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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

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.


You can hate gays all you want, but you cannot spread hate literature to co-workers. Almost every place I've ever worked for has a blurb about this in the handbook.


But THAT is a different issue than discrimination though.




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Not really. The US Bill of Rights says that Congress Shall Make NO Law respecting the free exercise of religion. In other words, he is free to exercise his religion. That does not say it has to be privately done, not anywhere. It is only a mistake that some make to think that the Separation Clause actually exists in the COTUS. It doesn't.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Wow then we should fire all of them. They harbor ill will toward the other side of the political divide.




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

Is this same SCOTUS that ruled in Dred Scott?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Viesczy

If it were a private employer I might almost agree. But in this case, the employer is government which opens up a host of discrimination issues. You have government firing someone for what he said about the tenets of his personal faith. If government has policies of nondiscrimination for orientation, well it also has policies of nondiscrimination for religion, too.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But he wasnt fired for saying anything regarding the tenets of his personal faith. He was fired initially suspended for violating Atlanta's city employment policies. As part of his suspension he was ordered ro undergo sensitivity training and to refrain from discussing his suspension oublicly. his first action was to book speaking engagements at several churches to discuss his persecution at the hands of TPTB in the city if Atlanta. Part of the issue prior to his suspension wasn't just the violation of city employment policies, he also went so far as to proudly identify himself as the Atlanta fire chief in the book, declaring that his first priority as chief was to run the department "to cultivate its culture to the glory of God. Sorry but that's just poor judgement on his part as it clearly creates a hostile work environment for anyone who doesn't agree with or follow his particular brand of anachronistic Christianity let alone anyone who happens to be homosexual.

No matter how you look at it, he violated a city policy relating to the publishing of for profit material. An assertion supported by the city's ethics officer who would have been the one to sign off on it. He then disseminated it to people who are subordinate to him as well as other colleagues which was the impetus for the initial investigation when several department members complained to the Mayors office. It comes off as a conflict of interest and a serious lack of judgement unbecoming of someone in his position of authority and his employees all should be considered valuable assets as opposed to being in fear of losing their jobs for not agreeing with his viewpoints or living a life that he considers a perversion and equitable with bestiality and pederasty.

Ironically his book will probably now actually make him money with all the exposure he's been given as well as every conservative and religious right pundit encouraging their followers to by the book as an act of defiant protest because Christianity is again being attacked by the progressive liberal agenda. Its as if he's the 2015 poster boy for the ever growing Christians persecution complex which is funny in that well over 2/3 of Americans identify themselves as Christians making the logistics of the majority religion in this country rather untenable in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I agree 100% but I still can't say for certain if it was intentional.

If I was a public employee and I said "Praise Bob!" at work if the coffee machine was refilled or something, and didn't think it was evangelizing...but someone else did, I'd be protected by the first amendment but then I'd be at the mercy of the legal system. To think, simply because I said it in a casual context, I could be fired.

But then again, maybe I said it to spread my religion or something.

We honestly don't know what the intention was, but we do know it was said. So I'm reserving total judgement until I know whether or not it was intentional. I'm not too happy about the hating on gays though....


Again, he, in his role of PUBLIC servant, gave the book to his PUBLIC subordinates.

He can say what he wants, publish it, and give it to others but as a Private citizen.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Again -- this is a civil servant position.

Which represents every citizen in the district.

The extreme views of this person --- eliminates him from accepting everyone.

Except the problem lies in the opposite stance, which prevents them from accepting people who also feel homosexuality is wrong. Either way you slice it, the Chief's beliefs will run contrary to one groups. This is the government taking sides and stifling one group.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except the problem lies in the opposite stance, which prevents them from accepting people who also feel homosexuality is wrong. Either way you slice it, the Chief's beliefs will run contrary to one groups. This is the government taking sides and stifling one group.


You got it completely wrong, this is chief taking side in settings where he should serve all, not only selected.

People like this, who are placing their own morality above law and office they serve should be fired, no doubt of that.

There is no ground on discrimination here, as he has right to write all he wants, but not to propagate that at his work. It's public office, not church or religious organization.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

CEO and business leaders may be held to the same laws but they are also held to a higher standard. Yes, CEO's can be voted out if their actions compromise the integrity or the morale of the organization. In the public sector...I'm sure there are a whole host of other issues...but the Mozilla situation was ENTIRELY within the purview of a board to remove someone. Leaders need to not only follow the letter of the law but inspire, motivate and create momentum within their organizations. Kelvin should have known this as a graduate of leadership Atlanta. This is an interesting post I read recently.

www.decaturish.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Just more christian bashing im sure if he was handing out a book called abortion a good option for you he would of gotten a medal.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: sweets777

Violating city ordinance isn't Christian bashing. It's only Christian bashing because of the rampant persecution complex exhibited these days. Can you cite a single instance of a department head working in the public sector and paid by tax dollars pushing proabortion material on their subordinates? I have some serious doubts that has occurred yet people cry that their free speech is being impeded with increasing regularity if they feel that their Christian ideals are in question while simultaneously being offended by anything that doesn't nice with their personal faith. Pro abortion material has no place being peddled by a superior either. The difference though is that nobody has had the poor judgement to do that yet. In this particular instance , the Chief disenfranchised everyone working under him that has any bird other than his own. It was poor judgement plain and simple. The Chief is supposed to represent ALL of his employees and ALL citizens of the city he works for. Not just the ones who's lifestyles he agrees with.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join