Fire chief fired after gay comments in book

[Dialogos]

Fire chief fired after gay comments in book

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

Just more evidence that the homosexual social agenda is eroding the protections of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

A Fire Chief cannot write a book on his own time without being fired for its content if it doesn't tow the party line.

:nono:

Our religious freedoms are being pulled right out from under us, if we don't fight for them now we can count on them being gone tomorrow.

 

[Rusha]

From the article:

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

According to this article, it sounds as though he brought his book into his working environment.

 

[republicanchick]

Fire chief fired after gay comments in book

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

Just more evidence that the homosexual social agenda is eroding the protections of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

A Fire Chief cannot write a book on his own time without being fired for its content if it doesn't tow the party line.

:nono:

Our religious freedoms are being pulled right out from under us, if we don't fight for them now we can count on them being gone tomorrow.

for sure. The thought police are coming to get you... but only if you express feelings contrary to the state...

__

 

[republicanchick]

Oh, well, I guess we can't take our Reagan Diaries to work with us or we will be fired...



Russia has finally won against us!!!

 

[Rusha]

for sure. The thought police are coming to get you... but only if you express feelings contrary to the state...

__

You didn't read the article, did ya? HE brought the book into his work environment by distributing it internally.

 

[republicanchick]

You didn't read the article, did ya? HE brought the book into his work environment by distributing it internally.

see Post 4

it's all about freedom and we are LOSING it. If people aren't scared it's b/c they aren't paying attn

 

[Dialogos]

From the article:

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

According to this article, it sounds as though he brought his book into his working environment.

According to this he gave three copies of the book to coworkers with whom he had a personal friendship. Someone, who did not receive a copy from Cochran, obtained a copy and gave it to a openly gay member of the city counsel. It does not sound like he distributed the book as an official act in his capacity of fire chief.

Now, if an openly gay fire chief were to give gay friendly literature that criticized conservative Christian approaches to homosexuality to three of his gay friends who worked at the department and a Christian colleague got a copy and gave it to a Christian city counselman, does anyone think that said fire chief would be fired?

Would that fire chief even be chided?

:nono:

Nope.

We would be hearing criticisms about the Christians who were out to get the gay fire chief, wouldn't we?

If a fire chief had written and distributed a book that contained criticisms of conservative republican politics and distributed that book to three of his liberal firefighter friends, and a republican got a copy of the book and took it to a politically conservative counselman would that fire chief get fired?

Nope.

:nono:

That guy probably wouldn't even get a call asking him to keep it off company time.

Bottom line:

In the new legal climate of our country, Republicans are fair game for criticism, anytime, all the time, Christians are fair game for criticism, anytime, all the time, but homosexuals and homosexuality is immune from criticism, any time, all the time.

 

[republicanchick]

According to this he gave three copies of the book to coworkers with whom he had a personal friendship. Someone, who did not receive a copy from Cochran, obtained a copy and gave it to a openly gay member of the city counsel. It does not sound like he distributed the book as an official act in his capacity of fire chief.

Now, if an openly gay fire chief were to give gay friendly literature that criticized conservative Christian approaches to homosexuality to three of his gay friends who worked at the department and a Christian colleague got a copy and gave it to a Christian city counselman, does anyone think that said fire chief would be fired?

Would that fire chief even be chided?

:nono:

Nope.

We would be hearing criticisms about the Christians who were out to get the gay fire chief, wouldn't we?

If a fire chief had written and distributed a book that contained criticisms of conservative republican politics and distributed that book to three of his liberal firefighter friends, and a republican got a copy of the book and took it to a politically conservative counselman would that fire chief get fired?

Nope.

:nono:

That guy probably wouldn't even get a call asking him to keep it off company time.

Bottom line:

In the new legal climate of our country, Republicans are fair game for criticism, anytime, all the time, Christians are fair game for criticism, anytime, all the time, but homosexuals and homosexuality is immune from criticism, any time, all the time.

WELL said


we are all being brainwashed to accept debauchery and stupidity and reject decency

OR else!:bang:


+

 

[rexlunae]

Fire chief fired after gay comments in book

A few years ago, and maybe even today, if the fire chief had been gay instead of anti-gay, he might have been fired for it. And I'll bet you wouldn't have said boo about his freedom then.

 

[Rusha]

According to this he gave three copies of the book to coworkers with whom he had a personal friendship. Someone, who did not receive a copy from Cochran, obtained a copy and gave it to a openly gay member of the city counsel. It does not sound like he distributed the book as an official act in his capacity of fire chief.

Now, if an openly gay fire chief were to give gay friendly literature that criticized conservative Christian approaches to homosexuality to three of his gay friends who worked at the department and a Christian colleague got a copy and gave it to a Christian city counselman, does anyone think that said fire chief would be fired?

Would that fire chief even be chided?

:nono:

Nope.

We would be hearing criticisms about the Christians who were out to get the gay fire chief, wouldn't we?

If a fire chief had written and distributed a book that contained criticisms of conservative republican politics and distributed that book to three of his liberal firefighter friends, and a republican got a copy of the book and took it to a politically conservative counselman would that fire chief get fired?

Nope.

:nono:

That guy probably wouldn't even get a call asking him to keep it off company time.

Bottom line:

In the new legal climate of our country, Republicans are fair game for criticism, anytime, all the time, Christians are fair game for criticism, anytime, all the time, but homosexuals and homosexuality is immune from criticism, any time, all the time.

Well, the article you posted the link for is from the Baptist Press ...

However, I will reserve my opinion on this matter until more information is available from BOTH sides.

 

[Dialogos]

Well, the article you posted the link for is from the Baptist Press ...

And the original article I posted from was USA Today (just as biased).

 

[Rusha]

And the original article I posted from was USA Today (just as biased).

So your claim is that both are biased ... and yet, I am willing to wait for more info prior to jumping to conclusions.

 

[Dialogos]

So your claim is that both are biased ...

Sure, all media outlets have a certain degree of bias.

and yet, I am willing to wait for more info prior to jumping to conclusions.

Good for you.

But there are no leaps needed to ascertain what both media outlets report.

Both report that the book was a personal publication. Both report that the fire chief received permission to write and publish the book from the cities ethics dept. (which I think is ridiculous that he would even need to ask).

Both admit that Cochran was fired for "releasing" the book. Meaning you can believe whatever you want as long as you shut up about it but the minute you, as a gov't employee, go public with it, exercising your right to free speech, your job is in jeopardy.

 

[TracerBullet]

Actions have consequences. If this fire chief had written sick racists rantings in his book he would have been fired just the same.

 

[Dialogos]

Actions have consequences. If this fire chief had written sick racists rantings in his book he would have been fired just the same.

See, this guy gets it. He was fired for what he wrote.

Bottom line.

Thanks for proving my point for me Tracer.

 

[Dialogos]

More confirmation, Cochran was fired for the "content" of the book that was written.

From the Washington Post

On Tuesday, here’s how Reed explained his decision to end Cochran’s tenure as Fire Chief:

“Despite my respect for Chief Cochran’s service, I believe his actions and decision-making undermine his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse workforce. Every single employee under the Fire Chief’s command deserves the certainty that he or she is a valued member of the team and that fairness and respect guide employment decisions. His actions and his statements during the investigation and his suspension have eroded my confidence in his ability to convey that message.
Chief Cochran also failed to notify me, as Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of Atlanta and and its inflammatory content. This demonstrates an irreconcilable lapse in judgment.”​

 

[Rusha]

See, this guy gets it. He was fired for what he wrote.

Bottom line.

Thanks for proving my point for me Tracer.

No, she/he doesn't get it. I don't necessarily agree that he should have been fired. I only stated I would like to wait for more information.

I don't believe anyone (homosexuals included) are above criticism.

I don't think there should be LEGAL consequences for criticizing or what is considered *hate* speech.

I have a tendency to side with employers and private business owners over employees even when the case is one of a Christian baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

I simply wish to see more information PRIOR to jumping on either bandwagon because I don't like being a part of political/personal/religious agendas.

 

[TracerBullet]

See, this guy gets it. He was fired for what he wrote.

Bottom line.

Thanks for proving my point for me Tracer.

Except your point involves some bizarre persecution complex and this "homosexual agenda" (what ever that is).

 

[Jose Fly]

From the article Dialogos posted...

"Cochran said Jan. 6. "The investigation shows that there is no evidence. Under no circumstances have I been discriminatory or hateful towards any member of the department in the LGBT community or a member of the LGBT community at large.""

That's directly contrary to the facts. Namely...

"Cochran's 162-page self-published book...[included] a mention of uncleanness as the "opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, and all other forms of sexual perversion.""

I'm pretty sure being equated with pedophilia and bestiality is hateful to gays.

And then there's this...

"-- "Did I inappropriately distribute the book in the workplace?"

Three people interviewed by city investigators received a copy of the book without requesting it, Cochran said."

Pretty simple then. While on gov't time and therefore a representative of the gov't, he distributed anti-gay literature. You can't do that. That, plus the city's policies regarding gays makes their position understandable...

"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorialized that Cochran was rightly fired for his "poor judgment."

"When you have more than 1,000 people working under your command, you can't go around publicly suggesting that some of them are perverts on a par with those who indulge in bestiality or child sexual abuse"."

Yep. The key word there is "publicly".

 

[Dialogos]

From the article Dialogos posted...

"Cochran said Jan. 6. "The investigation shows that there is no evidence. Under no circumstances have I been discriminatory or hateful towards any member of the department in the LGBT community or a member of the LGBT community at large.""

That's directly contrary to the facts. Namely...

"Cochran's 162-page self-published book...[included] a mention of uncleanness as the "opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, and all other forms of sexual perversion.""

I'm pretty sure being equated with pedophilia and bestiality is hateful to gays.

I'm pretty sure that caring more about the feelings of a sexual pervert than the truth is hateful to God.

The sexual perverts don't like the statement? So what?

Once upon a time "discrimination" meant unfair treatment of someone on the basis of a protected class. Now it means thinking that homosexuality is wrong or saying what one honestly thinks.

Discrimination is now a thought crime.

And then there's this...

"-- "Did I inappropriately distribute the book in the workplace?"

Three people interviewed by city investigators received a copy of the book without requesting it, Cochran said."

Yeah, so? He gave three people a gift that he thought would encourage them in their Christian faith.

Three people interviewed by city investigators received a copy of the book without requesting it, Cochran said. But "I had distributed the book only to members of the department with whom I had already established a personal relationship as Christians."

Pretty simple then. While on gov't time...

How do you know it was on gov't time?

...and therefore a representative of the gov't, he distributed anti-gay literature. You can't do that.

Again, he didn't sign away his soul to the city when he signed the employment contract nor did he sign away his First Amendment rights.

Being a gov't representative does not exempt one from the enjoyment of the Bill of Rights.

That, plus the city's policies regarding gays..

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding....

You finally stumbled onto something.

The city's policy regarding gays (which is one of advocacy) cannot be dissented from by any gov't employee at any time, the consequences of dissent from the cities official ideology is termination.

The definition of fascism is...

a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.

:think:

makes their position understandable...

...to all good liberally minded fascists that is...

"When you have more than 1,000 people working under your command, you can't go around publicly suggesting that some of them are perverts on a par with those who indulge in bestiality or child sexual abuse".[/I]"

No you can't.

Because that would be telling the truth to those who don't want to hear the truth and it would be countermanding the official state ideology which currently advocates homosexuality.

Yep. The key word there is "publicly".

Because the First Amendment doesn't extend to saying things "publicly anymore."

:nono: