Religious Bias Issues Debated After Atlanta Mayor’s Dismissal of Fire Chief

originally posted by: Losonczy
a reply to: Sremmos80

Kelvin claims he did have approval to publish the book and reference himself as the Fire Chief in the book. I don't believe there is a requirement for them to approve the manuscript. Therefore Kelvin claims he fulfilled the letter of the requirement.

I personally do not believe that is factually true.

Time will tell.

a reply to: Losonczy

Ya not saying he didn't, just that it seems to part of the reasoning as to why he was fired.

I wouldn't doubt he would say he fulfilled that.
Could it be possible he mislead them during that process?

I also highly doubt them not wanting to approve the manuscript, seems that would be exactly what they would want to approve.

a reply to: Annee

No surprise.

As Losonczy said the whole book wasn't about gays, it was a small part using references from the Bible. Seems like the most popular constituents win despite the debate this situation has brought up.

Losonczy: Do you know if he gave it out for religious purposes or as a gift? It could help explain his overall purpose.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Annee

No surprise.

As Losonczy said the whole book wasn't about gays, it was a small part using references from the Bible. Seems like the most popular constituents win despite the debate this situation has brought up.

I've been reading about if for 4 days. Prior to it being a thread on ATS.

I'm pretty clear on what's been stated.

a reply to: Annee

I hope from multiple povs and not just "Christian! Burn!"

Oh the joys of appeasing the most persuasive voting group.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I really don't know the particulars about how he distributed the books. And I really am not trying to blindly defend him. I'm only speaking as someone who has had interactions with him. This will go where it goes. And people that understand the acceptability of how it was distributed will know MUCH more than I will.

If any of my employees expressed homophobia, misogynist, racist or otherwise hate filled speech in my place of business, they would be fired so fast. They can be as bigoted as they want at home but not where I'm trying to make a living. They will get no recommendation and no severance pay and if they get another job; I will notify their current employers they just hired a bigoted scumbag.
The mayor acted appropriately in representing ALL the people. And the firechief was a dumb ass if he thought his holier than thou, religious bigotry would be overlooked.[

Never discuss money, politics, or religion at work.

a reply to: DMFL1133

Ding ding ding! A winner! Exactly, save your career, your reputation, your relationships....leave money, religion, politics out of work and be careful how you phrase every sentence.

Also helps when someone asks who an employee is, not to speak about personal characteristics. I've found "Third computer from the left, second row." is preferable to "Red headed woman with a ponytail" in professional situations. The world's an oyster for everyone, tons of opportunities to be offended and hopefully cash out or make a name for yourself.

originally posted by: TheArrow
This guy deserved to get fired. He violated federal law.

On July 1, 2011, the EEOC ruled that job discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals constituted a form of sex-stereotyping and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

en.wikipedia.org...

I agree. Let this be a lesson for others who think about doing the same.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TheArrow

See that's the debate though, they fired him for discriminating against gays but by firing him aren't they violating his right to express his religion? Sure certain topics have no place in the professional world but they bleed through no matter what, so that's the problem and it's a mess.

He doesn't have a right to proselytize religion in a public workspace. It's expressly against the law.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Annee

No surprise.

As Losonczy said the whole book wasn't about gays, it was a small part using references from the Bible. Seems like the most popular constituents win despite the debate this situation has brought up.

Losonczy: Do you know if he gave it out for religious purposes or as a gift? It could help explain his overall purpose.

Doesn't matter. It's a violation of law.

a reply to: Tangerine

Was he proselytizing? I still can't find any info on whether or not he gave out the book for evangelical purposes or simply as a gift? You'd be surprised how many people give out their own creations for gifts. It's the creator's equivalent of holiday cards with the sender's picture on the front.

I would be on his side if he was simply another fireman giving out the book he wrote but it is his position which has me thinking it was inappropriate.

Being the fire chief/Boss he should know better than to hand them out to employees. It is a tricky situation one he should have figured out beforehand.

a reply to: darkbake


You do realize there is a difference between public and private.

To recapitulate,

You are sharing your lack of tolerance for "tolerant" liberals who are hostile to religion.

But you do support a Public Servant 'gifting' his employees with an intolerant personal missive.

Am I correct in my undertanding?

Again do you understand the difference between public and private speech?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
Sadly this is why I never discussed religion, politics, social, economic issues when I was working. Even now freelancing my conversations are limited to the task at hand. I think he has a right to express his religion but honestly I'm divided on how he was condemning gays in the book. Sure he should express it because it's his religious right but there's tons of gay Christians and I don't think Jesus would turn away a gay person.

That being said, there is an atmosphere of hostility towards religion in society, mostly Christianity but it gets extreme towards Islam and Judaism (and everything in between). I often hear that if people should be tolerant to religion then they should be tolerant to people who want no religion. Can't please anyone no matter what happens in society.

The hostility you feel is because religion (in the US as codified in the Bill of Rights) is a private matter.

This fire chief has the complete right to his beliefs but he was acting in his public capacity when handing out religious material.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: darkbake

Personally I'm divided on this. It's wrong he was fired for expressing his rights but to me condemning gays is wrong. But it's a free world...

As a public servant he did not have any right to press his PERSONAL opinions on his subordinates.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Seems it was more then just him handing out the book but also going against department policy about not clearing a for profit venture through them.
Remember he speaks for the department, so it would makes sense if they want to reserve the right to clear something like this before he goes out and publishes it.

Seems all your sources have a distorted view of that the 1st protects, they all talk about how he was the right to say what he wants and not be reprimanded for it which is just not true.

Well - he has gotten a lot of free publicity.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm not feeling hostile at all....? I'm just wondering about the aspects of the story we don't know. I don't sympathize with his feelings about gays, it just brings up an interesting dilemma.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yup no such thing as a bad publicity.
His book will be bought just to 'stick to those dirty commie liberals'.