Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

tres borrachos · Jan 9, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
Walk down the hall today and ask your HR people to give you your company policies relating to harassment. I would imagine you'll find that what Cochran is alleged to have done at work would be covered in your company's policy. If you would for a local, state or federal government I would be very surprised if your HR people don't have fairly clear directives relating to Cochran's alleged actions.

While you are talking to you HR folks ask them how or if the polices would apply to supervisors whose behavior is directed at subordinates.

1. He was the main man and had many subordinates working for him.

2. He was employed by the City of Atlanta. His income and his benefits were derived by the taxes of the citizens of the City of Atlanta.

3. When he is working for the City of Atlanta he represents the city administration. When he is in uniform he represents the city administration.

4. I'm going to go out on a limb here as I haven't lived in Atlanta (my hometown) for a while, but I'm fairly certain that it is not the policy of the city government to promote any religion in any manner. The City of Atlanta does not support any religion or any specific interpretation of any religion.

5. City employees should know that if they work for the City of Atlanta they will not feel that there race, religion or atheism, disability, sexual orientation will in any way be a factor in their employment and/or advancement.

Cochran apparently distribute the book at work. We don't know that but it appears that is one of the factors that lead to his suspension and/or dismissal. I say that because it has been reported that during he was direct his suspension that he would not distribute the book at work or on city property. That hints to at least some of what is likely involved.

Employees did in fact complain. They either felt harassed or intimidated or coerced, we don't know exactly. We do know that Cochran's actions did in fact cause employees to report his behavior.

It was reported by WSBTV.com:

:alert The Fire Chief for the City of Atlanta writes a book in which he compares homosexuals to baby rapers and goat ****ers and states that his beliefs come straight from the bible. Further in the book he states that his first priority as chief is run the department "to cultivate its culture to the glory of God". :alert

Danger! Danger! Danger!

And then he hands the distributes the book to employees? I would imagine that any employee who read the book handed to him/her by the big chief is going to assume that "Chief Cocoran handed to me because he wants me to read his book about what he believes, and why. The chief is on a mission from God and God wants the chief to glorify God and instill his holy culture in the fire department. The chief doesn't cotton to gays. The chief gave me this book because he wants me to know how he feels. If I want to move up then it would be wise for me not to challenge the chief or his beliefs."

Imagine if the book was given to supervisor - it likely was. Now you have supervisor who may well believe that the chief was saying something to the effect that "we don't want gays in the firehouse. I put it in writing and put my name on it and I gave it to you for a reason."

I can't walk down the hall. I work out of my house and my HR department is in an office 1500 miles away.

tres borrachos · Jan 9, 2015

Zyphlin said:
I...I don't really know how to say this more clearly.

From the very first post I made responding to you, and in this entire back and forth conversation we've had, I did not say the termination was justified or not. You keep responding to my posts in this line of conversation and writing a whole lot about whether or not he could be fired....which was not what my initial post was arguing or asking about at all.

Once again, I'm going to try to be as clear as possible...

In arguing your point about this issue you kept using a hypothetical that continually implied action between peers, coworkers, in the work place to compare to this situation. HOWEVER, this situation was not a case of peers, but of a supervisor to his subordinates.

My question was why did you keep trying to compare this to a hypothetical situation of peers, rather than one more accurate to the situation where it's a supervisor and an employee.

The reason I was asking is that in my entire professional life, I've never seen a business or government entity that tweets interactions between two peers and interactions between a boss and his subordinates as exactly the same. In all instances I've experienced, the boss/subordinate relationship has either additional scrutiny, additional rules, or additional level of expectations regarding how they function with each other.

I am not suggesting that because it's a boss and a subordinate that inherently means his termination is just. I was suggesting that because it's a boss and a subordinate, the situation is DIFFERENT than one between two general coworkers which suggests peers. And thus I was asking why you kept seemingly coming at it from the peer perspective in your hypotheticals.

If somehow in your experience or current job the relationships/interactions between peers is exactly the same in terms of scrutiny and rules/guidelines then that would be an acceptable answer as to why you seemingly felt it wasn't necessary to use a more accurate hypothetical situation. I can't really fathom such a work experience that functions that way, but if you say yours does that would be a legit answer.

If your experience IS that there are differences between those two types of interactions...then my question is why did you keep talking about coworkers instead of a boss and his subordinates in your hypotheticals?

Why do you only object to my "hypotheticals"? There are "hypotheticals" throughout this thread.

Please comment on everyone's "hypotheticals" and ask everyone else to justify theirs and I will be more than happy to oblige you with the justification of my use of them. Thanks.

tres borrachos · Jan 9, 2015

Lursa said:
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.

I was talking to one of my peers last night. He has 2 lines of reports (direct reports who have direct reports), whereas I have only 1 line (I have a team of Sales people who have no direct reports). I ran this scenario by him:

If Amy (who works for one of his direct reports) came to you and she Jim (her boss - his direct report) was harassing her outside of work, in a supermarket, what do you do?

He told me:

1. We are obligated as managers to report a claim of harassment to our HR department if it takes place at work or on any company time anywhere or if the harassment outside of work involves a Quid Pro Quo or a direct threat to the employee's job (which I sort of already posted here)

2. If the "harassment" in the supermarket did not involve a Quid Pro Quo or threat to employee's job, we as managers are NOT obligated to report it to HR - the person claiming in goes straight to HR

3. "Harassment" outside of work assuming #2 is the case does not involve the employer and instead is a private matter for the law

4. However, HR still needs to investigate the potential impact on ongoing job relationship between employee and harassing supervisor

But none of this has to do with the Atlanta story anyway.

And he agreed with me that it is VERY hard to fire an employee without documented cause, especially in a company like ours (publicly traded and global).

AGENT J · Jan 9, 2015

ludin said:
1.)look it up religious discrimination is against the law. if it isn't prove it.

1.) correct that is against the law, nobody said otherwise so your strawman fails
your claim is still 100% false
facts win again :shrug:

ludin · Jan 9, 2015

AGENT J said:
1.) correct that is against the law, nobody said otherwise so your strawman fails
your claim is still 100% false
facts win again :shrug:

nope no strawman he was fired for his religious views in a book he wrote outside of work for a bible study at his church.
that is religious discrimination which you just admitted was against the law.

so yes facts win.

I don't think you know what a strawman is since you use it in every argument that you make when someone beats the daylights out of what you are saying.

in order to fire him they have to prove that he was discriminating against people.
so please prove that he had any record of discriminating against people.

ludin · Jan 9, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
My statement was in the context of the OP. I stand by that. My prior post and a few posts following put the above in context. You may have misunderstood.

Cochran cannot express his religious beliefs at work. He certainly cannot do that as a supervisor. The law does not prevent him from being a Christian who works for the City of Atlanta, but he may not practice or expose his Christian beliefs in the workplace. There is a difference and distinction.

Your 100% wrong please see any SCOTUS ruling on this. as long as he is not using that to demean and or discriminate against people he absolutely can.

The same holds true for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact Virginia to my thinking was quite clear in its description of workplace harassment, which included sexual orientation and religion.

Prove he harassed anyone.

In essence religion stays at the door when you go to work for a government entity. No religion in the workplace. If you want to quietly pray in your office who is to know? If during lunch I want to shut my door and meditate without chanting, who is to know? Once it is a public expression of religious views a line is crossed, especially as a supervisor. Read the law and policies. Talk to your HR people be specific and ask them to be specific in their response to you.

not according to the SCOTUS.

I'm not playing gotcha, I am stating fact and I took the trouble and time to source my response.

so far you have a lot of a opinion and very few facts.

AGENT J · Jan 9, 2015

ludin said:
1.)nope no strawman he was fired for his religious views in a book he wrote outside of work for a bible study at his church.
that is religious discrimination which you just admitted was against the law.
2.)so yes facts win.
3.)I don't think you know what a strawman is since you use it in every argument that you make when someone beats the daylights out of what you are saying.
4.)in order to fire him they have to prove that he was discriminating against people.
5.) so please prove that he had any record of discriminating against people.

1.) again facts and article prove you wrong he was not fired for his religious views, this fact will never change
2.) correct and they prove the lie you posted wrong
3.) do you have on example of this that can be backed up with facts?
every article here proves you wrong and the definition of the word strawman also proves you wrong. Would you like a link to the definition? PLEASE say yes.

remind us what you have on your side again besides "nu-huh" lmao
theres not one respected poster here who is honest, educated and objective that buys your claims
4.) also 100% false
5.) this is not needed because this strawman has already been destroyed and proved false
facts win again

justabubba · Jan 9, 2015

tres borrachos said:
I can't walk down the hall. I work out of my house and my HR department is in an office 1500 miles away.

how did you not know that risky

and it's soooooo important to the debate, too

ludin · Jan 9, 2015

AGENT J said:
1.) again facts and article prove you wrong he was not fired for his religious views, this fact will never change

yes he was according to the news article. he was fired for writing a bible study book. that is why he was fired, because what he wrote in there disagree with the gay agenda.
they can't fire him for writing a book outside of work with permission more so concerning religious views.

the problem I see here is that you are taking what the mayor said as gospel and that there is nothing else involved. you are attempting to frame the debate that the mayor is 100% right and that there is no other possibility that is why you are wrong.

2.) correct and they prove the lie you posted wrong

trying to spout your opinion as fact is well the only lie here. please prove that he discriminated against anyone.

3.) do you have on example of this that can be backed up with facts?
every article here proves you wrong and the definition of the word strawman also proves you wrong. Would you like a link to the definition? PLEASE say yes.

yep this thread proves it. I have committed no strawman. he was fired for a book he wrote and the religious views that were contained inside that book because it offended
a gay council member. it takes reading more than 1 article to figure out what is going on.

remind us what you have on your side again besides "nu-huh" lmao

that is your argument not mine. and pretty consistent with most of your posts that I see.

theres not one respected poster here who is honest, educated and objective that buys your claims

LOL there is another logical fallacy for you right there. there are plenty of honest, educated, and objective people on here that do agree with me.
you are hardly any of those especially on this issue.

4.) also 100% false

100% true.

5.) this is not needed because this strawman has already been destroyed and proved false
facts win again

let me know when you get some facts. I have already presented all the facts needed.

1. he wrote a religious book outside of work for a bible study.
2. he passed the book out to personal friends of his at work.
3. someone in the department took a book and gave it to a gay council member.
4. they didn't like what the bible had to say about sexual morality which is well none of their business.
5. shortly after he was fired because of his religious beliefs. which is against the law.

he had no record of discrimination before when he was fire Chief.
he had no record of discrimination when he worked for President Obama
he currently has no record of discrimination.

he was soley fired for what the bible says about sexual morality. however if you have paid attention to non-liberal source the rest of the chapter goes into more than just homosexual's.
it goes into what the bible says about sex outside of marriage and what that you should keep yourself holy and everything else.

all 100% protected under the law.

those are facts why don't you try some for once.

AGENT J · Jan 9, 2015

ludin said:
1.)yes he was according to the news article. he was fired for writing a bible study book. that is why he was fired, because what he wrote in there disagree with the gay agenda.
they can't fire him for writing a book outside of work with permission more so concerning religious views.
2.)the problem I see here is that you are taking what the mayor said as gospel and that there is nothing else involved. you are attempting to frame the debate that the mayor is 100% right and that there is no other possibility that is why you are wrong.
3.)trying to spout your opinion as fact is well the only lie here. please prove that he discriminated against anyone.
4.)yep this thread proves it. I have committed no strawman. he was fired for a book he wrote and the religious views that were contained inside that book because it offended
a gay council member. it takes reading more than 1 article to figure out what is going on.
5.)that is your argument not mine. and pretty consistent with most of your posts that I see.
6.)LOL there is another logical fallacy for you right there. there are plenty of honest, educated, and objective people on here that do agree with me.
7.) you are hardly any of those especially on this issue.
8.)100% true.
9.)let me know when you get some facts. I have already presented all the facts needed.
10)he wrote a religious book outside of work for a bible study.
11.) he passed the book out to personal friends of his at work.
12.) someone in the department took a book and gave it to a gay council member.
13.) they didn't like what the bible had to say about sexual morality which is well none of their business.
14.) shortly after he was fired because of his religious beliefs. which is against the law.
15.) he had no record of discrimination before when he was fire Chief.
16.) he had no record of discrimination when he worked for President Obama
17.) he currently has no record of discrimination.
18.)he was soley fired for what the bible says about sexual morality. however if you have paid attention to non-liberal source the rest of the chapter goes into more than just homosexual's.
it goes into what the bible says about sex outside of marriage and what that you should keep yourself holy and everything else.
19.)all 100% protected under the law.
20.)those are facts why don't you try some for once.

1.) 100% false as the articles prove. you lie fails
2.) also false and also BY DEFINITION another failed straw man. this NEVER happened you made it up. this lie fails
3.) by definition ANOTHER failed strawman, qoute me saying he discriminated against people? you cant because i never did hence why your lie gets destroyed and your straw,an fails LMAO
4.) facts disagree you just post TWO above
5.) translation, you got nothing thats what we thought, let us know when you do have more than "nu-huh"
6.) actually there are none, NOBODY honest educated and objective thinks this guy was fired just cause he wrote a book or just for his religious views because both of those are factually not true.
7.) hey look failed insults, this is the typical of a person who has no honest, factual and intellectual path to take to defend the failed and proven wrong claims. im not surprised.
8.) prove it then with facts we would LOVE to read it
9.) where? what fact have you presented they have all been proven wrong by multiple posters and posts
10.) meaningless
11.) meaningless
12.) maybe true
13.) factually not true
14.) factually not true and 100% false has already proven
his religious views alone played no role in his termination LMAO
15.) meaningless
16.) meanignless
17.) meaningless
18.) 100% false as already proven by facts
19.) also 100% false
20.) except they are not LMAO
I could do this all day your strawmen and posted lies wont fool anybody
I also love how you listed some MEANINGLESS facts, you might as well say "yellow is a color, FACT!" because that has just as much relevance of some of the things you posted.

the fact remains he was not simply fired for "writing a book" nor was he fired for "his religious views"
those two lies have been destroyed

and the biggest lie and strawman posted yet was was this "he was solely fired for what the bible says about sexual morality."
that also is factually not true WOW

if you disagree though as always, PLEASE in your next post use FACTS and prove your failed claims, i bet you dodge this request again
post at least ONE fact that prove he was fired for simply writing a book and or his religious views, I cant wait to read it, thank you

your post loses and facts win again

Hicup · Jan 9, 2015

AGENT J said:
translation: you got nothing, thats what i thought.

Good move bailing out i accept your concession
by definition there was zero straman posted by me and you proved it for me
your post fails and facts win again

The deluded are incapable of realizing their delusion, and as such are bound to continue with it. The cycle is often ugly, and the deluded are treated with pity and empathy. You demonstrate daily that you lack the ability to recognize opinion as fact, you demonstrate daily that you posses no real understanding of logical fallacies, and you demonstrate daily that you do not have command of the English language, specifically regarding syntax and grammar. Like I said earlier, you posted a straw man argument based on a false analogy. The fact that you cannot see it does not surprise me in the slightest, in fact I predicted you would not but decided to waste my time anyway, not for your benefit, but for my own amusement. I do not pity you, or empathize with you. No, you are a crusader armed with rhetoric and probably one of the most ungifted debaters I've ever come across on message boards where even a cursory level of debate skill is required.

Tim-

ludin · Jan 9, 2015

AGENT J said:
1.) 100% false as the articles prove. you lie fails
2.) also false and also BY DEFINITION another failed straw man. this NEVER happened you made it up. this lie fails
3.) by definition ANOTHER failed strawman, qoute me saying he discriminated against people? you cant because i never did hence why your lie gets destroyed and your straw,an fails LMAO
4.) facts disagree you just post TWO above
5.) translation, you got nothing thats what we thought, let us know when you do have more than "nu-huh"
6.) actually there are none, NOBODY honest educated and objective thinks this guy was fired just cause he wrote a book or just for his religious views because both of those are factually not true.
7.) hey look failed insults, this is the typical of a person who has no honest, factual and intellectual path to take to defend the failed and proven wrong claims. im not surprised.
8.) prove it then with facts we would LOVE to read it
9.) where? what fact have you presented they have all been proven wrong by multiple posters and posts
10.) meaningless
11.) meaningless
12.) maybe true
13.) factually not true
14.) factually not true and 100% false has already proven
his religious views alone played no role in his termination LMAO
15.) meaningless
16.) meanignless
17.) meaningless
18.) 100% false as already proven by facts
19.) also 100% false
20.) except they are not LMAO
I could do this all day your strawmen and posted lies wont fool anybody
I also love how you listed some MEANINGLESS facts, you might as well say "yellow is a color, FACT!" because that has just as much relevance of some of the things you posted.

the fact remains he was not simply fired for "writing a book" nor was he fired for "his religious views"
those two lies have been destroyed

and the biggest lie and strawman posted yet was was this "he was solely fired for what the bible says about sexual morality."
that also is factually not true WOW

if you disagree though as always, PLEASE in your next post use FACTS and prove your failed claims, i bet you dodge this request again
post at least ONE fact that prove he was fired for simply writing a book and or his religious views, I cant wait to read it, thank you

your post loses and facts win again

nope your opinion isn't fact get over it.

I did use facts you ignored facts because they don't fit in your with push of the gay agenda. sorry you don't like peoples religious views on gay marriage.
you don't get to dictate what other people believe in or don't believe in. nor do we get to punish people for views that we don't like.

1. prove it otherwise. you saying uh huh is not an argument. I even quoted the mayor as to why he was fired.
2. nope not strawman. you refuse to see any other reason he was fired. He has no record of discrimination. the only reason he was fired was because he wrote a religious book
that contained a chapter on sexual morality in which talks about what the bible says about all forms of sexual morality.
3. nope no strawman as I said you have no clue what a strawman is.
4. your opinion is not a fact. but this is your typical argument. when you can't actually address the issue.

IE who did he discriminate against? please provide an answer. what did he do that would cost him his job other than express his religious belief which is a protected right.
5. nope so far that is your argument you have failed to address one question other than because is say. this is a simple dismissal fallacy.
6. you have yet to prove any of that just another opinion of yours.
7. nope not insult intended more of a fact. you are hardly objective in your push for the gay agenda. the only one that throws insults is you because you cannot support your argument.
8. I already have.
9.nope they haven't. I have posted at least 2 news articles and posted the mayor himself as to why he was fired. it had everything to do with a book he wrote. it had nothing to do with how he did his job or ran his job or how he performed on the job.
10-17. IE you can't actually address the facts thanks for the concession.

please provide evidence that he harassed and or discriminated against anyone. which is the only thing he can be fired for.
provide evidence that he wasn't fired for expressing his religious beliefs.

I will be waiting for you to actually address you claims so far you haven't address anything.
the only thing so far you can do is deflect and ad hominem and go uh huh.

come up with a better logic.

AGENT J · Jan 9, 2015

Hicup said:
1.)The deluded are incapable of realizing their delusion, and as such are bound to continue with it. The cycle is often ugly, and the deluded are treated with pity and empathy.
2.) You demonstrate daily that you lack the ability to recognize opinion as fact,
3.) you demonstrate daily that you posses no real understanding of logical fallacies
4.) and you demonstrate daily that you do not have command of the English language, specifically regarding syntax and grammar.
5.) Like I said earlier, you posted a straw man argument based on a false analogy.
6.) The fact that you cannot see it does not surprise me in the slightest, in fact I predicted you would not but decided to waste my time anyway, not for your benefit, but for my own amusement.
7.) I do not pity you, or empathize with you.
8.)No, you are a crusader armed with rhetoric and probably one of the most ungifted debaters I've ever come across on message boards where even a cursory level of debate skill is required.

Tim-

1.) good thats step one, your second step will be to fix your issue now that you see it
2.) please post the factual examples that prove your statement true . .
3.) see #2
4.) see #2
5.) see #2
6.) and facts proved you wrong along with the very definition of a straw man, remind us what you had on your side beseds "nu-huh"
but i do agree you try was VERY entertaining, thank you
7.) theres no reason too
8.) see #2
your post fails and fact win again

so I'm still waiting for you to post one fact that proves your claim true . . . ONE . . not stuff you make up but actually facts, when you can do this please let us know
failed insults wont change the fact that your claim was destroyed and proven wrong, its just a common move by those that have no logical, factual and honest path to take.

so in your next post PLEASE fulfill this request . . thank you

ludin · Jan 9, 2015

Hicup said:
The deluded are incapable of realizing their delusion, and as such are bound to continue with it. The cycle is often ugly, and the deluded are treated with pity and empathy. You demonstrate daily that you lack the ability to recognize opinion as fact, you demonstrate daily that you posses no real understanding of logical fallacies, and you demonstrate daily that you do not have command of the English language, specifically regarding syntax and grammar. Like I said earlier, you posted a straw man argument based on a false analogy. The fact that you cannot see it does not surprise me in the slightest, in fact I predicted you would not but decided to waste my time anyway, not for your benefit, but for my own amusement. I do not pity you, or empathize with you. No, you are a crusader armed with rhetoric and probably one of the most ungifted debaters I've ever come across on message boards where even a cursory level of debate skill is required.

Tim-

actually he isn't the worst. I have seen a few others. that were way worse of course they were banned they were so bad on other boards.
however they all have the similar line of or lack of logic.

1. make a assertion. claim the assertion as true with little evidence to support it.
2. when someone questions the assertion resort to dismissal arguments or ad hominem to continue to distort the main assertion.
3. when other facts are present repeat your opinion as fact as if it meant something more than the last time and continue the dismal argument.
4. no matter what you post that contradicts their claims they continue down the same faulty line of posting.

as you can see here agentj has no real argument other than he is right and everyone else is wrong.
he claims that only factual, honest, objective people agree with him which is something that he can't support in the least.

of course he does this in every gay thread that pops up. I have seen it about 1000 times over and over again.

AGENT J · Jan 9, 2015

ludin said:
1.)nope your opinion isn't fact get over it.

I did use facts you ignored facts because they don't fit in your with push of the gay agenda. sorry you don't like peoples religious views on gay marriage.
you don't get to dictate what other people believe in or don't believe in. nor do we get to punish people for views that we don't like.

1. prove it otherwise. you saying uh huh is not an argument. I even quoted the mayor as to why he was fired.
2. nope not strawman. you refuse to see any other reason he was fired. He has no record of discrimination. the only reason he was fired was because he wrote a religious book
that contained a chapter on sexual morality in which talks about what the bible says about all forms of sexual morality.
3. nope no strawman as I said you have no clue what a strawman is.
4. your opinion is not a fact. but this is your typical argument. when you can't actually address the issue.

IE who did he discriminate against? please provide an answer. what did he do that would cost him his job other than express his religious belief which is a protected right.
5. nope so far that is your argument you have failed to address one question other than because is say. this is a simple dismissal fallacy.
6. you have yet to prove any of that just another opinion of yours.
7. nope not insult intended more of a fact. you are hardly objective in your push for the gay agenda. the only one that throws insults is you because you cannot support your argument.
8. I already have.
9.nope they haven't. I have posted at least 2 news articles and posted the mayor himself as to why he was fired. it had everything to do with a book he wrote. it had nothing to do with how he did his job or ran his job or how he performed on the job.
10-17. IE you can't actually address the facts thanks for the concession.

please provide evidence that he harassed and or discriminated against anyone. which is the only thing he can be fired for.
provide evidence that he wasn't fired for expressing his religious beliefs.

I will be waiting for you to actually address you claims so far you haven't address anything.
the only thing so far you can do is deflect and ad hominem and go uh huh.

come up with a better logic.

called it!
translation: you got nothing, thats what we though
there's nothing to go around about, you made false claims they have been proven wrong and until you can defend them with fact i will simply keep asking you to and each time this isnt down your posts just further fail and get destroyed

i will ask AGAIN and i bet you doge it AGAIN

these are the facts:
he was not simply fired for "writing a book"
he was not simply fired for "his religious views"
he was not solely fired for what the bible says about sexual morality."

these lies have been destroyed by the articles, the reports and multiply posters and posts

if you disagree though as always, PLEASE in your next post use FACTS and prove your failed claims, i bet you dodge this request again
post at least ONE fact that prove he was fired for simply writing a book and or his religious views, I cant wait to read it, thank you

your post loses and facts win again

Lursa · Jan 9, 2015

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.

No they are not (the govt). Ever been in the military? No free speech.

As a city employee in the past, if I made lewd or racist comments about a co-worker, I would have been fired. If I had bad-mouthed my agency publicly while on the job, I would have been fired.

Lursa · Jan 9, 2015

jmotivator said:
If your religion required you wear a thong then you'd have a case.

Also you don't give up the right to first amendment protection of religious expression because you are a manager. Again, the SCOTUS is very clear on this in case law.

Are you saying that someone is free to practice their religious beliefs (expression) on the job? A Muslim or Orthodox Jewish manager could refuse to hire a woman? Or work with one? A Christian could hand out Bibles and evangelize to co-workers for 10 minutes everyday (Christians are supposed to spread the Word)?

They can do and believe what they want privately but they cannot impose their beliefs on others unwanted. That's the protection of everyone's religious (or not) beliefs.

blackjack50 · Jan 9, 2015

I love America. A place where you are allowed to share your views, unless they aren't politically correct.

Lursa · Jan 9, 2015

tres borrachos said:
So what you're saying is the termination was just because he was the boss? I don't know that. I've already said that. That would require me saying that I know for a fact I couldn't fire one of my team members for doing what the Atlanta FD chief did and giving the book to co-workers on my team, but that I could and would get fired for bringing in a book that I wrote and giving it to those same team members.

I'm not sure what it is you don't get. I don't know the answer to the question.

The other workers, more than one, complained to the union.

Lursa · Jan 9, 2015

tres borrachos said:
You got that right! HR people are not paid nearly enough for what they have to do. It's a nasty job and takes a special kind of person and that ain't me. I love that I have them to go to.

I worked in an HR dept of a large corp when I went back to night school. Very informative. And ALL about CYA. Protecting the company from liability.

Also learned alot about the personality types, triggers, and circumstances surrounding workplace shootings. The signs to look for, why you handle firings in a certain way and provide resources/pay after, etc.

Hicup · Jan 9, 2015

AGENT J said:
1.) good thats step one, Bladdy blah blah blah

Anyway, I don't have to do anything. I already did prove you made up a straw man, and fake analogy. Why must I do it again? I think it would serve you well to visit the internet and actually look up how to spot a logical fallacy, and how to make proper analogies. Logical fallacies are sometimes hard to spot or notice, it's true, trust me. I do a pretty good job of avoiding them, but I've had years to perfect my craft, however, I still have trouble with false dichotomy or excluded middle from time to time, and I've been called out on it on more than one occasion. Of course our natural instinct on a adversarial message board is to deny the fallacy exists, I get it, I do it too, and I want to argue that the one pointing it out is just plain wrong, however on the few occasion I have been called out, I eventually acknowledge publicly that I was wrong, and that the person pointing it out was correct. That being said, I do often look for another way to argue my point as I don't like losing debates. The difference between you and me (And there are many but this once) is that I have gone on record as publicly conceding defeat in debates. Unlike many here at DP, I actually respect a good counter argument. The problem you have is that you do not recognize opinion as opinion. Even a judge, or the SCOTUS is really just opinion. It's rare, VERY rare that we have incontrovertible facts at our disposal during a debate. The "fact" that you do not know this and continually ask for factual proof is mind glowingly stunning. You display an utter lack of understanding of how to frame an argument based on opinion as opinion backed by evidence that would reasonably lead an observer to agree with you. That is what debate is all about, or we wouldn't be debating the subject matter. How you do not know this is curious, and your posts often have me begging the question about you as a person rather than the sustenance of your argument.

But hey, like I said, continue on, I have no oversized ego to bruise, and you of all people couldn't get under my skin. I'll let my posts speak for themselves, and others that even care to opine, may do so based off of my actual arguments, not your insinuations.

Tim-

Lursa · Jan 9, 2015

tacomancer said:
In my last discrimination seminar (I thought it was a requirement all managers do this yearly, maybe thats just my company) it was drilled into my head that managers are under a lot more scrutiny due to the fact that they 1. represent the company to the rank and file and 2. can use the weight of the company in personal decisions.

Many companies have mandatory seminars and online trainings that employees must take, be signed off on, to help protect the company from different types of workplace harassment, security, sensitivity, discrimination, intellectual property retention, what you can say to the press, etc.

AGENT J · Jan 9, 2015

Hicup said:
1.)Anyway, I don't have to do anything.
2.)I already did prove you made up a straw man, and fake analogy. Why must I do it again? I think it would serve you well to visit the internet and actually look up how to spot a logical fallacy, and how to make proper analogies. Logical fallacies are sometimes hard to spot or notice, it's true, trust me. I do a pretty good job of avoiding them, but I've had years to perfect my craft, however, I still have trouble with false dichotomy or excluded middle from time to time, and I've been called out on it on more than one occasion. Of course our natural instinct on a adversarial message board is to deny the fallacy exists, I get it, I do it too, and I want to argue that the one pointing it out is just plain wrong, however on the few occasion I have been called out, I eventually acknowledge publicly that I was wrong, and that the person pointing it out was correct. That being said, I do often look for another way to argue my point as I don't like losing debates. The difference between you and me (And there are many but this once) is that I have gone on record as publicly conceding defeat in debates. Unlike many here at DP, I actually respect a good counter argument. The problem you have is that you do not recognize opinion as opinion. Even a judge, or the SCOTUS is really just opinion. It's rare, VERY rare that we have incontrovertible facts at our disposal during a debate. The "fact" that you do not know this and continually ask for factual proof is mind glowingly stunning. You display an utter lack of understanding of how to frame an argument based on opinion as opinion backed by evidence that would reasonably lead an observer to agree with you. That is what debate is all about, or we wouldn't be debating the subject matter. How you do not know this is curious, and your posts often have me begging the question about you as a person rather than the sustenance of your argument.

But hey, like I said, continue on, I have no oversized ego to bruise, and you of all people couldn't get under my skin. I'll let my posts speak for themselves, and others that even care to opine, may do so based off of my actual arguments, not your insinuations.

Tim-

translation: you cant, thats what i thought
just another post about me with failed insults and nothign about the topic, plese stay on topic, thanks
also thats a long post to simply deflect from your post being defeated
anyway thanks for proving it, let me know when you can back up any of the false claims you made and stay on topic. I posted ZERO strawmen. If you disagree with the facts prove them wrong, please and thank you.

your post fails and facts win again

Slartibartfast · Jan 9, 2015

Lursa said:
Many companies have mandatory seminars and online trainings that employees must take, be signed off on, to help protect the company from different types of workplace harassment, security, sensitivity, discrimination, intellectual property retention, what you can say to the press, etc.

I know, its amazing how many people don't get this obvious fact and chalk it up to religious discrimination for some reason I have yet to fathom.

blackjack50 · Jan 9, 2015

tacomancer said:
I know, its amazing how many people don't get this obvious fact and chalk it up to religious discrimination for some reason I have yet to fathom.

He wrote the book. He is allowed to do that. He handed it out. Why is that against the rules? Did he do it under the auspices of the city? Or did he do it on his own?

Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

long standing member

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Jesus loves you.