ok, we've been there
it doesn't say who filed the complaint and it doesn't say that those to whom he gave the book "didn't want it"
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
- Thread starter Dialogos
- Start date
ok, we've been there
it doesn't say who filed the complaint and it doesn't say that those to whom he gave the book "didn't want it"
Jose Fly
New member
That's exactly what I said.
And his work history doesn't show any incidence of discriminating against gays. But that's irrelevant, since he was neither suspended nor fired for discrimination.
Jose Fly
New member
It's pretty hard to believe that the people who didn't request the book but were given it anyways, and then filed formal complaints, actually wanted the book.
This is the Mayor who fired him...
Troll attempt...fail. :rotfl:
you still haven't shown who filed the formal complaints
as far as I can find through google, that information is not available
This is the Mayor who fired him...
Troll attempt...fail. :rotfl:
obviously an oreo :carryon:
Jose Fly
New member
All the articles say it was Cochran's employees who filed the complaint.
post a direct quote showing that it was the ones who received the book
Jose Fly
New member
What does that matter? It could be...
1) Cochran gave his book to 3 employees who didn't request it, didn't like it, and filed a complaint;
--or--
2) Cochran gave his book to 3 employees who didn't request it and didn't like it, and some other employee filed a complaint.
Either scenario produces the same outcome.
Jose Fly
New member
Do me a favor and try and maintain a consistent argument here. Yes, I said he gave the book to employees who didn't request it, and that overall the dept. staff was generally "appalled' by his book.
All of those facts are described in the City's report, as I've pointed out before.
Now whether those employees who received the book unsolicited were the ones who actually filed the complaint, I don't know for sure. It's my speculation based on what we do know that it's likely the case, especially since the original complaint was filed with the union. Only actual employees who are members of the union can do that. But as I pointed out, none of that changes any of the facts of the case or the reasons why he was suspended and later fired.
He was suspended for authoring the book using his title as Atlanta Fire Chief and distributing it unsolicited to subordinates it during work hours on city property.
He was fired for "poor judgment", including speaking publicly about the case while on suspension (despite being told not to) and generally doubling down on what he'd done to get suspended in the first place.
it appears that nobody does, at the moment :idunno:
should those who received the book from the chief without complaining be allowed to keep their jobs?
if not, why not?
shouldn't it be assumed that if they didn't complain, they would be likely to discriminate against perverts themselves?
Last edited:
Dialogos
Well-known member
He was suspended because they didn't like what he wrote. He was falsely accused of discrimination.Jose Fly said:
The facts of the case are clear. He was suspended for discrimination despite the fact that even you recognize that no discrimination occurred.
In replying to Kmoney, you said:
Yet, Mayor Reed was clear about the reason for Cochran’s suspension.Jose Fly said:
Reed freely admits that the content of the book was instrumental in the decision to suspend Chief Cochran. During his suspension Cochran was issued a gag order (more violation of free speech) and basically ordered to a re-education training (where they will help him to realize that his religious convictions are wrong and the state ideology is right.Julia Wolfe said:
)Reed said he will not tolerate any what?
Discrimination.
Reed is defining discrimination as saying or writing anything that might be offensive to the privileged LGBT class.
He was fired because he didn’t submit to the unjust demands of the suspension.Jose Fly said:
The suspension was unjust and Chief Cochran was right to protest it and refusing to attend re-education classes designed to undermine one's deeply held religious beliefs is a constitutional right and the duty of all real Christians who care more about what God says than what man says.
So? If I were to write a book, I could recount every school I ever attended back to nursery school, tell people where I current work, and what the color of the siding of my house was without getting the permission of the nursery school, my employer or the company that manufactures the siding. Nor would my putting that information on that page necessitate that the nursery school, my employer or the company who made the siding for my house agree with the content of the book.Jose Fly said:
:duh:
An “about the author” page is just that, a statement about the author.
He identified himself as the Atlanta fire chief because that is what he was. That does not imply that he is speaking on behalf of the fire department in the book anymore than listing where I attended school in a book means that I am speaking on behalf of the colleges where I received my degrees.
So if I wanted to author a book, I would have to get permission from the colleges that I earned my degrees before publishing if I wanted to say that I attended those colleges in the “about the author” section of the book?Jose Fly said:
No?
Which you and I both know is not really the reason for the suspension, people don’t get suspended for handing out books, it was the content of the book that got him suspended and everyone who isn’t profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest knows this.Jose Fly said:
Everyone knows that the “sensitivity training” was designed to re-educate Cochran instruct him on what he can’t say or write and still remain a city employee.
So?Jose Fly said:
If they didn’t want it, they could have just said, “no thanks.”
:doh:
We are raising a nation of whiners who are so weak willed that they can’t emotionally handle reading something that offends them.
Pick a lane, is this about discrimination or isn’t it.Jose Fly said:
You said:
Jose Fly said:
Furthermore, discrimination is now defined as writing or saying anything that might offend.
Ergo, gays have a privileged class that no other class enjoys.
You can say or write things that offend men, Caucasians, Christians, republicans, Irish Americans, older people, married women and younger people but the minute that you say or write something that offends a homosexual, it’s off to re-education you go.
As a punitive measure for writing something that offended gays…Jose Fly said:
Fixed it for ya.Jose Fly said:
Right, because he had the audacity to point out the suspension was unjust and stand up for his rights under the First Amendment.Jose Fly said:
For that they fired him.
So I stand partially corrected. In the good ol’ US of A. If you are a public employee, writing something contrary to the state ideology will only get you suspended as a punishment for offending the privileged class, ordered to lay aside your right to free speech, and then sent to re-education; and if you don’t comply with those demands then you will be fired.
That makes a lot of difference.
I think that the first amendment has it right and that no punitive measure should be taken towards those who exercise their right to speak or write about their deeply held religious beliefs even if those deeply held religious beliefs are offensive to others.Jose Fly said:
You all keep saying this and then you suspend people for articulating what they believe, hypocrites.Jose Fly said:
Meaning what? That he wrote the book on company time? Can you prove this? That he distributed the book in his official capacity as fire chief expecting that his subordinates would consider the information pertinent to the discharge of their normal duties? Can you prove this?Jose Fly said:
No, what you mean to say is that Cochran wrote the book and he was the fire chief and he listed being fire chief as part of his profile in the book so in your mind, just being the fire chief means that everything he does represents the city of Atlanta. The problem with that line of thinking is that it would mean that all city employees relinquish the rights of a private citizen upon their employment.
Yup, which happens all the time without people being sent to re-education.Jose Fly said:
There are over 30 fire stations in the Atlanta area and the Atlanta Fire Dept. has over 1000 employees. Does that sound like a “distribution” to you?Jose Fly said:
I’ve gotten all sorts of “gifts” from supervisors most of which I thought were dumb, some of which I thought were offensive, none of whom were suspended.
Wanna know why?
Because none of them offended the “privileged class.”
Explain the Mayor’s comments below then?Jose Fly said:
Better yet, explain your own!
What does the city's very clear non-discrimination policy have to do with it?Jose Fly said:
Was Cochran suspended for discrimination or not?
:idunno:
If Cochran wasn't suspended for discrimination then why was he ordered to go to
TracerBullet
New member
no, not falsely
do you have any evidence that what you believe to be his discrimination affected his relationships with his subordinates?
and do you ever plan to acknowledge your own discriminatory tendencies?
Jose Fly
New member
It doesn't really matter.
Not unless they actually do something that warrants punishment. Merely accepting a book from your supervisor without comment isn't in that category.
it does if you're going to assume the complaint came from one of the very few who got a copy of the book
the same doesn't apply to the chief?
Dialogos
Well-known member
How did he discriminate?
Jose Fly
New member
Nope. He was suspended for publishing the book using his title as Fire Chief, distributing anti-gay literature during work hours, on city property, and to subordinates who didn't request it. That's what's in the report.
No he wasn't.
????????? All he said was he strongly disagreed with what Cochran wrote. He didn't say that's why he was suspended. The City's report makes it clear that he was suspended for publishing the book using his title as Fire Chief, distributing anti-gay literature during work hours, on city property, and to subordinates who didn't want it.
Had Cochran written the exact same book not using his title, and not distributed to his subordinates at work, he would still be the Fire Chief.
Oh brother....so my boss can't ever tell me "Don't talk about that in public"? We're working on a very sensitive and potentially groundbreaking project, and he can't tell me "Do not go to the press and tell them what we're doing"? :idunno:During his suspension Cochran was issued a gag order (more violation of free speech) and basically ordered to a re-education training (where they will help him to realize that his religious convictions are wrong and the state ideology is right.
??????????? You're really stretching.
I'm sure that's what you have convinced yourself of. But that doesn't change the actual facts of the case.
This is a good example of just how desperate you've become. You're actually arguing that any gov't employee can use his title to publish anything and everything, and there can be no consequences for doing so. If Cochran was a member of The Nation of Islam and used his title to write a book about the evils of the white man and how blacks are the superior race, no one could do anything about it?
If that's all you have, I'll let that speak for itself.
Geez dude....you really don't understand the difference between identifying yourself as a graduate of a school, and being a current paid employee? Wow.
It's all of that together. Had Cochran written and distributed a book on life saving techniques, there'd be no problem. But under his title as Atlanta Fire Chief, he wrote anti-gay literature, distributed it during work hours, on city property, and to subordinates who didn't request it.
But even all that did was get him a one month suspension and a course.
You still don't get it, and I'm not sure you ever will. I used to work for the City of Columbus, and one of the first things we all had to learn was that while on duty and in uniform, we represent the City and anything and everything we do during work hours and in uniform can be taken by the public as reflecting on the City. That's just the nature of working for the gov't.
Shoot, I have friends who work for private corporations and they've told me all the things they are prohibited from doing during work travel, even after hours. One guy works for a company that prohibits any drinking at all during the entire trip. So when he goes to a conference and there's a mixer afterwards, he can't drink even though he's on his own time. The company feels that everything he does while on business travel reflects on the company and they don't want anyone getting drunk and making them look bad.
I think you need to get out in the real world a bit.
They are his subordinates...he's the head of the entire Fire Department. If you don't understand that relationship, it only confirms that you need to get out in the real world.
:sigh:
Gays are no more a "privileged class" than anyone else. The City's policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of all sorts of things, that basically cover every single person on the planet.
It just makes you angry that gays are included in that list.
I'm sure that's what you've told yourself, but that doesn't change the facts. He was told not to speak publicly about the case during his suspension (because the City's investigation was still ongoing). He deliberately and repeatedly disobeyed, which is insubordination, so he was fired.
How many times have you seen officials say something like "We cannot comment on this case while the investigation is ongoing"?
So a Chief of Parks who is a Christian Identity believer can use that title to write a book saying how evil the Jews are, distribute it to his subordinates while at work whether they want it or not, make public speeches and media appearances denigrating Jews using his title, and can berate his Jewish supervisors....and not face any consequences?
Again, you need to get out in the real world.
Seriously? You don't even understand the concept of authoring the book under his title as Atlanta Fire Chief? You can't differentiate between that and "writing the book on company time"? Wow.
Everything he does while referring to himself as City of Atlanta Fire Chief reflects on the City. :duh:
Again, you need to get out in the real world. You can't do and say anything and everything you want at work and not face any consequences.
Again, all you're showing is how desperate you are. You are seriously arguing that handing out items to people didn't ask for them isn't distribution. Wow.
He's telling the public (upon whom he depends for his reelection) that his administration doesn't tolerate discrimination.
See above. Either you get it or you don't. I know which way I'm betting.
Yes, quite right. He, as a manager and public servant, is not entitled to discriminate against his employees. Distributing the book at work certainly seems to qualify, to me. If he'd kept it at church, or at least not brought it to work, he would probably not have been in trouble at work.
Tell me, as a Christian, if your boss made it known that he thought that Christianity was an unclean perversion, would you feel that he could treat you with respect and fairness? Would you feel that you had to hide your identity from him or risk consequences?
That's absolutely absurd. Bosses are accountable for what they say to people who work for them, and those employees have every right to expect to be treated with respect. There's nothing privileged about it, and the same principle would apply on any number of other attributes as well. The fact that the chief wouldn't comply with the city's efforts to rehabilitate him left the mayor with no choice. You can't overlook a refusal to abide by disciplinary proceedings.
During his suspension Cochran was issued a gag order (more violation of free speech) and basically ordered to a re-education training (where they will help him to realize that his religious convictions are wrong and the state ideology is right.
Sensitivity training is focused on what an employee does at work, to ensure that they are able to function without necessitating further disciplinary proceedings. And it's not going to say anything about what he's allowed to believe, or write, or teach when he isn't at work. It's going to be about how he conducts himself, as a person in a position of authority, on the job. If you think that's a communist-style re-education camp, you trivialize the people who were placed into real ones.
Bottom line, if he was sent for sensitivity training, it was an attempt by the mayor to save his job. The city is entitled to require it of him, and most public servants, especially ones in managerial positions, are required to take something similar. And when you go, you roll your eyes at it, because 95% of managers aren't stupid enough to do most of the things that are warned against anyway, and you deal with it, because it is making sure that you understand the rights of everyone who you hold power over.
Eh, they'll probably hire him as a commentator on Fox News. Or something.