It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
A substitute teacher was fired for giving a student a Bible. He sued, he won. The EEOC stated it was discrimination to fire the substitute teacher.

Now, compared to what Kelvin had to say about homosexuality in his book pales in comparison to what the Bible has to say on the matter.

That has never stopped the progressive liberals from trying their censorship onslaught though. It is fascism ... really.
edit on 13-1-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Tangerine

Actually as pointed out above it isn't illegal, but he's not protected from consequences. But in all honesty, do you even care that he was fired for expressing his religious views? That is discrimination and it doesn't matter what religion it is.


I refer you to the Supreme Court.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Couldn't find if the book was passed out at work or not...

IF this book was passed out at home during some type of non work related party then I could excuse it.

That said, a boss (the fire chief is the boss) does not have the right to pass out religious or sexual orientation stuff to his employees while on the clock. My boss would be fired for this, heck I would be fired for this, anyone at my job site would be fired for this. I'm sure most of ya'lls jobs are the same.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


I haven't seen other news stories besides my thread hunt down his actual book on Amazon and assess it. It was a religious book, not an anti-gay book. Even the New York Times didn't mention the actual content of the book much.

You can learn new things on ATS that you might not pick up on the MSM.
edit on 13amTue, 13 Jan 2015 05:38:27 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

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...

I am not divided on this issue ,I am sure he goes to church let him pass out his books there,is it anymore appropriate than passing out porno mags at work??..NO!



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

If you can't fathom the difference between a teacher attempting to answer a specific question related to the bible and a department head handing out copies to multiple subservient employees then I don't really know what I say other than your own personal bias is getting in the way if you seeing the picture very clearly. It's not like he was just your average shift worker handing out a book to answer a coworkers question, he is a department head working for the public, speaking for the entire department while bring in a position where he is also responsible to the while if the community he is supposed to be protecting. One thing I haven't seen brought up thus far is that for this to have reached the Mayors desk, someone in the department had to have filed a formal complaint and it had to have been discussed with the city's attorney before the firing took place to see if it would pass legal muster. The bottom line is that someone in charge if an entire department had no place distributing religious themed material at work in the public sector. It is a violation of federal law and in defiance of several SCOTUS rulings.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
In the past ten years, I have noticed that freedom of speech is being limited. I remember in the past, I was able to speak freely without worrying about repercussions. Now, not so much. The "tolerant" liberal left is fairly hostile towards religion.


What is described above has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is about the GOVERNMENT restricting speech, not social shaming. Does no one on ATS know what Freedom of Speech is anymore? Why do I have to keep repeating this fact all the time?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely so. From the Mayors own mouth-


“Let’s stop trying to make this about ‘religious freedom,” Reed said with a trace of anger and defiance in his voice toward his critics, “when it’s about making sure we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love … can do their job and go home without fear of being discriminated against. That’s what this is about.” The mayor was referring to the inflammatory and defamatory emails he received over the holidays calling him the “anti-Christ,” insisting that Cochran’s book is “clearly inflammatory.” “To those folks who were calling me and telling me that I should retain him, I just want you to know one thing … his religious decisions are not the basis of the problem; his judgment is the basis of the problem,” Reed concluded.



It wasn't about religion at all, the crux if the issue was city policy. The Christian majority in the US has such a persecution complex these days though that anything having anything marginally to do with a person of faith is seen as a personal attack on the entire collective. And even if the city policy were not violated it still violates a host of federal laws and court rulings.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: XTexan
Couldn't find if the book was passed out at work or not...

IF this book was passed out at home during some type of non work related party then I could excuse it.

That said, a boss (the fire chief is the boss) does not have the right to pass out religious or sexual orientation stuff to his employees while on the clock. My boss would be fired for this, heck I would be fired for this, anyone at my job site would be fired for this. I'm sure most of ya'lls jobs are the same.


He wasn't fired for distributing the book at work (he gave the book to his co-workers that also attended his church). He was fired for publishing a book on his own time, with his own money, and for doing so without getting "approval" from the Mayor.

He also gave a copy of the book to the Mayor last year. The Mayor knew he published it. The Mayor attends a Methodist Church.

It is just a revocation of a Government Employee's 1st amendment rights.

Government Employees are allowed to attend church. They are allowed to participate in an electoral process without any form of retaliation from their superiors. They are allowed to publish books.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely so. From the Mayors own mouth-


“Let’s stop trying to make this about ‘religious freedom,” Reed said with a trace of anger and defiance in his voice toward his critics, “when it’s about making sure we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love … can do their job and go home without fear of being discriminated against. That’s what this is about.” The mayor was referring to the inflammatory and defamatory emails he received over the holidays calling him the “anti-Christ,” insisting that Cochran’s book is “clearly inflammatory.” “To those folks who were calling me and telling me that I should retain him, I just want you to know one thing … his religious decisions are not the basis of the problem; his judgment is the basis of the problem,” Reed concluded.



It wasn't about religion at all, the crux if the issue was city policy. The Christian majority in the US has such a persecution complex these days though that anything having anything marginally to do with a person of faith is seen as a personal attack on the entire collective. And even if the city policy were not violated it still violates a host of federal laws and court rulings.


That is incorrect. There is no "host of federal laws and court rulings" that were violated by the Fire Chief publishing a book on his own time, with his own money, which expressed his religious beliefs. The firing of the police chief was done so as a form of retaliation for his perceived "bias" of homosexuals.

This "bias" is religious based and has been proven to not be "hate speech", but rather, "religious speech". Religious speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Just because you disagree with these rights, does not make religious speech "illegal" (a big LOL). The only hate is coming from the left directed towards Christians.

The Fire Chief will sue, and he will win. Just watch.
edit on 13-1-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

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...



No he didn't, unless you have evidence that he did some sort of discriminatory act. Unless we have thought police now, simply having an opinion on something should not be a fireable offence.

If he was selling his own book to his coworkers then I certainly can see a conflict of interest.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: XTexan
Couldn't find if the book was passed out at work or not...

IF this book was passed out at home during some type of non work related party then I could excuse it.

That said, a boss (the fire chief is the boss) does not have the right to pass out religious or sexual orientation stuff to his employees while on the clock. My boss would be fired for this, heck I would be fired for this, anyone at my job site would be fired for this. I'm sure most of ya'lls jobs are the same.


He wasn't fired for distributing the book at work (he gave the book to his co-workers that also attended his church). He was fired for publishing a book on his own time, with his own money, and for doing so without getting "approval" from the Mayor.

He also gave a copy of the book to the Mayor last year. The Mayor knew he published it. The Mayor attends a Methodist Church.

It is just a revocation of a Government Employee's 1st amendment rights.

Government Employees are allowed to attend church. They are allowed to participate in an electoral process without any form of retaliation from their superiors. They are allowed to publish books.


Ah, so he didn't even give it out at work but to coworkers who happened to go to the same church? Even as an atheist, I can't see how writing a book on your own time and publishing it with your own money and then giving it away off the job site while not on the clock is a fireable offense or the city's business at all.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: darkbake
In the past ten years, I have noticed that freedom of speech is being limited. I remember in the past, I was able to speak freely without worrying about repercussions. Now, not so much. The "tolerant" liberal left is fairly hostile towards religion.


What is described above has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is about the GOVERNMENT restricting speech, not social shaming. Does no one on ATS know what Freedom of Speech is anymore? Why do I have to keep repeating this fact all the time?


By that definition, the government in the form of the mayor firing a person for his personal beliefs and/or writings, would be a definition of a first amendment violation.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Hmm, so legally free speech applies but it's essentially a gamble? Your right to do so is protected but you may face problems?


Yep..your allowed to say anything you want..just don't act surprised if you get fired for it.


As a public employee you should not be allowed to hold ill will to a certain group since your job is to represent all people.



No, that's not the law. The law does not address how one feels, but how one acts. If that were the law, a large portion of the congressional black caucus would have to be fired.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

cute how you completely left out the part where the fire chief violated the city of Atlanta's own employment policy as well as the policy relating to the clearance of for profit published material. As for federal laws and court rulings, you're wrong. Even if it's on his own time that he distributed the material, he gave away something that promotes bigotry and discrimination to his subordinates thereby creating a hostile work environment for any possible homosexuals within the fire department. I'm all for supporting everyone's first amendment rights whether I agree with their views or not but Chief Cochrane crossed a line by involving people who answer to him at work in his personal agenda. As the head of an entire department, Cochrane's judgment needs to be unimpeachable and as a result of his inability to keep quiet during his month long suspension and spoke openly about it and his alleged religious persecution at several church groups despite the city's instructions to the contrary, his judgment is questionable at best.

Despite what you claim, creating a hostile work environment is not free and protected speech under the first amendment.
I have no doubt that Cochrane will sue, I do seriously doubt his odds of winning are though. If he did indeed violate Atlanta's policy for city employees, which under the city's guidelines for employment it would appear to be the case when Cochrane equated homosexuality to bestiality and pederasty. That calls his judgement into question as well as creates a hostile work environment. Not just for any homosexual members of the department but it creates a divide between himself along with the department members that go to the same church and any department members who disagree with them and their antiquated view points. Furthermore, instead of owning up to the fact that he violated the city's employment guidelines or admitting he made a mistake, he's hiding behind the skirts of religion and claiming he's being attacked for his faith. Another example of someone hiding behind religion as an excuse for their bigotry and emitting a persecution complex despite it having nothing to do with his religion. If Mayor Reed was an atheist or someone of a different faith you would at least have a straw to grasp at but as a regular attender of his own Christian church it's complete BS. Cochrane made an error and had a lapse of judgment. If he would have said as much I would at least have a little respect for him but instead he's using jesus as a shield. Men admit when they make an error. He's a coward.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

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...


Being a free world does not mean you have no consequences:




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
He was free to speak his mind, which he did and he suffered the consequences based on his employer's right.

It isn't like he was put into the slam for speaking his mind.

Derek



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Tell that to Mozilla's CEO who was forced out for making a contribution to an org supporting Prop 8 Cali BEFORE he ever got the job at Mozilla. We are now to be punished for our pasts and our private associations and donations, too.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow

How in his daily commission of his job did he discriminate? Did he refuse to promote qualified gays? Did he refuse to hire qualified gays? Did he fire them for trumped up offenses or in any other way make it disproportionately more difficult for gay firefighters to do their jobs in Atlanta?

Or was he just guilty of having an unpopular opinion/belief that he let slip?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

In the context of the Civil Rights Act, discriminate means to act on the basis of prejudice. Merely writing your belief is not doing that.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join