• 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

This really isn't rocket surgery. If the fire chief had handed out anti-woman, anti-minority or antisemitic literature to his employees this thread would have fizzled out by page three after attracting the usual libertarians.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

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 then any gay men or women working for the city should be fired? No one should be forced to work with them? Along with the other immoral people like adulterers and fornicators? I mean, isnt it wrong to force 'decent' people to work for them and with them?
 
CMPancake said:
Adultery is a complete aside from Homosexuality. Quit trying to compare the two.
Click to expand...

How so? In the context of this discussion it's been about religious views of gays. Adultery is a sin as well.
 
Lursa said:
Can your boss sexually harass you in street clothes in the parking lot? Or at the supermarket? This can be classified in much the same manner...supervisors have to be extremely careful about perceived or real influence over subordinates.
Click to expand...

I can't answer that question. You'd have to ask an employment law expert. What I do know is that I, as a manager, am responsible for ensuring that there is no harassment of my staff at work nor at company sponsored work related functions. I have never been told that I'm responsible for what my employees do to each other in a parking lot outside of work hours. And I was never told that as a manager I was not to engage in specific activity (such as sexual harassment) with my employees outside of work. I assumed that was a law having nothing to do with employment laws. I'm not responsible for my staff when they're in a supermarket.

I know my boss can't attempt a quid pro quo on me in a supermarket, or imply in a supermarket that I need to sleep with him in order to keep my job, but I'm not aware of anything that would extend to his employment with my company if he sees me in shorts in the supermarket and says "Nice legs" (which he can not by law say to me in the workplace or at a company sponsored function).

So I guess someone else would have to answer the question - if this Fire Chief gave these books to people in the supermarket, can he be fired? I can't.
 
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...

And it is not allowed in most workplaces. Men are not allowed to express their views that they believe women arent capable of doing the same jobs as men (in most types of jobs), for instance cant do math, arent good leaders, are too sensitive, etc.

They can think it but such views create hostile workplaces, it disrespects peers and others at the workplace.
 
whysoserious said:
Being gay is a trait. Adultery is an action.
Click to expand...

Interesting. But again, the religious call homosexuality a sin...they dont make that distinction and it doesnt matter to many of them either.

Certainly I'd agree that calling an inborn trait a sin is pretty ignorant but that is how most religion frames it.
 
WCH said:
That's part of the investigation that the Mayor's office won't discuss.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

So much of your denial is also based on a lack of information?
 
Lursa said:
Interesting. But again, the religious call homosexuality a sin...they dont make that distinction and it doesnt matter to many of them either.

Certainly I'd agree that calling an inborn trait a sin is pretty ignorant but that is how most religion frames it.
Click to expand...

We can get into all sorts of religious discussions, hell, according to Christianity we're all sinners - we're born of it. But that's not the issue:

The issue is that you cannot be a manager and also display views that could be construed as discriminating. Even if it weren't against the law, it's bad for publicity and most private firms wouldn't put up with it.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Lursa said:
So then any gay men or women working for the city should be fired? No one should be forced to work with them? Along with the other immoral people like adulterers and fornicators? I mean, isnt [sic] it wrong to force 'decent' people to work for them and with them?
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that at all. Not unless you can get me to agree that it is unfair to sick perverts to force them to work with or under people who uphold decent moral standards. If it's fair to fire this police chief because his moral standards make sick perverts uncomfortable, then it would have to be at least equally fair to fire sick perverts because their immorality makes decent people uncomfortable.

Or perhaps, we can just accept that everyone has beliefs, values, and practices that not everyone else is going to be comfortable with; and that if colleague's morals or lack thereof makes you uncomfortable, then that's your own damn problem, and if you can't stand to work with him because of it, then you should quit, rather than seeking to have him fired for a problem that is your own.
 
Lursa said:
Uh huh.

So much of your denial is also based on a lack of information?
Click to expand...

If that were the case, it wouldn't have been used as a reason to fire him. It wasn't to my knowledge.

Here's a clip from before his dismissal where they said the people who reveived the bok would be interview and that there was no evidence where they received them.


 
tres borrachos said:
I can't answer that question. You'd have to ask an employment law expert. What I do know is that I, as a manager, am responsible for ensuring that there is no harassment of my staff at work nor at company sponsored work related functions. I have never been told that I'm responsible for what my employees do to each other in a parking lot outside of work hours. And I was never told that as a manager I was not to engage in specific activity (such as sexual harassment) with my employees outside of work. I assumed that was a law having nothing to do with employment laws. I'm not responsible for my staff when they're in a supermarket.

I know my boss can't attempt a quid pro quo on me in a supermarket, or imply in a supermarket that I need to sleep with him in order to keep my job, but I'm not aware of anything that would extend to his employment with my company if he sees me in shorts in the supermarket and says "Nice legs" (which he can not by law say to me in the workplace or at a company sponsored function).

So I guess someone else would have to answer the question - if this Fire Chief gave these books to people in the supermarket, can he be fired? I can't.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to if the manner and place of distribution come down to being interpreted by other employees, esp. subordinates, as a threat to their employment or advancement. I dont think you'd have a case if he did it once at the supermarket but more than once? Starts to sound deliberate.

Content also matters. People are fired today over what's found on their social media pages. Teachers, judges, etc. So if someone posted or wrote something racist or homophobic that was in a position of authority....what then? It can be implied that these views will affect their professional judgement. (Correctly or incorrectly.) And then the city or job or organization can fire him to reduce liability of potential employee complaints of harassment or not getting promotions, etc.
 
Re: Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

Bob Blaylock said:
No, I am not saying that at all. Not unless you can get me to agree that it is unfair to sick perverts to force them to work with or under people who uphold decent moral standards. If it's fair to fire this police chief because his moral standards make sick perverts uncomfortable, then it would have to be at least equally fair to fire sick perverts because their immorality makes decent people uncomfortable.

Or perhaps, we can just accept that everyone has beliefs, values, and practices that not everyone else is going to be comfortable with; and that if colleague's morals or lack thereof makes you uncomfortable, then that's your own damn problem, and if you can't stand to work with him because of it, then you should quit, rather than seeking to have him fired for a problem that is your own.
Click to expand...

Did they say it made anyone uncomfortable? Generally discrimination and harassment and other workplace issues come down to more than that...safety, advancement, fear of firing, etc.
 
whysoserious said:
Let me ask you this: if he was fired from a private institution for this would you have the same* feelings? Is it just that he was fired from a public institution that makes you think this was wrong?

*Edit: Typo
Click to expand...

Almost nothing in the Constitution prohibits discrimination by private persons. Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment figured in a Supreme Court decision on race discrimination in the sale of housing; the Fifteenth Amendment has in some cases prohibited private voting discrimination; and section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment has pretty much gone nowhere when it's been tried. It's Congress power to regulate interstate commerce that's usually been relied on, for example for prohibiting race discrimination in restaurants, lodging, and other public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since I think it stretches the Commerce Clause beyond reasonable limits to claim it as authority for federal laws against discrimination, I don't believe anything in the Constitution prevents--at least legitimately prevents--private employers from discriminating against anyone, for any reason, in hiring and firing. There's no question, though, that states have authority to make such discrimination illegal. (I also oppose doing that, but for reasons that would take too long to explain here.)

So I think private employers should be free to hire and fire people as they see fit, for whatever reason, although the laws do not quite allow that. Even private employers are prohibited by state and federal laws from discriminating in hiring based on race, religion, and all the other well-known characteristics. And they can be sued for unlawful termination.

But there is still more security in government jobs, and firing people from them sometimes raises constitutional issues. The way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's guarantees of procedural due process, starting fifty years ago or more, governments have to follow certain procedures regarding notice and hearing in dismissing employees.

So no, it is not as cut-and-dried as in private business, and firing someone like a community college instructor, for example, may require the agency involved to be very careful how it proceeds. And it's clear schoolteachers, firemen, or other public employees don't lose all their First Amendment rights or other constitutional rights by showing up at work.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh I am fully aware of you M.O. cupcake.. factually this, factually that, translation this, translation that.. ;)

here's what you said exactly.

this is what i want . .

for the handful that think this is somehow not right

tomorrow right a short story about how you want jews to burn or are going to; how niggers are vile and dirty; that you think fags are evil and will unleash a plague on us; or christians are filthy infidels that deserved killed etc etc Then take it to work and distribute it amongst your co workers.

than let us know what happens, thank you
Click to expand...


First lets deal with the strawman. By invoking hyperbole, you intentionally lead the observer to assume that what you're saying is so vile that it couldn't possibly be allowed in a work place environment, thus, setting up a strawman, and knocking it down - HOWEVER, (And here's the analogy part, you paying attention yet) notwithstanding your attempt to equate (Which is another way to say analogous) vile niggers - Jews burning - Dirty black people - "fags" unleashing plagues - and filthy Christian infidels deserving to be killed was absurd, not even remotely analogous to this situation, but you attempted to present it anyway.

I "factually" called you out on it, ONLY because you were calling out other posters for doing the same thing, the only difference is, that most of their analogies were at least close. TRANSLATION: You did exactly the same thing that you accused others of doing.

Got it now? Was it clear enough and factually consistent with the evidence? Was I able to translate your words into context with the proper syntax associated with the English language, well enough to form a reasonable understanding of what you were saying in printed word? Assuming I did translate correctly, how on Earth can you argue that you did not present a stawman argument, or a phony analogy that was no analogy at all?? Please do try though, I as always when dealing with you, could use the laugh. ;)

Tim-
 
Was he in a position to hire, and did he discriminate against homosexuals when hiring or evaluating their performance? That's where this should all lie, in the execution. I'm afraid that if we keep pushing these issues, we're going to end up with essentially some form of thought control, reeducation camps for those who don't agree with whatever we're supposed to agree with, and anyone expressing anything anywhere else (work place or private) can be punished for doing so.

I mean, it's a super sticky situation to be in, but if he just thought it, if he just didn't like gays but that didn't come into his job performance; then functionally it's a null factor. People should be free to think and say as they like so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. I think that to fire him, they would need to demonstrate that he did so. At the same accord, we probably don't want to be proselytizing our fire departments, so there's a line to walk. But let's say some fireman said "I'm Christian, and we believe that homosexuality is a sin" in the firehouse. Is that a punishable offense? Can that guy be fired? I would hope not. I would hope more that everyone could accept everyone for who they were; but that won't happen in a large enough society. So I think we should stick to performance, to actions, to force and not to just imagined offenses.
 
Ikari said:
Was he in a position to hire, and did he discriminate against homosexuals when hiring or evaluating their performance? That's where this should all lie, in the execution. I'm afraid that if we keep pushing these issues, we're going to end up with essentially some form of thought control, reeducation camps for those who don't agree with whatever we're supposed to agree with, and anyone expressing anything anywhere else (work place or private) can be punished for doing so.

I mean, it's a super sticky situation to be in, but if he just thought it, if he just didn't like gays but that didn't come into his job performance; then functionally it's a null factor. People should be free to think and say as they like so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. I think that to fire him, they would need to demonstrate that he did so. At the same accord, we probably don't want to be proselytizing our fire departments, so there's a line to walk. But let's say some fireman said "I'm Christian, and we believe that homosexuality is a sin" in the firehouse. Is that a punishable offense? Can that guy be fired? I would hope not. I would hope more that everyone could accept everyone for who they were; but that won't happen in a large enough society. So I think we should stick to performance, to actions, to force and not to just imagined offenses.
Click to expand...

Effective leadership is as much about your subordinates' perception of you as it is about how you conduct yourself. In this case, the chief created a situation which forced his subordinates to question his ability to lead them effectively without prejudice, he created a hostile work environment, and brought his office copious amounts of bad press to boot. It doesn't matter whether he actually has or would discriminate against homosexuals; what matters is that his subordinates lost confidence in his leadership on this issue.
 
Zyphlin said:
First, then why did you claim he DIDN'T say that?
Click to expand...
because you were talking about multiple things one of which was in the book.

Second, there is a difference between stating as a religious person you try to glorify god in all that you do....and stating that your first priority as a professional is to cultivate a culture that glorifies him.


The first is talking about you personally and your own actions. The second, talking about cultivating a CULTURE, suggests your acting on your environment and the things around you. That is different.
Click to expand...
they go hand in hand and that still is no reason to fire someone.

However, again I note...there's a difference in saying "I think it's okay that he said it" and denying he said it at all, which you did initially.
Click to expand...
I was commenting about what you said was in his book. that he was saying gays were equal to this or that. he didn't say that at all.


Again, stop ignorantly claiming your opinion and guesses as if they're undisputable facts. They're not. There are a number of official reasons given by the city as to why he was terminated; none were "expressing his religious beliefs".
Click to expand...

all the reasons they gave were bunk. there was no issue with this person at all till a homosexual didn't like the fact that he did a study book for his church.
so far there are no official reasons given that hold any tangible argument. the only thing is that a city council member who is openly gay didn't like what he wrote in his study book.

to bad for him that study book is protected by federal laws. as well as the Chiefs religious views.


I haven't seen where they've definitively claimed he has violated discrimination laws, and that claim is not seemingly the basis of their termination of him.


If HE is alledging that they terminated him due to discrimination its on him to prove that, as discrimination is an affirmative defense.
Click to expand...

how is it not? it all goes back to the book that he wrote.

The mayor’s office opened an investigation into Cochran’s conduct after employees shared concerns over the book’s contents, city spokeswoman Anne Torres said in November. At the time, Torres said “there are a number of passages in the book that directly conflict with the city’s nondiscrimination policies.”

unless he was enforcing those views at work which there is no evidence that he was this is a bogus investigation.

Chief Cochran also failed to notify me, as Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of Atlanta and his employer, of his plans to publish the book and its inflammatory content.

Hogwash.

Mayor: City separating with Atlanta fire chief | www.wsbtv.com

he gave the mayor a copy of the book a year ago.


I hope he sues the city for mega bucks. religious discrimination is against the law. He got permission to write the book and the mayor knows it.


Prove a negative. That makes sense.
Click to expand...
Your making the claim it is up to you to back that up or prove he is lying.

He is the one making the claim that an action DID take place. He is the one alledging that his termination was due to fraudulent reasons. He needs to provide the proof that he did what they claim he did not. If he did, he should be able to provide evidence of it either through his own means or via legal means in obtaining their records.
Click to expand...

His only mistake was not getting it in writing. always get it in writing.
However I see no reason for him to lie and everything for the mayor to do what he did.

there is a suit coming and the city is in major trouble.
 
Napoleon said:
Effective leadership is as much about your subordinates' perception of you as it is about how you conduct yourself. In this case, the chief created a situation which forced his subordinates to question his ability to lead them effectively without prejudice, he created a hostile work environment, and brought his office copious amounts of bad press to boot. It doesn't matter whether he actually has or would discriminate against homosexuals; what matters is that his subordinates lost confidence in his leadership on this issue.
Click to expand...

Was that demonstrated, or are you just saying that?
 
Hicup said:
1.) Oh I am fully aware of you M.O. cupcake.. factually this, factually that, translation this, translation that.. ;)

here's what you said exactly.

2.)First lets deal with the strawman. By invoking hyperbole, you intentionally lead the observer to assume that what you're saying is so vile that it couldn't possibly be allowed in a work place environment, thus, setting up a strawman, and knocking it down - HOWEVER, (And here's the analogy part, you paying attention yet) notwithstanding your attempt to equate (Which is another way to say analogous) vile niggers - Jews burning - Dirty black people - "fags" unleashing plagues - and filthy Christian infidels deserving to be killed was absurd, not even remotely analogous to this situation, but you attempted to present it anyway.

I "factually" called you out on it, ONLY because you were calling out other posters for doing the same thing, the only difference is, that most of their analogies were at least close. TRANSLATION: You did exactly the same thing that you accused others of doing.

Got it now? Was it clear enough and factually consistent with the evidence? Was I able to translate your words into context with the proper syntax associated with the English language, well enough to form a reasonable understanding of what you were saying in printed word? Assuming I did translate correctly, how on Earth can you argue that you did not present a stawman argument, or a phony analogy that was no analogy at all?? Please do try though, I as always when dealing with you, could use the laugh. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...

1.) yep you are correct i point out facts all the time
2.) thank you for reposting it and again n no matter how you try to twist by DEFINITION its not a strawman. . .I made a request for people to do . . . .i made no "false argument"
everything you claimed that i said besides my Actual qoute i did not, YOU assumed it and invented it.
nobody honest, educated an objective will ever by what you MADE UP on top of my post lol
YOU dont get to decided what i "really" mean and invent hidden definiton, that the BS you made up in your own head that was NEVER said as proven my qoute.


WOW nothing like totally owning your own post.
thank you for proving i didn't post any strawman.

your post fails, loses and gets destroyed and as always facts win again.
Your false claims are 0 and lifetime against me and facts.

fact remains by definition i made ZERO strawman

also thank you for calling me out totally embarrassing your own false claim, that was awesome! Please continue your lie and make up some more stuff i never said, I can wait i love it!
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
This really isn't rocket surgery. If the fire chief had handed out anti-woman, anti-minority or antisemitic literature to his employees this thread would have fizzled out by page three after attracting the usual libertarians.
Click to expand...

exactly because the hatred and bigotry against them isnt as currently charged and vile as the hatred against "da gays"
those battles are over so SOME people dont get so emotionally charged by thier bigotry and or want of not supporting equal rights

its hilarious watching the super vast minority and handful of posters claim this is MAGICALLY different . . . its transparent and pure entertainment for the rest of posters

if the articles are true with no more back ground and i did somethign this retarded at my work of course i would expect to get fired and rightfully so.
 
Ikari said:
Was he in a position to hire, and did he discriminate against homosexuals when hiring or evaluating their performance? That's where this should all lie, in the execution. I'm afraid that if we keep pushing these issues, we're going to end up with essentially some form of thought control, reeducation camps for those who don't agree with whatever we're supposed to agree with, and anyone expressing anything anywhere else (work place or private) can be punished for doing so.
Click to expand...

They call it “sensitivity training”. In fact, it's even mentioned in one of the articles that's been posted so far…

The mayor went on to inform the public that Cochran had been suspended without pay and was ordered to complete a sensitivity training class.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom