• 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

WCH said:
I was only comparing sources of angst for sinners not raisng his book to that of the Bible. So you can let it go now .
Click to expand...

So you were wrong about praising a book you never read then. Gotcha.
 
tres borrachos said:
I assume you mean during his tenure :mrgreen: unless he was singing for a living.

But to your point, here is my struggle as well. I would like to see evidence that he was discriminating against gays. If he was, he should be punished for that. Not liking their lifestyle to me doesn't qualify for a reason to fire him if that's what this was all about.
Click to expand...

If he had discriminated in the past, I am sure it would have been revealed by now.
 
Lursa said:
Yes, those things tend to need to form a pattern when there isnt a direct observation.

And?
Click to expand...

And I would not want a gay turning me into the HR Department based solely on "mights" and "coulds".Thus, I extended my former atheist lesbian supervisor the same courtesy.

In the end, I bet my former supervisor is happy because I did not try to "build a pattern of "coulds" ", and the HR department was glad I did not waste their time.
 
WCH said:
If he had discriminated in the past, I am sure it would have been revealed by now.
Click to expand...

his book only provided basis to those who could show evidence of actual bias
which causes me to question why the city does not reveal exactly what the basis was for his termination
in fact, the city was pissed it was unable to conceal the nature of its unpaid suspension of the fire chief because he disclosed it in church. he dared mention what was being inflicted upon him by the city while it was not paying him any wage
 
Fletch said:
=if he passed out pro-gay marriage leaflets too? Or books by Richard Dawkins?
Click to expand...

the odds of this happening are between 0 and nil
 
Risky Thicket said:
There is much we do not know. Someone mentioned and it seems that I also read in an article that Cochran was directed not to publicly discuss the issue during his 30 day suspension. Apparently Cochran did violate that directive.

It has also been reported that he did not receive permission from the Mayor to write the book that he published. That appears to be a factor in the chief's suspension and dismissal.

Something I read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper related that Cochran was put on suspension without pay. That's telling. I interpret that it could mean that between the initial communication between the mayor and Cochran about the issue(s) and the time the suspension went into effect something was said or done that warranted "without pay" while the allegations were being investigated.

As I said in previous post I have been down this road a few times and I absolutely hated every minute of it. Ending someone's career and taking away their livelihood is a very serious matter. You owe them every possible consideration. In some ways they can make their own situation worse. I'm not saying that is what Cochran did, but putting him on 30 days suspension with or without pay was most likely an option. The fact that Cochran got the without pay suspension cannot be ignored. What happened? Who knows. We likely never will know.

Lawyers are all involved and HR is involved and you go to meetings concerning the alleged violations and complaints. You have to meet with and talk to a lot of people. Lawyers and HR, in my experiences, also advise you to look at the possibilities of tangental and even non-related areas of possible wrong doing. Doing so makes you feel dirty. It takes up and inordinate amount of time, but again you owe to the employee and to all employees to do it.

The first time, when I told the HR director that looking at other possibilities made me uncomfortable and that I wasn't going to do it. He responded by saying that I owed it to the employee (a guy I really liked who had almost 20 years of productive employment and a guy who was going to close on a new home 2 DAYS before the scheduled end of his 30 day suspension with pay). HR said, "Look, if you want to help him, and if in other ways he has a clear slate, you may be able to use that to justify something less than dismissal." Unfortunately, I found and documented things I didn't found hard to believe. He was manager and a nice guy. In the end I had no choice.

Lastly, HR and lawyers always advised that I provide a list of reasons why action was taken when other reasons were discovered during the 30 investigation. Think of it like police always arresting people on multiple charges. Often times there is more than one justifiable reason a person is terminated.

As the termination of even someone as prominent in the community as the city fire chief is a personnel matter, the public is not at all likely to know all the reasons or the specifics. Foremost, for me anyway, you want to respect the dignity and the confidentiality of the dismissed person as much as you can. Secondly, a public "he said, she said" benefits no one, including the employer - government or private. Finally, the legal department will tell you that there is always the possibility of being sued and it serves no purpose to say more than is necessary. PR will advise you, often specifically, how to respond and not to belabor the issue; stay on point and repeat when you must.

There is a reason we do not have a great deal of information about the OP. I doubt we will for a long time. What we may hear will be one-sided. Don't look for the City of Atlanta to engage in a "he said, she said". The quickest was to stop the public discussion is not to respond not respond once the issue is concluded.

Sorry for the text wall. ;)
Click to expand...

Reason for suspension without pay is he likely went around saying tantamount to "there better not be any fags working for me." You know it never happens that a fanatic passes around some pamphlet and that's the end of it. He created a hostile environment for his workers. Whether he should be fired, i don't know, but i don't sympathy for bigots anyway. Good riddance
 
Cryptic said:
And I would not want a gay turning me into the HR Department based solely on "mights" and "coulds".Thus, I extended my former atheist lesbian supervisor the same courtesy.

In the end, I bet my former supervisor is happy because I did not try to "build a pattern of "coulds" ", and the HR department was glad I did not waste their time.
Click to expand...

Sorry but people can report anything they want. HR, like anything else, has a job to do in discovering the truth. I dont believe that people have the right to 'not be offended,' but we also have a reasonable expectation of safety and recognition and professionalism in the workplace. If someone observes something or is treated a certain way, there's a reasonable chance it's happening to others too. If there is more than report, it's corroborating. It can help others.

And what issue did you have with your former supervisor that you didnt report?
 
justabubba said:
his book only provided basis to those who could show evidence of actual bias
which causes me to question why the city does not reveal exactly what the basis was for his termination
in fact, the city was pissed it was unable to conceal the nature of its unpaid suspension of the fire chief because he disclosed it in church. he dared mention what was being inflicted upon him by the city while it was not paying him any wage
Click to expand...

YOu bring up a good point.

Do we know if there were prior incidents or complaints against him? Employees may have made complaints to HR and those might be confidential but show a pattern . Even if they werent actionable or able to subtantiate them. This book would be more supporting evidence.
 
Lursa said:
Sorry but people can report anything they want. HR, like anything else, has a job to do in discovering the truth.

And what issue did you have with your former supervisor that you didnt report?
Click to expand...

I did not have any issue with her, as she never unethically acted on her stated opposition to my social group (conservative Christians).

Yes, she did openly identify as a lesbian and and an atheist. Yes, she informed me directly that she had a dim view of the social goals of conservative Christians and the place of conservative religion in America. Yes, she knew I was a conservative Christian (pro life bumper sticker on my car, I also periodically requested vacation time to go to church services during the week, took off for Good Friday etc.).

So, she might have decided that she did not like me personally and could have decided to discriminate against me. Yes, I could have went to HR, but I dont favor turning people in for what they "might" decide and "could" do. It is simply against basic fairness and wastes time.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
100% lie and not as fact as the countless articles prove :shrug:
Click to expand...

Prove or allege? I haven't seen any stats that demonstrate performance declination due to this.
 
Cryptic said:
I did not have any issue with her, as she never unethically acted on her stated opposition to my social group (conservative Christians).

Yes, she did openly identify as a lesbian and and an atheist. Yes, she informed me directly that she had a dim view of the social goals of conservative Christians and the place of conservative religion in America. Yes, she knew I was a conservative Christian (pro life bumper sticker on my car, I also periodically requested vacation time to go to church services during the week, took off for Good Friday etc.).

So, she might have decided that she did not like me personally and could have decided to discriminate against me. Yes, I could have went to HR, but I dont favor turning people in for what they "might" decide and "could" do. It is simply against basic fairness and wastes time.
Click to expand...

So you had nothing to report. Of course it's not black and white but 'dim view' is not the same as clearly saying you believe they are perverts and dirty. Her stated opinion was of an agenda, not you personally. Politics is difficult to keep completely out of the workplace and I think that's handled on a incident by incident basis by HR. Political affiliation isnt a protected class.
 
your supervisor has a pro life bumper sticker on her car
you received sick leave so you could get an abortion
and then believed you were retaliated against by that pro life supervisor
does the supervisor now get terminated because she dared 'publish' her pro life moral belief on her automobile, which is located in the employer's parking lot?
 
Lursa said:
Of course it's not black and white but 'dim view' is not the same as clearly saying you believe they are perverts and dirty. Her stated opinion was of an agenda, not you personally. .
Click to expand...

She voiced a personal opinion that conservative Christianity in particular, and conservative religion in general was "anti democratic" (among other things). What discriminatory actions "might" somebody take against an individual deemed to be affiliated with such a group?
Lursa said:
Political affiliation isnt a protected class.
Click to expand...
No, but my religion is a protected class. In addition, identification as a conservative christians might also be a protected social group.
Lursa said:
So you had nothing to report.
Click to expand...
Very true, I had nothing to report. That is why I never thought about going to HR. Evidently, the gays working in Atlanta Fire Department also have "nothing to report". Rather, they only have potential concerns (might, could), just like I did.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
She voiced a personal opinion that conservative Christianity in particular, and conservative religion in general was "anti democratic" (among other things). What discriminatory actions "might" somebody take against an individual deemed to be affiliated with such a group?

No, but my religion is a protected class. In addition, identification as a conservative christians might also be a protected social group.

Very true, I had nothing to report. That is why I never thought about going to HR. Evidently, the gays working in Atlanta Fire Department also have "nothing to report". Rather, they only have potential concerns (might, could), just like I did.
Click to expand...

We all have to deal with differing opinions at work. She didnt say you were dirty or a pervert. There is spectrum here....within and outside of illegal discrimination. Someone else with your concerns may have mentioned it to HR. Not necessarily a report, a concern. Because if you were actually concerned, then maybe others were too. If she said those things to you I think she was behaving improperly in her capacity as a supervisor.
 
Lursa said:
If she said those things to you I think she was behaving improperly in her capacity as a supervisor.
Click to expand...

I think you have a point here, it was probably was inappropriate.

At the same time, part of our work there was tracking social trends and interests. Thus, it was more culturally permissable in that office to openly voice one's own opinions on a variety of political matters- espescially if one favored the dominate progressive views.

At the end of the day though, complaints from either side of the socio political spectrum should be based on "dids", not "coulds" and "mights".
 
Cryptic said:
I think you have a point here, it was probably was inappropriate.

At the same time, part of our work there was tracking social trends and interests. Thus, it was more culturally permissable in that office to openly voice one's own opinions on a variety of political matters- espescially if one favored the dominate progressive views.

At the end of the day though, complaints from either side of the socio political spectrum should be based on "dids", not "coulds" and "mights".
Click to expand...

In some cases, if you wait until they take action and you never report or document anything, you have no basis to fight for a missed promotion or unfair termination. That's why things that establish a pattern are important. I dont know if only this man's words in a book are enough to terminate him but we dont know if there was a pattern.

And all opinions are not equal, at least not under our legal system. Blatant racists expressing the same level of disregard and prejudice as what the fire chief wrote would be considered differently, at least I think so.
 
justabubba said:
his book only provided basis to those who could show evidence of actual bias
which causes me to question why the city does not reveal exactly what the basis was for his termination
in fact, the city was pissed it was unable to conceal the nature of its unpaid suspension of the fire chief because he disclosed it in church. he dared mention what was being inflicted upon him by the city while it was not paying him any wage
Click to expand...

The Mayor is all over the place with his comments. I don't understand why he doesn't say exactly why he was terminated. Hell, if he was terminate for insubordination (they said don't give out book and he did), that's understandable. If there was discrimination in the workplace and he caused it, okay. If they're pissed because he mentioned the City in his book, yes. But he's flailing about and giving multiple answers without saying why he did it (causing all the assumptions in this thread).
 
justabubba said:
your supervisor has a pro life bumper sticker on her car
you received sick leave so you could get an abortion
and then believed you were retaliated against by that pro life supervisor
does the supervisor now get terminated because she dared 'publish' her pro life moral belief on her automobile, which is located in the employer's parking lot?
Click to expand...

Very good analogy. And actually could be close to what happened here. But that would also assume that pro-life people are part of a protected class and they aren't. The end result (hostile workplace) is the same, but the players aren't (protected versus unprotected class). I tried to do something similar a few times in this thread but I think this is a great analogy.
 
tres borrachos said:
Very good analogy. And actually could be close to what happened here. But that would also assume that pro-life people are part of a protected class and they aren't. The end result (hostile workplace) is the same, but the players aren't (protected versus unprotected class). I tried to do something similar a few times in this thread but I think this is a great analogy.
Click to expand...

actually, it was Cryptic in post #659 who sparked the thought with his mention of the pro life sticker
 
tres borrachos said:
Very good analogy. And actually could be close to what happened here. But that would also assume that pro-life people are part of a protected class and they aren't. The end result (hostile workplace) is the same, but the players aren't (protected versus unprotected class). I tried to do something similar a few times in this thread but I think this is a great analogy.
Click to expand...

Yes. But I do think there would be a ruckus if someone had a bumper sticker that maligned blacks. Same could be if someone had a really lewd bumper sticker.

I wonder if anyone ever brought a formal complaint...or not formal...against those bull balls? I guess they call them Truck Nutz? lol

Truck Nuts, Bumper Nuts, Hanging Truck Balls, Truck Nutz
 
Lursa said:
Yes. But I do think there would be a ruckus if someone had a bumper sticker that maligned blacks. Same could be if someone had a really lewd bumper sticker.

I wonder if anyone ever brought a formal complaint...or not formal...against those bull balls, lol?
Click to expand...

That's because blacks are a protected class, and pro-lifers aren't.

Bull's balls? :shock: ;)
 
tres borrachos said:
That's because blacks are a protected class, and pro-lifers aren't.

Bull's balls? :shock: ;)
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I meant....just like political bumper stickers arent either...political affiliation isnt a protected class.

But then you can also just get into the really offensive, sexually explicit, violence, etc....hence the bull balls, lol. They dont bother me tho.
 
Lursa said:
Right, that's what I meant....just like political bumper stickers arent either...political affiliation isnt a protected class.

But then you can also just get into the really offensive, sexually explicit, violence, etc....hence the bull balls, lol. They dont bother me tho.
Click to expand...

This is part of my issue with this whole "protected class" thing that I've been trying to articulate in this thread. I know why they exist, but it also selects winners.

I can be an asshole to the people who work for me who I know are anti-gunners, and they can't cry "hostile workplace".
 
tres borrachos said:
That's because blacks are a protected class, and pro-lifers aren't.
Click to expand...

It might depend on how much they link the discrimination to their religion, or present it as being on account of their religion.

There are other grey areas as well. For example, discriminating against say white hill billies or ghetto blacks might not discrimiantion per se (technically, such discrimiantion would be against a social sub class, not a protected race), but alot of judges might not buy that reasoning.

Or, "I dont discriminate against Jews"("racial" / religous group) just uhmm...."Zionists". (political group). Of course, just about any Jew can be described as a "zionist" to some degree.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom