Fire chief fired after gay comments in book

[resodko]

I can't tell if you are being inflammatory, stupid or disingenuous

iow, you can't


not surprising :idunno:

 

[TracerBullet]

iow, you can't


not surprising :idunno:

so it's all three then

 

[resodko]

why are you bothering to post here? :idunno:

 

[Dialogos]

What does it matter? According to you, the City has no authority to control what is said in its name, correct?

No, and irrelevant. The accusation that Cochran was writing as a representative of the city because he listed his job in the "about the author" section of the book is fallacious.

No, because his religious freedom wasn't violated.

Of course it was! He was suspended for speaking his religious opinion and then his religious freedoms were violated when he was punished for speaking about the unjust suspension in churches.

Nope. As soon as he introduces himself in the book as the City of Atlanta Fire Chief, he is representing the City of Atlanta.

That's ridiculous!

So if the book were about seasonal bird-watching then Cochran would have been expressing the City of Atlanta's official position on bird-watching?

:doh:

Legal precedent is extremely clear on this.

I think you are probably inflating your confidence here but even if that is true, legal precedents change. The legal precedent in this country regarding religious rights - at least as it relates to the demands of special rights by the homosexual community - is to compromise free speech and the free exercise of religion. Appealing to legal precedent is really just pointing out that our judiciary is not currently deciding cases in favor of upholding first amendment rights.

Secondly, even the federal government only restricts outside commercial activity if those endeavors conflict with employees official duties and it usually only exercise oversight over speaking, teaching and writing if the content is pertinent to one's official capacity as a government employee.

Thirdly, requiring Cochran to get permission to author a bible study (which is the true character of Cochran's book) is a clear violation of the First Amendment in the first place as it is an abridgment of both free speech and the free exercise of religion.

The fact that you cannot differentiate between "I graduated from X college" and "I am the current City of Atlanta Fire Chief" is further indication of your inability to think rationally.

The fact that you cannot differentiate between a Fire Chief who is publishing his own religious opinions in the private sector in his capacity as a private citizen and a Fire Chief who is speaking on behalf of the city on matters pertinent to his professional duties is indicative of your own inability to think rationally.

So when do you think it is acceptable to restrict someone's religious liberties?

When the practice of those liberties harm another.

Hint: offending someone is not harming them.

It means Cochran violated the terms of his suspension by speaking publicly about the case while the investigation was ongoing. So they fired him....perfectly legal.

You mean the suspension where the city of Atlanta issues a gag order that reaches over the wall of separation between church and state dictating what Cochran can and cannot say in church?

The City of Atlanta is free to tell its employees not to speak publicly about a case while the investigation is ongoing. Do you dispute that?

I see, so, in your view, the government can abridge the freedom of speech, and can tell us what we can and can't say in worship.

:nono:

Sure, Cochran is free to speak publicly about the case and thereby violate the terms of his suspension,

Of course, the terms of the suspension were unjust in the first place.

So according to you, I could go on a speaking tour of all the local churches and give out my company's trade secrets, and my company is 100% powerless to do anything about it?

Don't be intentionally thick.

That would be theft and you can't steal in church.

On the other hand, you could go on a speaking tour of local churches and speak on the issue of religious freedom and point out that, in your opinion, your company's policy on homosexuality is a violation of religious freedom, and your company would be 100% powerless to do anything about it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think our discussion has run its course. We're just repeating the same things to each other over and over and over. Suffice to say, we don't agree, which is why we have a court system. And so far, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of my position.

You can have the last word if you wish.

 

[Angel4Truth]

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

Thats incorrect, after checking it all, its been found that this is what led to it:

In late 2014, retired Atlanta Fire Department Capt.Cindy Thompson contacted GA Voice, a Georgian LGBT group, to protest Cochran’s book and its mention of homosexuality. Thompson then brought the book to the Mayor’s LGBT liaison, Robin Shahar. Soon afterwards, LGBT activist groups began to rally for the fire chief to be fired.

The activists point to only one page in the book which mentions homosexuality as one among many sexual sins from a Christian perspective.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/08/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-expressing-christian-beliefs/

This is just one more case where gay activists want people fired when they say homosexuality is wrong according to scripture.

 

[TracerBullet]

I think you are probably inflating your confidence here but even if that is true, legal precedents change. The legal precedent in this country regarding religious rights - at least as it relates to the demands of special rights by the homosexual community - is to compromise free speech and the free exercise of religion. Appealing to legal precedent is really just pointing out that our judiciary is not currently deciding cases in favor of upholding first amendment rights.

Wanting the same rights, responsibilities and legal protections as everyone else is not a special right.

However wanting the entitlement to deny a minority those same things is a special right.


No one's first amendment rights are under attack. You are free to say any hateful wicked or sick thing you wish about any minority be it blacks or Jews or the handicapped or women or gays. However you are not free from the consequences of saying those hateful wicked or sick things.

When the practice of those liberties harm another.

Hint: offending someone is not harming them.

Having to treat others with the same dignity and respect as you demand to be treated isn't harmful either

I see, so, in your view, the government can abridge the freedom of speech, and can tell us what we can and can't say in worship.

Again free to say what ever you want, but you not freed from the consequences

 

[TracerBullet]

Thats incorrect, after checking it all, its been found that this is what led to it:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/08/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-expressing-christian-beliefs/

This is just one more case where gay activists want people fired when they say homosexuality is wrong according to scripture.

Actions have consequences. If someone chooses to say that according to the bible blacks are socially and spiritually inferior to whites they would face consequences for that action and if that statement was made in connection to their job or violated a work contract clause then the consequence would likely be termination from employment.

 

[Dialogos]

and you seem intellectually ill equipped to get the simple notion that there is no difference between the position of racists and your position.

Is this a joke?

It is logically and blblically clear that there are stark differences between race and homosexuality.

Here are just a few.

Logically:
Race is not a behavior, homosexuality is. Race is not chosen in any way, one must choose to engage in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. One cannot be black one day and white the next, people choose to engage in homosexuality after being engaged in heterosexual marriages all the time and people repent of homosexual behavior and commit themselves to heterosexual behavior all the time. Race is clearly genetically derived, no such clarity exists with homosexuality.

Race can be easily predicted by parentage, no such predictions can be made regarding same sex attraction (which is not itself homosexuality but is just a temptation toward homosexuality). A celebate black person is still black there is no such thing as "non practicing African American", a celebate person with same sex attraction is no longer practicing homosexuality. Race is a human characteristic, homosexuality is a practice.

Comparing race to homosexuality is simply a logical category error.


Now, lets look biblically.

The bible is clear that there is only one true race, the race of Adam (Acts 17:26).
The bible is also clear that, in heaven, there are men and women of every tribe, tongue language and nations (Rev 7:9). In short, in heaven racial diversity is celebrated because one's race is an expression of God's providence.

However, the bible is equally clear that no one who practices homosexuality will inherit the kingdom of God.

" Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Co 6:9-10 ESV)"

The only way a homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God is to be cleansed, washed and sanctified from their homosexual behavior. In short, homosexuality isn't celebrated, it is biblically considered a sin to be repented of and an act of rebellion toward's God's purposes for sex.

Just a simple fact. Hall DL, Matz, DC Wood, W. A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism Personality and Social Psychology Review 2009
Putnam RD & Campbell, DE American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. Am J of Sociology 2012
Sherkat, DE Changing Faith NY Univ Press 2014

Well, some soft-head sociologist says so, so that settles it then, huh?

the fact that you use the same methods and tactics as racists do to justify prejudice is incredibly relevant.

First of all, that's a lie.

You don't find evangelical Christians burning crosses on people's lawns.

Are you ashamed of your Methods?

Absolutely not, why are you ashamed of the gospel?

Just like how racists honestly expose what the bible has to say about the the inferiority of black people

Here is where you just go right off the rails.

First, the bible doesn't claim any such thing.
Second, no one has claimed that homosexuals are inferior persons, we are claiming that homosexuality is a perversion of God's design for marriage, it is a sin.
Third, and this is really the last time I am going to tell you before you earn a spot on my ignore list.

:sozo: IT DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE SOME RACISTS MISREPRESENT THE BIBLE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIBLICALLY PERMISSIBLE!

It's typical of you to engage in personal attacks when you are confronted with responses you cannot counter.

You mean like calling someone a bigot?

Hypocrite.

Are you capable of having a substantive discussion? I ask because you sure aren't demonstrating that here.

Are you?

Substantive discussion happen when people actually respond to one another's points.

I've posted a number of scriptures you just ignore.

Being a Christian doesn't make anyone hateful or prejudiced. The problem begins when those who hate try to use the bible to justify their bigotries.

Agreeing with God's word on the topic of homosexuality isn't bigotry. Its fidelity to the Christ, you might try it sometime.

Friendship with the world is hatred toward God Tracer.

You are the one who hates, you hate God, you hate His word. You would rather pucker up and smooch the rear-ends of the gay community and be well thought of among the "progressive" crowds than stand firm on God's revealed word.

Unless, of course the real problem is that you are a practicing homosexual.

In which case, I have great news for you.

While your sexual practices have earned you a spot in hell, God will forgiven you your sins and will cleanse you from unrighteousness of you will turn from your sin, embrace his grace, and daily seek help to live a life of sexual purity.

You seem to want to disassociate yourself from racism even though you are happy to use their methods,

I haven't burned a cross on anyone's lawn, care to repent from your false witness?

The reality is that my approach is 180 degrees different from racists.

Racists wanted segregation. I want homosexuals to repent of their sin and be included in the body of Christ, His church, and the age to come.

Racists hate people because of who God created them to be, I want homosexuals to embrace who God created them to be because God has never created a person to have sex with another person of the same sex. The bible calls that abandoning one's natural function (See Romans 1).

I want God's best for those who have bought the devil's lies about homosexuality, I want them to know that life lived according to God's plan is so much better than a life lived in rebellion to their Creator.

 

[TracerBullet]

Is this a joke?

It is logically and blblically clear that there are stark differences between race and homosexuality.

That is nice but what is said was: "there is no difference between the position of racists and your position."

Here are just a few.

Logically:
Race is not a behavior, homosexuality is. [/quote]

First: racists object to blacks behaving as social equals to whites. Most are happy to say that they have no problem with black people as long as they "know their place"

Second: Orientation isn't a behavior.

Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

Ref APA

People are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual independent of any behaviors and independent of any activity. You aren't having sex right now (at least i hope you aren't) but you are still a heterosexual. Virgins

have an orientation

Race is not chosen in any way, one must choose to engage in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.

See above
no one chooses the type of person they are emotionally, romantically
and sexually attracted to.

One cannot be black one day and white the next, people choose to engage in homosexuality after being engaged in heterosexual marriages all the time and people repent of homosexual behavior and commit themselves to heterosexual behavior all the time.

And one doesn't change orientation day to day.

Can you spontaneously choose to be romantically attracted to men?

Race is clearly genetically derived, no such clarity exists with homosexuality.

all the evidence clearly says that orientation is an inborn trait. All of it

Race can be easily predicted by parentage, no such predictions can be made regarding same sex attraction (which is not itself homosexuality but is just a temptation toward homosexuality). A celebate black person is still black there is no such thing as "non practicing African American", a celebate person with same sex attraction is no longer practicing homosexuality.

see above. You are heterosexual no matter what you are doing at any given time

Race is a human characteristic, homosexuality is a practice.

orientation is a human characteristic. Prejudice is always a choice

Comparing race to homosexuality is simply a logical category error.

incorrect both are inborn features of an individual which provide a sense of identity and and membership in a community with others who have similar traits.

Now, lets look biblically.

The bible is clear that there is only one true race, the race of Adam (Acts 17:26).

Curse of Ham

The bible is also clear that, in heaven, there are men and women of every tribe, tongue language and nations (Rev 7:9). In short, in heaven racial diversity is celebrated because one's race is an expression of God's providence.

since orientation is inborn being gay or straight or bi is also an expression of God's providence and worthy of celebration

However, the bible is equally clear that no one who practices homosexuality will inherit the kingdom of God.

" Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Co 6:9-10 ESV)"

The only way a homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God is to be cleansed, washed and sanctified from their homosexual behavior. In short, homosexuality isn't celebrated, it is biblically considered a sin to be repented of and an act of rebellion toward's God's purposes for sex.

All of which is based on an unsupportable translation of the Greek word arsenokoites. Simply put no one knows what it means and dozens of meanings have been applied to it over the centuries. For most of Christian history it was translated to mean masturbation but it also has meant a kidnapper, a man who employs prostitutes, a man who forces women into prostitution and a few others.

Well, some soft-head sociologist says so, so that settles it then, huh?

no that is what dozens of rigorous research studies have shown. "Soft-head" applies to individuals who reject the science because they don't like what the research has found

First of all, that's a lie.

You don't find evangelical Christians burning crosses on people's lawns.

COnsidering such an actifvity is highly illegal today you won't find many people of any sort doing it.

However when such a thing was legal and socially acceptable then yes you would find evangelicals engaging in cross burning.

The cross burning was a method of intimidation. Today you are more likely to see people with loudspeakers taking position in residential neighborhoods to engage in such intimidation.

But this is a strawman you constructed.

I spoke of methods and tactics like quoting the bible to justify prejudice, of comparing people to criminals and so on

Absolutely not, why are you ashamed of the gospel?

you get terribly upset when it is pointed out that the methods, rhetoric and tactics you are using to justify your personal prejudices are exactly the same as those employed by racists

Here is where you just go right off the rails.

First, the bible doesn't claim any such thing.

Yet racists are able to cite scripture to justify their prejudices just like you do.

Second, no one has claimed that homosexuals are inferior persons, we are claiming that homosexuality is a perversion of God's design for marriage, it is a sin.

Socially inferior. Unworthy of the same rights and legal protections you enjoy.

The labeling of perversion is, again, a common tactic of racists. It is a means of dehumanizing a minority by putting them on the same level as rapists or child abusers. What you are saying is that you are socially and morally superior to this minority group because they give into their base or animalistic sexual instincts - Just like racists do.

Third, and this is really the last time I am going to tell you before you earn a spot on my ignore list.

:sozo: IT DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE SOME RACISTS MISREPRESENT THE BIBLE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIBLICALLY PERMISSIBLE!

of course no one is saying such a thing. It does logically follow that the misuse of the bible to justify prejudice is misuse of the bible no matter what minority one is using the bible for

You mean like calling someone a bigot?

Hypocrite.

Shall we go over the name calling you engage in?

 

[TracerBullet]

Continued:

Agreeing with God's word on the topic of homosexuality isn't bigotry. Its fidelity to the Christ, you might try it sometime.

By this standard racism isn't bigotry either.

Friendship with the world is hatred toward God Tracer.

You are the one who hates, you hate God, you hate His word. You would rather pucker up and smooch the rear-ends of the gay community and be well thought of among the "progressive" crowds than stand firm on God's revealed word.

Unless, of course the real problem is that you are a practicing homosexual.

In which case, I have great news for you.

While your sexual practices have earned you a spot in hell, God will forgiven you your sins and will cleanse you from unrighteousness of you will turn from your sin, embrace his grace, and daily seek help to live a life of sexual purity.

Yet more racist tactics and rhetoric.

I haven't burned a cross on anyone's lawn, care to repent from your false witness?

It's false witness to claim i did accuse you of that.

The reality is that my approach is 180 degrees different from racists.

Indistinguishable

Racists wanted segregation. I want homosexuals to repent of their sin and be included in the body of Christ, His church, and the age to come.

you want them to be invisible or at least out of site and knowing their place

Racists hate people because of who God created them to be, I want homosexuals to embrace who God created them to be because God has never created a person to have sex with another person of the same sex.

Homophobes hate people because of who God created them to be

The bible calls that abandoning one's natural function (See Romans 1).

That is an entire threat in itself. in the briefest possible way God is referring to an individuals nature and the abandoning of it based on societal pressures to conform. In the case of Romans 1 that involved altered states of mind and orgies in relation to fertility rituals.
Paul is writing about people with a heterosexual orientation, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their orientation in violation of their natural desires.

I want God's best for those who have bought the devil's lies about homosexuality,

Lies like it is a choice.

 

[Dialogos]

First: racists object to blacks behaving as social equals to whites. Most are happy to say that they have no problem with black people as long as they "know their place"

You like to make sweeping generalizations about what “racists” believe. The problem is that nobody is obligated to care what you think most racists believe.

Second: Orientation isn't a behavior.

No, sexual orientation is an expression of the sinful nature tempting us to do what God forbids. Kleptomania isn’t a behavior either, it’s the ongoing persistent temptation to steal. Nevertheless, just because some people have an “orientation” toward taking things without paying for them we don’t normalize stealing, make them a protected class or call people bigots for daring to say that stealing is wrong thusly upsetting the “Kleptomania community.”

Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

Ref APA

Kleptomania from the APA

Kleptomania is characterized by repetitive stealing behavior that is precipitated by significant and uncontrollable urges to steal items not needed for one’s personal use.

So, do we say that anyone who dares to say that stealing is wrong is now a bigot as well?

People are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual independent of any behaviors and independent of any activity. You aren't having sex right now (at least i hope you aren't) but you are still a heterosexual. Virgins have an orientation.

You have bought the farm on the cultural parlance and have completely abandoned the way the bible frames this issue.

Everyone is a heterosexual. There are only three categories of sexual orientation in the bible. 1. Heterosexuals who are divinely gifted to stay single. 2. Heterosexuals who are called to marriage. 3. Sexual perverts who have denied their natural function and actively pursue sexual sin.

See above
no one chooses the type of person they are emotionally, romantically
and sexually attracted to.

Kleptomaniacs don’t choose to have an emotional drive to steal, but they still make the choice to feed that sinful desire when they steal.

Pedophiles don’t choose to desire sex with children but they earn their just condemnation when they make the choice to harm a child.

Serial Adulterers don’t choose to be attracted to people who aren’t their spouses, but they make a choice when they have sex with someone they aren’t married to. Nevertheless, we don’t have “kleptomaniac rights,” Pedophile communities,” or Adultery pride parades, do we?

And one doesn't change orientation day to day.

Irrelevant.

Drug Addicts don’t change their orientation and decide to have an addictive personality. But we don’t create a special class of citizenship based on their “orientation.”

Can you spontaneously choose to be romantically attracted to men?

I don’t argue that men and women can choose who they are attracted to, I am arguing that they choose who they do or do not have sex with.

I’ll skip your ridiculous response about the bible supporting racism and go straight to another ridiculous response.

since orientation is inborn being gay or straight or bi is also an expression of God's providence and worthy of celebration

I see, so you would support group marriage then?

Now you show yourself to be totally uninformed.

Regarding 1 Cor 6:9-10.

You say:

All of which is based on an unsupportable translation of the Greek word arsenokoites. Simply put no one knows what it means and dozens of meanings have been applied to it over the centuries. For most of Christian history it was translated to mean masturbation but it also has meant a kidnapper, a man who employs prostitutes, a man who forces women into prostitution and a few others.

Ok, I am going to stop here and as you one question.

Yes or no, does the following passage condemn homosexuality or not?

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
(Lev 20:13 ESV)

:sozo: YES OR NO! DOES THIS PASSAGE CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?

 

[resodko]

i predict an evasive answer involving shrimp and mixed fabrics

 

[TracerBullet]

You like to make sweeping generalizations about what “racists” believe. The problem is that nobody is obligated to care what you think most racists believe.


No, sexual orientation is an expression of the sinful nature tempting us to do what God forbids. Kleptomania isn’t a behavior either, it’s the ongoing persistent temptation to steal. Nevertheless, just because some people have an “orientation” toward taking things without paying for them we don’t normalize stealing, make them a protected class or call people bigots for daring to say that stealing is wrong thusly upsetting the “Kleptomania community.”



Kleptomania from the APA

Did you notice that your quote from the APA shows that kleptomania is a behavior?


If you have to stoop to comparing a minority criminals and those who harm children to justify your prejudice: If your position, rhetoric and tactics are indistinguishable from racism then your position is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Dialogos]

Did you notice that your quote from the APA shows that kleptomania is a behavior?


If you have to stoop to comparing a minority criminals and those who harm children to justify your prejudice: If your position, rhetoric and tactics are indistinguishable from racism then your position is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Coward, do you have an answer to the following?
Yes or no, does the following passage condemn homosexuality or not?

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
(Lev 20:13 ESV)

:sozo:YES OR NO! DOES THIS PASSAGE CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?

 

[One Ugly Christian]

This just came out also:

Ford employee fired over gay remarks

Apparently Ford sent a newsletter to all its employees promoting homosexuality but when this man responded with his beliefs, well, that was just wrong. So it's okay for the perverts to shove their agenda down our throats but not for us to say a word. "Stay in the closet you 'hateful Christian'."

A blog I was reading points out that the PC agenda now trumps free speech. It gave many examples but I can't find it again right now.

 

[annabenedetti]

This just came out also:

Ford employee fired over gay remarks

Apparently Ford sent a newsletter to all its employees promoting homosexuality but when this man responded with his beliefs, well, that was just wrong. So it's okay for the perverts to shove their agenda down our throats but not for us to say a word. "Stay in the closet you 'hateful Christian'."

A blog I was reading points out that the PC agenda now trumps free speech. It gave many examples but I can't find it again right now.

Actually, the headline reads: Ford employee says he was fired for anti-gay remarks: "Homosexual behavior leads to death."

We don't know the actual reason for the firing, Ford said it hadn't seen the complaint and the other parties aren't commenting due to the ongoing litigation.

I'll wait for more details.

 

[Dialogos]

Coward, do you have an answer to the following?
Yes or no, does the following passage condemn homosexuality or not?

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
(Lev 20:13 ESV)

:sozo:YES OR NO! DOES THIS PASSAGE CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?

Tracer???

Where'd ya go?

:chuckle:

 

[Tinark]

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.

Civics 101 fail: there is no constitutional right to a job. All your invalid conclusions stem from this false premise.

 

[Tinark]

Define how giving a book to friends is preaching. Show the constitutional clause that says you must leave your personal faith at the door of your employment.

Show me the constitutional clause guaranteeing someone protection from firing.