• 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

Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:
If there was a fire chief who was a homosexual pervert, would you agree that having such a leader would similarly impose a hostile environment on any underlings who happened to adhere to any kind of moral standards, to the degree that their discomfort would constitute a legitimate reason for firing that leader?
Click to expand...

If he tried to impose his lifestyle or beliefs on his subordinates, then he - like the actual fire chief - should be fired. It's NOT a matter of PC - it's a matter of leadership, of how well the leader grasps just how his or her actions even off duty affect subordinates.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:
Of course he does, just as you have the right to characterize the expression of opinions and beliefs with which you disagree as “spread[ing] his hate speech”. Of course, I equally have the right to call you out for the idiocy and dishonesty that you display by so doing; especially if you also claim to be “tolerant”.
Click to expand...

Bob Blaylock said:
Homosexual behavior is immoral. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about calling it out for what it is, nor about calling out those sick perverts who practice it for what they are.
Click to expand...

So in the one instance you call me intolerant and then you go around and condemn homosexual firefighters not for quality of their character but for the characters they love? Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
 
Fletch said:
No. Adulterers have not been granted the official stamp of protected political victim class. No one cares if they are discriminated against.
Click to expand...

One has to ask, why not? Adultery is not any more or less immoral than homosexuality. Why should one be treated differently than the other?
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:
You seem to be ducking the question.

The matter involves a decent man, of good morals, who wrote a book upholding these morals. The claim is that because there may be some sick perverts working under him, who may find it uncomfortable to work under a leader that they know believes in decent morals, that this is an excuse to fire that leader. The claim to which I was responding wasn't even based on that decent leader treating perverts any differently than other underlings; just the fact that these sick perverts might be uncomfortable working under a leader who upheld the morality that they reject.

So, I am asking; if the fire chief was a sick homosexual pervert, would any decent, moral people working under him have similar cause to feel uncomfortable, and would their discomfort be just cause to fire him?

Or does the privilege of having such consideration given to one's “discomfort” only apply to evil people being uncomfortable with working under good people; and not with good people working under evil people?
Click to expand...

I am not ducking anything. I am just not giving you the answer you are fishing for to try to prove some sort of point in your head. A person has to actually do something to cause a hostile work enviroment. It cant be just because the person exists. For example, handing out a book that has nothing to do with their job to their subordinates.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
One has to ask, why not? Adultery is not any more or less immoral than homosexuality. Why should one be treated differently than the other?
Click to expand...

Adultery is a complete aside from Homosexuality. Quit trying to compare the two.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
One has to ask, why not? Adultery is not any more or less immoral than homosexuality. Why should one be treated differently than the other?
Click to expand...

Adultry harms the spouse that is being cheated on. Homosexuality only has to do with the people who are consenting to love each other.
 
WCH said:
Yeah the publishers and distributors of the Gideon Bible should be in prison.

Ever heard of the first amendment?
Click to expand...

That's only for them.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Indeed, think of what it would mean if politicians were not allowed to freely hold, and express what beliefs they will, and to act in their duties according to their beliefs? The entire process of lawmaking really depends on the ability of lawmakers to discuss and debate their opinions freely, and to author and vote on legislation in accordance therewith.
Click to expand...

A fire chief is a public servant and not a lawmaker.
 
If Kelvin Cochran had been passing out Korans these Baptists would have been demanding that he be fired.
 
Fletch said:
Why should someone lose their job over that? Would you support his firing if he passed out pro-gay marriage leaflets too? Or books by Richard Dawkins? Why are liberals so intolerant?
Click to expand...

A manager has no business passing out any religious / anti-religious / or ideological literature to their employees. That would include religious literature or the God Delusion. Pretty simple concept.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
At least I do not claim “tolerance” among my virtues, so I am not a hypocrite when I fail to practice it.
Click to expand...

Except that you don't know what "intolerant" means. Disagreeing is not intolerance. That's just a lie you tell yourself so you have a name to call other people.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Glen Contrarian said:
If he tried to impose his lifestyle or beliefs on his subordinates, then he - like the actual fire chief - should be fired. It's NOT a matter of PC - it's a matter of leadership, of how well the leader grasps just how his or her actions even off duty affect subordinates.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that Mr. Cochrane “tried to impose his lifestyle or beliefs on his subordinates”. The argument is that simply because he made it known that he disapproves of a certain form of immorality, that his leadership would create a hostile work environment for perverts who hold to that form of immorality. That being the case, wouldn't a leader who lets it be known that he engages in a certain form of immorality also create a hostile environment for subordinates who hold to decent moral standards?
 
Fletch said:
Do I have this right? The guy was writing a book and asked some of his co-workers to read it? And because it was religious in nature and spoke ill of a protected liberal group of supposed victims the guy was fired? Is this sort of thing strictly prohibited in the Chiefs contract, or is the mayor just scared of the intolerant fascist homo activists raining down on him?
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that a public employee supervisor handing out Islamic religious material to subordinates is ok?
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

CMPancake said:
So in the one instance you call me intolerant and then you go around and condemn homosexual firefighters not for quality of their character but for the characters they love? Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be “tolerant”. I fully acknowledge that there are evils that are not deserving of the “tolerance” that those of you on the wrong seem to reserve only for such evils.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:
There's no evidence that Mr. Cochrane “tried to impose his lifestyle or beliefs on his subordinates”. The argument is that simply because he made it known that he disapproves of a certain form of immorality, that his leadership would create a hostile work environment for perverts who hold to that form of immorality. That being the case, wouldn't a leader who lets it be known that he engages in a certain form of immorality also create a hostile environment for subordinates who hold to decent moral standards?
Click to expand...

So if your boss passed around a book condemning the Book of Mormon, you'd be fine with that? After all, he's not "trying to impose his beliefs," he's just saying yours are wrong. Haven't you heard of the First Amendment? How dare you be so intolerant?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Indeed, think of what it would mean if politicians were not allowed to freely hold, and express what beliefs they will, and to act in their duties according to their beliefs? The entire process of lawmaking really depends on the ability of lawmakers to discuss and debate their opinions freely, and to author and vote on legislation in accordance therewith.
Click to expand...

The public is not a subordinate of the politician. Your situation is not analogous.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:
There's no evidence that Mr. Cochrane “tried to impose his lifestyle or beliefs on his subordinates”. The argument is that simply because he made it known that he disapproves of a certain form of immorality, that his leadership would create a hostile work environment for perverts who hold to that form of immorality. That being the case, wouldn't a leader who lets it be known that he engages in a certain form of immorality also create a hostile environment for subordinates who hold to decent moral standards?
Click to expand...

No, that is your strawman argument. We have a problem with him pushing his views on subordinates by giving out books to them.
 
Amandi said:
A fire chief is a public servant and not a lawmaker.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, he is a citizen of the United States, and therefore, every bit as entitled to his rights under the First Amendment as every other citizen. Nothing in the First Amendment allows the rights that it affirms to be denied as a condition of working for the government. Same as the rest of the Bill of Rights.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
They are different faces of the exact same evil. Why is one given the status of a politically-correct “protected class”, and the other not?
Click to expand...

Adultry harms the spouse that is being cheated on. Homosexuality harms no one and is only between the people who are in a relationship with each other.
 
rocket88 said:
Except that you don't know what "intolerant" means. Disagreeing is not intolerance. That's just a lie you tell yourself so you have a name to call other people.
Click to expand...

Agreeing that someone should be fired from his job for expressing beliefs that you find disagreeable certainly constitutes intolerance.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Nevertheless, he is a citizen of the United States, and therefore, every bit as entitled to his rights under the First Amendment as every other citizen. Nothing in the First Amendment allows the rights that it affirms to be denied as a condition of working for the government. Same as the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

The first amendment actually does require that the government not push religion on people.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Agreeing that someone should be fired from his job for expressing beliefs that you find disagreeable certainly constitutes intolerance.
Click to expand...

Actually, I haven't said whether I agree with the decision or not. Don't let that stop you from tossing around the word 'intolerant." Did you just learn this word and are still trying to figure out how to use it?
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

rocket88 said:
So if your boss passed around a book condemning the Book of Mormon, you'd be fine with that? After all, he's not "trying to impose his beliefs," he's just saying yours are wrong. Haven't you heard of the First Amendment? How dare you be so intolerant?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the idea that there are people who do not agree with my religion. I have no problem with the idea that they may occasionally attempt to express their disagreement with me.

I am secure in my beliefs, and do not feel harmed by the fact that not everyone else agrees with them.

It is certainly better to allow others the right to express their beliefs, no matter how strongly they disagree with mine; than to accept the possibility that I might be denied the right to hold and express my own beliefs.

Nothing in the First Amendment establishes, nor even implies, a right not to be exposed to beliefs and opinions that are in conflict with your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom