Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

[gb2000ie]

You really don't get it do you?

Every religion has the right to label anything as a sin.

But by publishing the book this makes it a PERSONAL belief.

See the word you have in bold there - that's the key to this. PERSONAL.

People have a right to their personal life. What ever legal thing you get up to in your own time is your own business, and not your employers.

What you do at work is what you should be judged on at work.

You are afraid someone who holds personal beliefs you don't like will do you harm, and here you are advocating harm be done to someone just because they have a personal belief you don't like!

Can you not see the irony?

Take away religion in the equation. If someone published that "Homosexuality is wrong" or "Homosexuals are born wrong" or "Homosexuals are wrong". Then that is hate speech to ME because that is his own PERSONAL belief.

You might miss-use words, but that does not alter reality YOU can consider it hate all you want, but that does not make it so.

Simply saying some thing is immoral does not meet the legal requirements for hate speech. You must advocate for discrimination or violence for it to be hate speech. Otherwise, it's just an opinion you don't like.

What if he said that worshipping Allah is a sin? That being a Muslim is a sin?

Then he would be a run-of-the mill catholic priest. Most religious people think everyone who does not believe in their god is a sinner.

Nothing shocking here. Nothing illegal here.

What if he said that worshipping Vishnu is a sin? That being a Hindu is a sin?

See previous.

What if he said that worshipping anything but the Christian God is a sin?

See previous. That is EXACTLY catholic teaching!

What he published is that homosexuality - the MERE attraction to the same gender is wrong. That You and I and every homo on the block is wrong. That we were BORN WRONG.

I can read. I do get that. I'm just don't give a flying fuck as long as he doesn't try to enforce his nonsense on me. He can believe what ever he wants, as long has he doesn't discriminate or proselytise in the work place.

What he is doing is HIDING behind religion to cover his ass. When there is no real distinction of what his church believes and what he believes.

There is no need for religion to cover his ass - he has the 1st amendment to do that!

And don't tell me a hate speech does not mean anything. Don't tell me that what people say or think don't really reflect who they are.

I'm not arguing that he's a nice man! But being a dick is not a crime!

If this was just an ordinary person proclaiming his hate speech then people wouldn't be so riled by it. But the person is the CHIEF. Don't tell me what he said didn't dent his credibility as a top government employee.

His constitutionally protected right to free speech does not legally constitute hate speech, so you are simply wrong in your continued abuse of the phrase 'hate speech'.

What you are suggesting is that homosexuals should just take it and leave it be. I say grow a pair.

No I am not!

I am saying we should fight against people's ACTIONS, not against people's thoughts.

We should also use our free speech to counter his free speech. As it happens I think he is wrong, which makes speaking out against him very easy.

I'm not suggesting anyone agree with him. I am suggesting that firing people for their beliefs instead of their actions is morally reprehensible, and a really dangerous road to go down. Thought crime is a spectacularly dangerous idea.

I also have the balls to REALLY believe in free speech, not just that people are free to agree with me. Free speech means people get to say things I REALLY disagree with, but I get to have my say too, and I am confident that I can make my point much better than they can make theirs!

THAT is what Je Suis charlie is all about - what you suggest is punishing people for excercising free speech, i.e. you are on the side of the Imams, you just disagree about what speech it is that should be banned.

What he says matters and should matter.

And how he does his job should matter infinitely more.

 

[Gruet98]

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, disability, or other traits.

What he just did is a form of hate speech. He said homosexuals are wrong! That homosexuals are wrong in his religion and homosexuals are wrong in his own belief! Don't tell me that is not hate speech because it strikes to the core of what a homosexual is. You may have not been offended enough but I surely am. Apparently being called a sexual pervert is just ok with you. That being labelled with the likes of bestiality and pedastry is just a normal day in your life. That to me is just disgusting.

Hate speech is hate speech no matter how you turn it.

Everyone has the right to say whatever they want. That does not mean they have the right to be paid by the government. Of course he has the right to be as bigoted and ignorant as he wants but that does not mean he has the right to serve as a top government employee.

Kelvin Cochran distributed this book to 9 people in his workplace so don't tell me he made this act outside the bounds of employment. Anything he does reflects his position.

It is clear that he intends to promote his hate speech within the fire department. And by doing so he opens up the the department for impending lawsuits.

 

[gb2000ie]

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, disability, or other traits.

What he just did is a form of hate speech. He said homosexuals are wrong! That homosexuals are wrong in his religion and homosexuals are wrong in his own belief! Don't tell me that is not hate speech because it strikes to the core of what a homosexual is. You may have not been offended enough but I surely am. Apparently being called a sexual pervert is just ok with you. That being labelled with the likes of bestiality and pedastry is just a normal day in your life. That to me is just disgusting.

Hate speech is hate speech no matter how you turn it.

Everyone has the right to say whatever they want. That does not mean they have the right to be paid by the government. Of course he has the right to be as bigoted and ignorant as he wants but that does not mean he has the right to serve as a top government employee.

Kelvin Cochran distributed this book to 9 people in his workplace so don't tell me he made this act outside the bounds of employment. Anything he does reflects his position.

It is clear that he intends to promote his hate speech within the fire department. And by doing so he opens up the the department for impending lawsuits.

I get that you're offended.

I just don't think it's OK to fire someone because you don't like them. You fire people for how they do their job, not for what they think, and who they like and dislike.

You do LOTS of things LOTS of people think are sins. Millions of people consider you a sinner. Why are you not calling all those others hate mongers? Frankly, it's impractical to rant and rave about everyone who considers you a sinner - you'd have no time left to live your life!

As for giving his books to people in work - whether or not that is improper very much depends on the specifics. Did the recipients ask for a copy? Or was he giving the book to people he was trying to convert? One is totally innocent, the other is illegal because it is creating a hostile work environment. Giving the book to people he was attempting to convert would also be a flagrant breach of the separation of church and state.

IF he gave the books in an attempt to pressure people into changing their mind, their faith, or their sexuality, then THAT is why he should have been fired, NOT because of his beliefs. I haven't read that that was the case, but if someone can link me to a source proving that is what he did, then that new data would change my opinion on the case.

But, if he didn't give the books inappropriately, then this man has been martyred, and the cause of gay rights will have been set back not advanced by what can easily be described as a witch hunt.

On the whole, I think it's much better to riddicule such daft opinions as comparing consensual gay sex to pederasty than to martyr people for them.

B.

 

[Stonecold]

Certainly public officials — government employees — have the right to belong to the religious institution of their choice, to teach in Sunday School, to go on missions, etc.
The issues in Cochran’s case are not particularly tricky. He published his book (which is on Amazon) identifying himself as Atlanta’s fire chief, and he gave the book to subordinates, in some cases when they did not ask for it. That’s was, in my view, over the line.
Cochran crossed the line by passing out the book the way he did. He could have simply made the book available through his church. Every one has a right to express his/her own beliefs, even in conversation in the work place, but very carefully in a supervisory relationship. He seemed to be “witnessing” or apostatizing as a supervisor to employees in a work environment which would seemed be a violation of the employees First Amendment rights.
Chief Cochran was indeed given an initial 30 day suspension. During which he was obliged not to publicly discuss the case while the investigation was pending. Chief Cochran did not abide by this order and got himself fired the day he returned from his suspension.

 

[gb2000ie]

He published his book (which is on Amazon) identifying himself as Atlanta’s fire chief,

Having first asked for permission and been granted it - at least according to him.

and he gave the book to subordinates, in some cases when they did not ask for it.

Do you have a link to a reputable source to substantiate that? None of the reporting I've read mentioned that, and it's a REALLY important point.

If we are sure he pushed the book on people, then he deserved to be fired for that.

That’s was, in my view, over the line.

If we know that for sure then I'm with you - I'm always happy to change my opinion when presented with new information.

B.

 

[Stonecold]

firing of Mr. Cochran

The union, Atlanta Professional Firefighters Local 134, praised Reed’s decision and called on the administration to go further by adding an LGBT liaison for the fire department. Likewise, The New York Times editorial board said that the mayor was in the right.

“Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe,” the paper said in an editorial published Tuesday. “If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.”


Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed says he fired Cochran last week for exhibiting poor judgment and insubordination during an initial 30-day suspension over the former chief’s book, “Who Told You You Were Naked.” In the book, Cochran condemns homosexual acts as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

An internal investigation found that Cochran did not get the proper approval to write the book in the first place – something he disputes – and then talked publicly about his suspension against the mayor’s wishes. The probe also found that while Cochran did not treat LGBT employees unfairly during his tenure, “there was a consistent sentiment among the witnesses that firefighters throughout the organization [were] appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book.”

 

[gb2000ie]

The probe also found that while Cochran did not treat LGBT employees unfairly during his tenure, “there was a consistent sentiment among the witnesses that firefighters throughout the organization [were] appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book.”

I thought all my concerns had been addressed until I came to that line. So there is no evidence he discriminated against anyone, and that fact is then 'counter balanced' by a general feeling that people didn't like his beliefs. That suggests he was at least in part fired for his beliefs rather than his actions, and that still gives me an icky feeling.

If the mayor is correct that the book was un-authorised, then on balance I think I'm prepared to change my mind on this. But, if the chief is correct that he did get authorisation, and if the report found that he did not discriminate, then that would shed a very nasty light on the mayor's actions IMO.

 

[amiriot]

He was proselytizing at work in an official capacity (which is unconstitutional) since he distributed it to at least three people at work unsolicited:

"In addition, the report says Cochran gave the book, unsolicited, to a battalion chief during a professional one-on-one meeting. The purpose of the meeting, the report said, was to discuss what the battalion chief needed to do to prepare himself for appointment to the position of assistant chief."

Anon URL

Also, the city's ethics code requires that a commissioner get approval from the board of ethics prior to engaging in private activity for pay.

To which he Kelvin replied:

"I had legal permission to write the book from the city's ethics officer [Nina Hickson]," Cochran recently told The Christian Post in an exclusive interview. "[It] was through a verbal conversation, there was no doentation … she said it was legal and I was authorized to write it and that she wanted a copy when I finish, after I told her what the book was going to be about."

In a separate statement to CP, Hickson refuted these claims and cited the Atlanta City Code of Ordinances, Section 2-820 (d).

"The Atlanta's Ethics Code establishes the required approval process for City Commissioners who wish to engage in outside activities for pay," Hickson wrote in an email. "Consequently, I did not authorize Chief Cochran to write and publish the book, nor did I have the authority to do so."
Anon URL

 

[gb2000ie]

"In addition, the report says Cochran gave the book, unsolicited, to a battalion chief during a professional one-on-one meeting. The purpose of the meeting, the report said, was to discuss what the battalion chief needed to do to prepare himself for appointment to the position of assistant chief."

K - that's done it, I have no reservations what so ever any more. This wasn't a witch hunt, and this isn't about a guy being discriminated against for his beliefs. It's a guy using a position of authority to pressure people into his religion which is immoral, illegal, and wrong.

B.