- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,774
- Reaction score
- 21,434
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
If there was a fire chief who was a homosexual pervert, would you agree that having such a leader would similarly impose a hostile environment on any underlings who happened to adhere to any kind of moral standards, to the degree that their discomfort would constitute a legitimate reason for firing that leader?
Can you show me where it says that he was handing out these books to subordinates while they were at work?
Nothing wrong with what he said, Homosexuality is an evil perversion , on the same level as the others that he also mentioned. And whether you agree with this or not, he has as much right to say so as the sickest of perverts have to say otherwise.
I cant that is why I am saying if as opposed to just stating he did it. If he didnt do it then he did nothing wrong.
If a fire chief who is a homosexual hits on his subordinates or continuously talks about his sex life then yes it would be inapropriate [sic].
Your point does make me start to think about if the violation rose to the level of fireing [sic] though. I hadnt [sic] considered that before and I dont [sic] think it does, in my opinion.
How can an inanimate object act in a human way? It can't. It can offer a discriminatory point of view, or carry a discriminatory message, but it can't discriminate itself.
I'm not sure what the abuse of authority was. Maybe we have different definitions of that. To me it's using your power to take advantage of someone or abuse someone. Did the handful of people he gave that book to say he abused them?
If I write a book on animal rights, and it gets published, and I send a free copy to the people who work for me, am I abusing my power?
This is outrageous and another affront to Christianity. So very sad.
Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith | Fox News
So if this is the case. Would you be okay with your local Police Department commissioner saying the same hate-filled rhetoric? The only exception to the Atlanta Fire Chief is that the Commissioner is a devout Muslim? Does the Muslim Police Commissioner have the same rights as the Christian Fire Chief?
"your boss can fire you at any time"
True, as most states in the nation have an 'at will' employment policy. You work there at your will, and at the boss' will. Either can terminate employment at a moment's notice. It's not related to constitutional rights, as far as I understand.
Moderator's Warning: |
So you would be ok with a state employee handing out anti-Christian books to his employees? I bet not...
[Homosexual Agenda strikes again
Government jobs are a little different. Dismissing people there may raise constitutional issues--in particular, procedural due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion may also be involved. The notion that the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent a local government official from bringing some pamphlets from his church to work, for anyone who was interested, because one sentence in the pamphlet mildly expressed the church's disapproval of buggery, is laughable. THAT constitutes impermissible promotion of a religious view by the state? Give me a G-- damned break. The Constitution does not require everyone to walk on eggshells. What's next--firing a cop for telling a blonde joke in the station house because blonde dispatcher Susie happened to overhear it, and being a delicate little flower, felt all icky and broke into tears?
The claim to which I was responding is that for evil perverts to work under a leader who they know holds to decent moral standards would create a hostile environment for the perverts, and that their discomfort with such a leader is an excuse to fire that leader.
If this is a valid argument, then I was asking if the converse would be true. Decent people with good moral standards, having to work under a leader that they know is a sick pervert; should their potential discomfort with such a situation be an equally valid reason to fire that leader?
One of the most bizarre creations of this nation's political wrong wing is the idea that the First Amendment allows, and even requires, the exact sort of suppression and censorship of religious beliefs that it was specifically intended to prohibit.
I've read a few links on this story and I think the termination of him was way out of line. I don't agree with anything he said or thinks, as I'm pro-gay rights and not the least bit religious personally, but I am failing to see where this is a fireable offense. I have subordinates who I happen to know voted as I did in the last elections (I never ask, they bring it up with me). I would without hesitation share a cartoon or funny slogan or even an attack article with them during the election cycle. It seems that I could get fired for doing that even though they engaged me and I know for a fact that they shared my beliefs. I'm just a little less inclined to scream for and applaud someone's livelihood getting taken away from them this readily. JMO.
One of the most bizarre creations of this nation's political wrong wing is the idea that the First Amendment allows, and even requires, the exact sort of suppression and censorship of religious beliefs that it was specifically intended to prohibit.
You think the right of Govt. officials to promote their religious views is in the 1st amendment? Quite the opposite.
“Truth is ‘hate’ to those who hate the truth.”
Everyone has the same rights to hold whatever beliefs and opinions they will, and to appropriately express these beliefs.
It's funny how those of you on the far wrong, used to portray yourselves as the greatest champions of free speech, when the “free speech” in question consisted of obscenity, pornography, and other degrading, harmful speech; but when someone wants to express genuine opinions, in support of decent moral standards, your reaction is to call him “hateful” and call for him to be censored.
Just as you would be ok with radical Islam handing out Islamic garbage.
Keep saying that as they destroy our country.
while i agree with wright in that regard, there were many who were incensed that Obama allowed himself to be subjected to such sermonsWe bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that, y'all. Not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.
There is no constitutional right to discriminate.
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?