sentiments that are bigoted, rather than mine.
It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.