• 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

Bob Blaylock said:
There is nothing “hateful” about calling out evil for what it is.

“Hate” has become a code word used by the wicked against those who dare to tell the truth.
Click to expand...

So espousing discriminatory viewpoints is OK, as long as you find the people in question to be icky.

If he was handing out anti-Christian propaganda, would you be as dismissive?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Haters gotta hate, but they also gotta be punished for it.
Click to expand...

So, who gets to decide what opinions are legitimate, that one may be allowed to freely hold and express them, and which opinions are “hate” that one must be punished for holding and expressing?

And what will you do when the pendulum swings the other way, and it is your own beliefs that are judged to be “hate”, and you who stand to be punished for expressing them?
 
ludin said:
Firing him for expressing his religious views violates the constitution. the government can't do it. it also violates his freedom of speech.
he has a major lawsuit if he chooses to push it.

PS no one said he was on the clock. he could have been off the clock.
as the SCOTUS has ruled just because you enter a public domain doesn't not mean you give up your 1st amendment rights. they have ruled on this time and time and time again.
Click to expand...

He handed out his pamphlet to subordinates who complained. Whether he was on the clock makes no difference. He was using the influence of his Govt. office to preach religious dogma. The SC would not rule in his favor in this case.
 
Kobie said:
So espousing discriminatory viewpoints is OK, as long as you find the people in question to be icky.

If he was handing out anti-Christian propaganda, would you be as dismissive?
Click to expand...

Where have I been unclear?

Everyone has the right to hold, and to express, whatever beliefs they will.

Just because you and those with you in the political wrong-wing are unwilling to tolerate beliefs that you find disagreeable does not mean that those of us on the right share your intolerance.

That's one of the defining differences between us on the right, and you on the wrong. You on the wrong like to make a point of piously proclaiming yourselves as the “tolerant” side, while at the same time demonstrating an amazing degree of intolerance; while we on the right may not claim to be “tolerant”, but in practice, we demonstrate that we are much more tolerant than those on your side.
 
iguanaman said:
He handed out his pamphlet to subordinates who complained. Whether he was on the clock makes no difference. He was using the influence of his Govt. office to preach religious dogma. The SC would not rule in his favor in this case.
Click to expand...

sure they would a violation of religious beliefs and free speech is huge.
 
JoeTrumps said:
so just to be clear: if he was giving out pamphets of pro-athiest ideology you would still support the guy being fired, right?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the viewpoint - it has to do with a person with hiring/firing/promotion/pay authority using that power over subordinates in the workplace to promote any viewpoint about religion - yeah the law is pretty settled on that one.
 
WCH said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/atlanta-ousts-fire-chief-who-has-antigay-views.html?_r=0

ATLANTA — Mayor Kasim Reed announced Tuesday that he had fired the chief of the city’s Fire Rescue Department, Kelvin Cochran, after Mr. Cochran gave workers a religious book he wrote containing passages that condemn homosexuality.

Mr. Reed had suspended Mr. Cochran for a month without pay in November, opening an investigation into whether Mr. Cochran’s authorship and distribution of the book to workers violated the city’s nondiscrimination policies. That move sparked a debate about religious liberty and freedom of expression: Last month, the 1.4-million member Georgia Baptist Convention began an online petition that called for Mr. Cochran’s reinstatement and suggested his First Amendment rights had been violated.

The matter also presents a challenge for Mr. Reed, a second-term Democrat who presides over a metropolis whose social mosaic is defined by strong expressions of Christianity and large and politically powerful gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual groups.

snip...

Homosexual Agenda strikes again
Click to expand...

I just don't know if its right for your boss to be handing out statements condemning your religion dose seems discriminatory
 
justabubba said:
what did he do wrong by gifting to coworkers a copy of his publication

that they received a gift from him did nothing compelling to/against them. they did not have to accept it, nor did they have to read it
at least from my limited reading of the account
Click to expand...

A supervisor giving out religious material could cause a hostile work environment for the his subordinates who dont hold the same beliefs. I do want to point out that earlier I did say that I dont think this rose to the level of firing him. I think telling him to not hand out his book to his subordinates should have been the proper response by the mayor.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The First Amendment makes no distinction on who is allowed what rights on the basis of who their employers are.
Click to expand...

But the Supeme Court has. The freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not absolute
 
ludin said:
sure they would a violation of religious beliefs and free speech is huge.
Click to expand...

They have ruled before...."The right to believe is absolute the right to act is not absolute"
 
I don't think his life should be ruined because he made an ill-advised choice. I'm sure he's a good person and probably a good fire chief. A simple reprimand should have sufficed. Not everything needs to be taken to such extremes.
 
i dont really understand how this is an issue, unless theres more to the story this is just common sense

if i go to work tomorrow and give some co workers copies of a book I wrote and in the book it says that i hate a gender, race, religion etc or that i think women, blacks or christians are vile dirty people guess what . . . . im getting fired LMAO

and thats not a violation of my religion or free speech in anyway whatsoever lol and saying otherwise is just dishonest

the chief seems to be a moron that wasnt thinking to clearly BUT like i said maybe theres more to the story maybe im missing something

I just know what would happened to me if i did the above and i would be fired and rightfully so, so i dont understand why anybody thinks this guy is different
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Really? He agreed to waive his First Amendment rights as a condition of working for the city? Since when does government have the authority to require one to give up their most essential Constitutional rights as a condition of employment?
Click to expand...

According to the story Reed (Atlanta Mayor) said "that such writings were inconsistent with the city’s employment policies and opened an investigation into potential discrimination within the fire department." The ajc article on this states "The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership. What’s more, Reed said he believes Cochran opened up the city to the potential for litigation over future discrimination claims."

One can only assume that a contract with the city has some sort of ethics clause in it even if written in simplistic fashion, and we can also safely assume that the Fire Chief willingly signed such an agreement. But what we do know is the concepts behind the book put the city in an terrible position if it comes out later that employees under his command were handled differently based on their sexual orientation. At the same time it seems like Cochran disobeyed an order until the investigation was complete. Not saying Cochran engaged in discrimination, not saying it did not happen but the city is right to be concerned about it.

Also, technically his 1st Amendment rights were not waived. When you work for the government (and the military) you do not give up your rights. However, you also cannot run around and say whatever you want to when ever you want to and expect total impunity. You are contractually obligated to use them with a sense of responsibility. And yes, these types of limitations can be found in government public offices from local to federal, the military, all over the educational field, and in the private sector (namely the corporate environment.) If you signed said agreement then you only have yourself to blame for breaking them.

And I am sure you know this to be factual but we are here because of the appearance someone'e religious rights were infringed. If you were objective about the entire story it would be more clear that Cochran being fired was entirely his own doing. Now, if Cochran sues the city and more comes out on this story we can change our positions here. Perhaps something to back up that the city did approve the book. Until then, all we have to go on is Cochran doing this to himself based on the information to date.

Sources...
Reed: Atlanta fire chief terminated following book controversy | www.ajc.com
 
I wonder how people would feel if this same person was distributing satanic or kkk pamphlets. Would they still cry first amendment?
 
Christian privilege no longer applies and they're bitter.
 
tacomancer said:
I wonder how people would feel if this same person was distributing satanic or kkk pamphlets. Would they still cry first amendment?
Click to expand...

if they did thier cries would still be wrong
 
iguanaman said:
They have ruled before...."The right to believe is absolute the right to act is not absolute"
Click to expand...

They have ruled that just because you work in a public sector or enter a public sector you don't lose your constitutional rights.
 
ludin said:
They have ruled that just because you work in a public sector or enter a public sector you don't lose your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

You can sign away those rights as a condition of employment at any work place. Almost all of us are subject to HR policies at the work place. For example its within my constitutional rights to tell my coworker she has nice tits, but I will still get fired and rightly so.
 
Sherman123 said:
I don't think his life should be ruined because he made an ill-advised choice. I'm sure he's a good person and probably a good fire chief. A simple reprimand should have sufficed. Not everything needs to be taken to such extremes.
Click to expand...

LOL you forget who you are talking about. we are talking about extremists. who think if you don't believe the way that they do you should be fired, and some go as far as thinking you should die.

they are not reasonable people nor are they the tolerant people that they claim to be.

no he shouldn't have been fired. having an opposite opinions not cause to be fired. the city violated at least 1 constitutional amendment and the fact he was expressing his religious views they violated a restricted class as well so this has the making of a discrimination case.

Heck they got a CEO fired as well because he donated his own personal money to a cause that he believed in.
yet all they want is equal rights. no they want more than equal rights they want thought police.
 
tacomancer said:
You can sign away those rights as a condition of employment at any work place. Almost all of us are subject to HR policies at the work place. For example its within my constitutional rights to tell my coworker she has nice tits, but I will still get fired and rightly so.
Click to expand...

you can never sign away your constitutional rights.
sexual harassment is a federal law. you broke a federal law.

the guy didn't break any federal laws.
 
ludin said:
you can never sign away your constitutional rights.
sexual harassment is a federal law. you broke a federal law.

the guy didn't break any federal laws.
Click to expand...

Odd, I've seen multiple people get in trouble for violating things like nondisclosure agreements (first amendment), government secrets clearance (first amendment), posting signs for local things like bake sales in an employee breakroom (first amendment).

It seems the courts would disagree with you.
 
ludin said:
you can never sign away your constitutional rights.
sexual harassment is a federal law. you broke a federal law.

the guy didn't break any federal laws.
Click to expand...

Wrong, you can sign agreements all day long that compel you to act with a level of discretion and reserve that an agreement may stipulate. You can sign an agreement saying you cannot take a weapon to the workplace, not bring a bible to the workplace, not browse the internet for anything you wish, and not engage in any activity that puts the business in jeopardy. You can do that all day long, and all of which means being intelligent with your rights and abiding by said agreements. And a little hint, if you voluntarily signed the agreement then the organization enforcing the agreement is *still* not infringing upon your rights.
 
WCH said:
They succeeded in getting the chief.

Better not state your religious beliefs in public or they'll come after you.
Click to expand...

Its all part of the secret muslim gay kennesaw plot I tell's ya!
 
WCH said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/atlanta-ousts-fire-chief-who-has-antigay-views.html?_r=0

ATLANTA — Mayor Kasim Reed announced Tuesday that he had fired the chief of the city’s Fire Rescue Department, Kelvin Cochran, after Mr. Cochran gave workers a religious book he wrote containing passages that condemn homosexuality.

Mr. Reed had suspended Mr. Cochran for a month without pay in November, opening an investigation into whether Mr. Cochran’s authorship and distribution of the book to workers violated the city’s nondiscrimination policies. That move sparked a debate about religious liberty and freedom of expression: Last month, the 1.4-million member Georgia Baptist Convention began an online petition that called for Mr. Cochran’s reinstatement and suggested his First Amendment rights had been violated.

The matter also presents a challenge for Mr. Reed, a second-term Democrat who presides over a metropolis whose social mosaic is defined by strong expressions of Christianity and large and politically powerful gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual groups.

snip...

Homosexual Agenda strikes again
Click to expand...

Too many gays are setting their beds on fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom