- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Hadnt thought of that. Then it begs the question....how did they know about the content?
Not federally and not in all states....yet.
Sexual orientation is protected under EEOC.
So I read this:
What You Should Know about EEOC and the enforcement protections for LGBT Workers
Technically sexual orientation isnt a federally protected class but in most cases brought, the commission has decided to cover such discrimination cases under gender/sex discrimination.
There are a lot of holes in this entire story and probably needed filling in from quite a few people, like the Chief himself, the Mayor, the HR people, etc. etc.
Did someone who got the book (but didn't object to the content) mention it in passing to someone who happened to be offended? Did the Chief tell people he gave out the book? Did someone just decide he has a vendetta against the Chief and used this to have him ousted? (I sound like I'm writing the next version of Clue here, I know :mrgreen
There's a lot more that we don't know than what we do know I think.
<snip>
It has also been reported that he did not receive permission from the Mayor to write the book that he published. That appears to be a factor in the chief's suspension and dismissal.
Because it declares a class of people which HR probably has a policy about (I dont know, but sexual orientation is becoming more and more a protected status by HR departments every day, so I think its a safe assumption that the city HR dept has it covered) to be evil or immoral. This creates a hostile or uncomfortable workplace environment.
Thats really all there is to it in this case as far as I can see and its pretty cut and dry.
Yours was an excellent post Risky and I'm not disrespecting it by snipping in this response but that part I snipped out was a really interesting one. I wonder (and maybe this is out there) what would give the Mayor the right to dictate that someone can't write a book without his permission? I know there is no way in hell I would be able to do that but maybe government agencies have some sort of rule?
Purely conjecture: It was likely in his contract or in city policy that he was required to obtain prior approval. This is the tricky part. I would bet that the city never said that he could not write a book or even that book. From what I have read, however, Cochran did not appear to obtain written formal approval and likely did not provide a manuscript to the city before the book went to press. Therein, methinks, lies the rub.
It wasn't that he couldn't publish or that he couldn't say whatever he wanted in the book, but rather that he referred to himself as the (current) fire chief and then at other points referenced his duties as (current) fire chief and, as we know, expressed some rather descriptive beliefs. It is in my opinion the combination was the problem. I'd envision the city reviewing the manuscript and saying "take out references to your current employment by the City of Atlanta" and the rest would be fine.
No I think you may be on to something. I found this in a few spots:
The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership
Reed: Atlanta fire chief terminated following book controversy | www.ajc.com
Granted, it says "publishing" not "writing" but I'm trying to get my head around what would give the Mayor a right to prohibit his fire chief from publishing a book - any book.
As to the 2nd part of Reed's comment, that I support. If Cochran was instructed not to comment during the investigation, and he disobeyed that order, that is subordination. I wonder why they (Atlanta people) didn't just say that. That in itself is cause for termination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/atlanta-ousts-fire-chief-who-has-antigay-views.html?_r=0
ATLANTA — Mayor Kasim Reed announced Tuesday that he had fired the chief of the city’s Fire Rescue Department, Kelvin Cochran, after Mr. Cochran gave workers a religious book he wrote containing passages that condemn homosexuality.
Mr. Reed had suspended Mr. Cochran for a month without pay in November, opening an investigation into whether Mr. Cochran’s authorship and distribution of the book to workers violated the city’s nondiscrimination policies. That move sparked a debate about religious liberty and freedom of expression: Last month, the 1.4-million member Georgia Baptist Convention began an online petition that called for Mr. Cochran’s reinstatement and suggested his First Amendment rights had been violated.
The matter also presents a challenge for Mr. Reed, a second-term Democrat who presides over a metropolis whose social mosaic is defined by strong expressions of Christianity and large and politically powerful gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual groups.
snip...
Homosexual Agenda strikes again
From the City's perspective why was it important that Cochran use the City of Atlanta in his book? How does doing so benefit the city? Does it imply that the City of Atlanta supports what Cochran wrote in his book?
I can imagine at some point behind closed doors the mayor saying, "I don't give a damn if you write a book. I don't give a damn what it's about. But, you may not and you shall not invoke the City of Atlanta in any way, shape or form in the book. The City is not going to be seen in any way as endorsing YOUR opinions and beliefs. You are free to have them and express them, but you may not connect them to your current employment by the City of Atlanta."
Cochran's expression of his religious beliefs had nothing to do with his job. He brought his job into the expression of his religious beliefs when he wrote the book and his job didn't like it.
Indication is he involved city employees when he distributed the bpokDid he do it on his time? Or under the cities? I missed that part.
I haven't read his book (I suspect I would have to take a shower immediately after doing so) so I don't know what mentions he makes of the City of Atlanta in it. What did he say?
[emphasis added by bubba]Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, released a statement on Reed's decision:
I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta. His actions made it a difficult work environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender employees within the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department. This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.
I pledge my full support to Interim Fire Chief Joel Baker and LGBT Community Liaison Robin Shahar in implementing whatever programs and steps they recommend to create a safe working environment for all employees within the department.
i keep hoping to find THE authentic reason for the fire chief's firing. thus far it appears be this:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Atlanta Fire Chief fired after publishing book calling homosexuality ?unclean,? ?vulgar? - Atlanta Business Chronicle
shirley, there must be more to have caused cochrane's termination than what he wrote, as there is nothing in his screed which would place anyone in harm's way, such that there is now a call for safe working conditions
and if there is truly nothing more than his words that instigated this termination, then we should sound the alarms, because this man's right to free speech has been very much violated
if one's new supervisor shows up wearing unadorned, understated clothing, with her skirt well below he knees, the frequent dress of those who subscribe to the southern baptist religion, do we also fear her ... because we now have reason to believe her own moral viewpoints are near identical to cochran's. they share the same religious ideology. so, even tho she has not written/published a treatise, we might well conclude that she, too believes that homosexual acts are sinful and to her, aberrant
how about if she arrives in a burka. does that indicate a personal openness to a hedonistic or homosexual lifestyle. so, should her subordinates be scared of her, as the LBGT staff of atlanta fire were scared of their supervisor
and if you respond, 'no of course not', to my above questions, as in neither example did the supervisor write/publish such intolerant views, then does that not tell us that the difference was only that the fire chief exercised his right of free speech in a way that they did not
so, maybe there is more to this than we have access to, but by withholding it, the government of atlanta does not hold itself in good stead. it appears to have fired a very moral man for advocating his personal morality and having the temerity to exercise his right of free speech to articulate his personal views
not a bit different. unless you want to pretend that there are no active managers out there who are misogynist and/or racial bigots. would you establish a litmus test for thought?And what if he had written the same way about blacks or women?
would you rather the bigot be covert than overt? someone who hides their bigotry instead of someone who is candid about it? that concealment makes it much more difficult to align their actions with their beliefs. my preference would be to know who holds such - to me, backward - beliefs, rather than having to put the puzzle togetherBlatantly racist or misogynistic?
what's next? if the manager is someone who watches his weight, works out and is selective about what he puts in his mouth, will that cause him to be found to have a bias against fat people. can't have that, get his ass out of that leadership position so that he is no longer in a position to intrude on the prospects of fat subordinatesKnowing the hate and disgust your manager or co-worker felt for you, realizing that it would very possibly affect your chances for advancement?
you are right, it could affect it. but here's the rub, it should not. and we should not assume that it will. we should instead act on fact, and get rid of him IF his actions demonstrate that he is acting on his unique sense of morality, rather than by the shop rulesHis personal morality can affect his judgement...that's a fact.
ok, share with us examples of what you insist and let's scrutinize them to see if those were reasonable actionsI wrote earlier that govt agencies....school boards and counties...fire teachers and judges, etc for the personal things they post on social media and the personal morality that they display.
i agree with you that we must treat every employee fairly. then why do you defend firing this very moral fellow only because of the courage of his convictions and not his biased actions against subordinates. i have seen NO proof he acted inappropriately towards any subordinate employee, peer, or supervisor. there is no record that any coworker was inflicted by this man's moral beliefs. so, where is this profound sense of fairness, now?Keeping someone like that in their position....who's responsibility is it to protect those that are dependent on him to be treated fairly in the workplace?
show me an instance when that is not the case. that tidbit has no bearing on this matterTheir families depend on their making a living.
good to know. i am assuming you see the particulars surrounding the termination and question the legitimacy of the firing action. well, that's what i am doing hereBtw, I dont always agree, at all, with those decisions about what's been posted on social media.
Was he against all gays or just the Flaming Gays?
Indication is he involved city employees when he distributed the bpok
And what if he had written the same way about blacks or women? Blatantly racist or misogynistic? Knowing the hate and disgust your manager or co-worker felt for you, realizing that it would very possibly affect your chances for advancement? His personal morality can affect his judgement...that's a fact.
shirley, there must be more to have caused cochrane's termination than what he wrote, as there is nothing in his screed which would place anyone in harm's way, such that there is now a call for safe working conditions
and if there is truly nothing more than his words that instigated this termination, then we should sound the alarms, because this man's right to free speech has been very much violated
LOL! I don't think he was really 'against' Gays at all but, to the Gays, that doesn't seem to matter.
It doesn't really matter who he involved. Did he give it to them on his own time? Or not?
LOL! I don't think he was really 'against' Gays at all but, to the Gays, that doesn't seem to matter.
not a bit different. unless you want to pretend that there are no active managers out there who are misogynist and/or racial bigots. would you establish a litmus test for thought?
would you rather the bigot be covert than overt? someone who hides their bigotry instead of someone who is candid about it? that concealment makes it much more difficult to align their actions with their beliefs. my preference would be to know who holds such - to me, backward - beliefs, rather than having to put the puzzle together
and like most, i would prefer someone not to hold misogynist or racially biased views. but look on this board, and it is obvious that would be a fantasy to expect such reasonableness in the workplace
what's next? if the manager is someone who watches his weight, works out and is selective about what he puts in his mouth, will that cause him to be found to have a bias against fat people. can't have that, get his ass out of that leadership position so that he is no longer in a position to intrude on the prospects of fat subordinates
you are right, it could affect it. but here's the rub, it should not. and we should not assume that it will. we should instead act on fact, and get rid of him IF his actions demonstrate that he is acting on his unique sense of morality, rather than by the shop rules
ok, share with us examples of what you insist and let's scrutinize them to see if those were reasonable actions
i agree with you that we must treat every employee fairly. then why do you defend firing this very moral fellow only because of the courage of his convictions and not his biased actions against subordinates. i have seen NO proof he acted inappropriately towards any subordinate employee, peer, or supervisor. there is no record that any coworker was inflicted by this man's moral beliefs. so, where is this profound sense of fairness, now?
show me an instance when that is not the case. that tidbit has no bearing on this matter
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?