Atlanta Fire Chief Fired For Anti-Gay Book

[Cleopatra7]

The mayor of Atlanta is facing a backlash from conservative Christians over his decision to dismiss the city’s fire chief for distributing a self-published book that describes homosexuality as a “perversionâ€.

Kasim Reed fired Kelvin Cochran last week, after placing him on suspension without pay. The mayor said at the time he would not tolerate discrimination within his administration. The decision rattled some conservative Christians, who believe the dismissal of Cochran is an affront to freedom of religion and expression.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/atla ... -gay-book/ (link not broken because it's a secular news site)

The people running the Christian persecution industrial complex don't seem to understand that the problem was not Cochran's odious views, but that he was using his position to push his stupid book on his subordinates as well as making it appear that the City of Atlanta was endorsing his views. If he had just marketed his book on his own time and not tried to shove it down people's throats during work hours, this entire thing could have been avoided.

[chosenone]

Had to be tough being gay in Atlanta knowing your taxes were paying this rat

[FloraKitty35]

He's free to make those opinions in private, not in the capacity of his employment.

[thoughtful]

The Amazon "reviews" are fun -- positive reviews and comments are a mix of "I am buying this book to support this brave man who is losing his job" and some lengthy bloviating worthy of Ken Alexander.

Funny, the book's supporters tsk-tsk negative reviewers who don't seem to have read the book (and I see their point -- I actually think that weakens the argument against such books), but have no such criticism for those who gave it a five-star review without reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Told-That-Wer ... N3JZ9TV5EB

[Burris]

If this man wrote the book on his own time and published it privately, then it exists outside his professional life and should not have impacted it.

I don't support anti-homosexual activities. I also don't support that someone may lose his job - work unrelated to the subject of his book - for having exercised his freedom of speech and religion. It doesn't rise to the level of persecution, of course, but the official reaction was still wrong.

And now, because of the way his superiors reacted, what would otherwise have been just one more minor entry into the corpus of anti-gay propaganda may well lead to so much more attention for this man than any of his opinions deserve.

The official stance on his book should have been that, while his superiors may not endorse its content, he has a right to air his opinions just so long as they do not interfere with his job.

[sparkles]

He's free to make those opinions in private, not in the capacity of his employment.

These days even what you say in private can have an impact on your public life, as it should in many cases. He's an employee whose salary is paid by tax dollars, and it's hard to believe that his opinions, even if they're made in private, wouldn't impact his public decisions. As long as he's on the job, even on his own time, he represents the city, and while he's free to express his opinions and beliefs, the city is also free to decide that keeping him on is not in the best interests of the people. So basically, tough titty, Mr. Cochran.

[naatashamaru]

I live in Atlanta metro so ive bin hearing this story non-stop. Like everyone is making a big deal about the anti-gay stuff in the book....but home dude also had "women need to stay home and be barefoot and pregnant" and a lot of other bullshit that really could have put the City of Atlanta in a very bad situation very quickly. He is gonna try to fight, but he's really stupid for that. You can't try to sell your crazytown books to your subordinates...you can't make a hostile working environment...he's an idiot

[DGayle]

If this man wrote the book on his own time and published it privately, then it exists outside his professional life and should not have impacted it.

The government can't take action against private citizens for what they say, but employers most certainly can limit what you say and even do in your free time, as my husband and some of this friends found out, and our attorney confirmed. Freedom of speech is a lot more limited than a lot of people think it is.

What that ex-chief has in his favor is he was a public employee, which means his employer, being the government, can't limit his speech. What he has against him is what he was doing could be seen as hostile, and since it was done partly on the clock, when he was representing the city, that can be seen as the city endorsing the book by not putting a stop to it.

[Burris]

The government can't take action against private citizens for what they say, but employers most certainly can limit what you say and even do in your free time, as my husband and some of this friends found out, and our attorney confirmed. Freedom of speech is a lot more limited than a lot of people think it is.

That's a problem, and one that should be addressed in favour of those who wish to make non-violent comments that are nonetheless odious. The man is still a citizen - and unless his opinions on homosexuality were affecting his performance, then they should not have been used as a reason to fire him.

I find it profoundly disturbing that free speech can be curtailed, on penalty of income loss, by employers. Such actions cause the laws protecting free speech to lose a lot of their force.

What that ex-chief has in his favor is he was a public employee, which means his employer, being the government, can't limit his speech.

Economic sanctions imposed for reasons other than performance - that, in my opinion, is the equivalent of government intervention. His pay, as far as I know, comes from the common purse and is administered by the area government.

What he has against him is what he was doing could be seen as hostile, and since it was done partly on the clock, when he was representing the city, that can be seen as the city endorsing the book by not putting a stop to it.

If indeed he did write some of that material while on the clock, then yes, he should lose his position. If not, however, then I believe - regardless of what his contract allows regarding termination of employment - that the government overstepped its bounds.

Robbing someone of his livelihood in response to his unpopular opinion is a form of, for lack of a better term, injury.

(Yes, I know PP lost his fire alarm business because people didn't want to be associated with such a raving bigot, for example; numerous non-governmental agencies simply failed to renew their contracts with him. Moreover, his rhetoric now tips into violence. That puts him into a different category than a fire chief who, I assume, was good at his job and yet was let go by agents of a government where protection of free speech is part of the law.)

On a related note, if the fire chief holds these views, then how common are they in his department? Does firing him do any good at all besides to hold off a public relations problem? Will there soon be programs in place to help regular firefighters understand homosexuality? I somehow doubt it: Firing a man with an unpopular opinion is cheaper than dealing with a potentially deeper problem.)

[Burris]

These days even what you say in private can have an impact on your public life, as it should in many cases.

Should it really?

Here's a thought experiment, and it's not all that far-fetched: Consider a situation where the US federal government (as well as state and local governments) tilt even further right than some do now. A government employee signs on to FJ or another forum like this one and criticizes not even the government itself necessarily, but rather the official attitude that homosexuality is a mental illness. He even goes so far as to publish a book defending homosexuality as a natural part of the human continuum.

The state, supposedly bound by laws that prevent agents from penalizing people for exercising protected forms of speech, nonetheless decides to strip this man of his job - of his financial security. What's more, they likely won't give hum a favourable reference.

He is being punished financially for speaking his mind - and by the very people charged with upholding the law.

He's an employee whose salary is paid by tax dollars, and it's hard to believe that his opinions, even if they're made in private, wouldn't impact his public decisions.

There are any number of people out there who work in sensitive positions and yet hold chilling opinions. If no evidence of bias can be found in their work, then there is no reason to discipline them.

Unless someone can show the chief would play favourites while directing his crew during a fire, then there's no evidence his prejudices are affecting his job.

That he spoke his mind, on his own time, should not be reason enough to assume he is incapable of professionalism.

As long as he's on the job, even on his own time, he represents the city, and while he's free to express his opinions and beliefs, the city is also free to decide that keeping him on is not in the best interests of the people. So basically, tough titty, Mr. Cochran.

Correct me if I take this wrong, but are you saying the city basically owns its employees for the entire time the contract exists?

And no, he is not free to express his opinions if the penalty for doing so is the loss of his career.

There is no evidence to which we have access to suggest he failed in his duties merely because he writes fundie propaganda on the side.

[DGayle]

Imagine this: You own a company. Let's call it Burris & Co. One of your employees writes a vile, pro-hate book, and takes it public. "Hi, I'm John Doe, and I work for Burris & Co. I have here a book I wrote on how faggy fags are going to hell because the bible says so!" In public eyes, that associates your company with what he does. Maybe you share the views and are willing to take the hits. The Duggars would love you, and Josh might even decide to have a pseudo holiday in honor of Burris & Co. Surely Westboro would praise you. Mainstream America would probably start shunning your products for standing by John Doe. Maybe it's worth it to you.

Now if this happened, "Hi, I'm John Doe, and I work for Burris & Co. I wrote this here book accepting people for differences they have no control over," you're still associated with John Doe, but you might not mind that connection. From the standpoint of a business, this might help sales.

In both cases, your company stands to take a hit. Mainstream America may penalize you for supporting John, and evangelicals might protest you for keeping John on staff. The actions of your employees can affect you. Why should an employer be willing to stand idle and let the company take hits?

The department has a non-discrimination policy, and what he's doing not only reflects negatively on the department, but flies in the face of that policy by him being discriminatory. And that makes for a hostile work environment, especially if there are LBGT people there.

[formergothardite]

If this was a white guy writing a book to support white supremacy and talk about how interracial marriages are a perversion of godly marriages, all of these beliefs, of course, are because of his religious beliefs, I really doubt people would be upset that he got fired. In fact, if he didn't get fired there would probably be protests.

[Howl]

If this was a white guy writing a book to support white supremacy and talk about how interracial marriages are a perversion of godly marriages, all of these beliefs, of course, are because of his religious beliefs, I really doubt people would be upset that he got fired. In fact, if he didn't get fired there would probably be protests.

Yes, exactly this. Let's see. What if the chief was Muslim and was critical of some Christian beliefs?

The department has a non-discrimination policy, and what he's doing not only reflects negatively on the department, but flies in the face of that policy by him being discriminatory. And that makes for a hostile work environment, especially if there are LBGT people there.

Statements in his book are very close to hate speech. He is a public figure who manages a department of about 750 people; statistically, some of those people will be gay. As dgayle points out, the publication of this book alone creates a hostile work environment. I don't think freedom of speech is the key issue.

This issue will be dealt with legally, of course and is already headed to the courts. The scary part of this religious shit storm is the belief in fundamentalist Christianity that you can use your religious beliefs to publicly denigrate others and it is just fine. If someone denigrates your Christian beliefs, not so much.

[Cleopatra7]

Should it really?

Here's a thought experiment, and it's not all that far-fetched: Consider a situation where the US federal government (as well as state and local governments) tilt even further right than some do now. A government employee signs on to FJ or another forum like this one and criticizes not even the government itself necessarily, but rather the official attitude that homosexuality is a mental illness. He even goes so far as to publish a book defending homosexuality as a natural part of the human continuum.

The state, supposedly bound by laws that prevent agents from penalizing people for exercising protected forms of speech, nonetheless decides to strip this man of his job - of his financial security. What's more, they likely won't give hum a favourable reference.

He is being punished financially for speaking his mind - and by the very people charged with upholding the law.

There are any number of people out there who work in sensitive positions and yet hold chilling opinions. If no evidence of bias can be found in their work, then there is no reason to discipline them.

Unless someone can show the chief would play favourites while directing his crew during a fire, then there's no evidence his prejudices are affecting his job.

That he spoke his mind, on his own time, should not be reason enough to assume he is incapable of professionalism.

Correct me if I take this wrong, but are you saying the city basically owns its employees for the entire time the contract exists?

And no, he is not free to express his opinions if the penalty for doing so is the loss of his career.

There is no evidence to which we have access to suggest he failed in his duties merely because he writes fundie propaganda on the side.

The problem was that the fire chief was foisting his book on others during work hours, including his subordinates and workers in the mayor's office, giving the impression that the city endorsed it. He was evangelizing on the job and using his position as a cover.

[sparkles]

Like it or not, right or wrong, we are now held accountable for our actions and words both in public and in private. This is an era where your credit rating, postings on Facebook, Twitter, etc. and general behavior in your "private" life have as much of an impact on your hireability as well as your ability to perform your job as do your skills, experience and education. Let's face it, there is no such thing as privacy anymore, at least not in the way we understood privacy in the past. People in far less important positions have been fired for the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist things they’ve said online or in a public forum because they can cause harm to their employers. A public employee whose salary is paid by the taxpayers should be held to an even higher standard, regardless of whether he made his views known on or off the job. Making the statements he did and promoting his book in his off-duty hours while sitting in his living room and conversing with friends is far different than doing so as a "private" citizen in a public forum. This man represents the city and it’s nearly impossible to for me to believe that his strongly held and despicable beliefs wouldn’t impact how he does his job and protects his employees. Who do you think would want to work under him, knowing what he believes? By opening his mouth he’s created a hostile working environment for present and future employees who don’t live their lives by the Gospel According to Cochran. The city could potentially end up with a department made up of nothing but homophobic bigots.

No one is denying him freedom of religion or speech; he can shoot his mouth off as much as he wants. But in this day and age, if you DO choose to voice your opinions, you’ve also got to accept that there will be consequences if what you say is deemed harmful or offensive, compromises (or even appears to compromise) your ability to do your job fairly or can be damaging to your employer. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

[nelliebelle1197]

What Cleo said. What you guys are arguing does not apply- dude was pushing this stuff in his capacity as an employee of the city and as a boss. I can see Atlanta from my house - it is two blocks away. Inside the actual city, it is very gay, Democratic and liberal/progressive. This behavior does not fly within the perimeter.

[BrownieMomma]

Like it or not, right or wrong, we are now held accountable for our actions and words both in public and in private. This is an era where your credit rating, postings on Facebook, Twitter, etc. and general behavior in your "private" life have as much of an impact on your hireability as well as your ability to perform your job as do your skills, experience and education. Let's face it, there is no such thing as privacy anymore, at least not in the way we understood privacy in the past. People in far less important positions have been fired for the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist things they’ve said online or in a public forum because they can cause harm to their employers. A public employee whose salary is paid by the taxpayers should be held to an even higher standard, regardless of whether he made his views known on or off the job. Making the statements he did and promoting his book in his off-duty hours while sitting in his living room and conversing with friends is far different than doing so as a "private" citizen in a public forum. This man represents the city and it’s nearly impossible to for me to believe that his strongly held and despicable beliefs wouldn’t impact how he does his job and protects his employees. Who do you think would want to work under him, knowing what he believes? By opening his mouth he’s created a hostile working environment for present and future employees who don’t live their lives by the Gospel According to Cochran. The city could potentially end up with a department made up of nothing but homophobic bigots.

No one is denying him freedom of religion or speech; he can shoot his mouth off as much as he wants. But in this day and age, if you DO choose to voice your opinions, you’ve also got to accept that there will be consequences if what you say is deemed harmful or offensive, compromises (or even appears to compromise) your ability to do your job fairly or can be damaging to your employer. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

I am so absolutely genuinely horrified at what you are saying in this post. You are absolutely are advocating to deny free speech.

He shouldn't say he works for the city. He shouldn't push his book on other employees, especially those beneath him, who will feel obligated to buy the book to keep his favor. He shouldn't make it seem or sound like his employer espouses his views or his book.

He should absolutely have the right to publish his opinions.

You actually said people should expect to suffer consequences for voicing their opinion.

Oh my, under these standards most FJ'ers would be unemployed for simplying voicing their opinions of Christianity, especially the fundamentalist version. So that makes it a matter of not being caught?

Oh boy. Somehow I think you wouldn't find it necessary to apply this evenly across the board either.

[formergothardite]

So I'm assuming Brownie Momma that you would be not outraged if he had been white and written a book discussing how white people are superior to black people and how interracial marriage is vile and a perversion? You think that it is perfectly acceptable of government employees to publish racists books?

If he had published a book saying all fundamental Christians are vile and a perversion I think he should be fired too. A government employee is there to serve the community when they publically say that they view part of the community as vile and not equal to the rest of the community, I do think that they should be fired because there is no way that they will be able to serve the ENTIRE community without bias and therefore they are not suitable for the job.

[browncoatslytherin]

You are absolutely are advocating to deny free speech.

no, i don't believe she is. what she is saying is that free speech does NOT equal freedom of the consequences of said free speech. and that freedom of speech only means that - slander, libel, and terroristic/criminal threats aside - you can't be prosecuted for it. employers can and do absolutely decide what is acceptable for their employees in many areas, even down to how they wear their own facial hair (yes, some companies are "clean cut only" and if there is a religious exemption, it has to be applied for). slightly ridiculous? yes. but it is their company and they decide how to run it, like it or not.

BUT, afaik, in this particular case, he was absolutely using his position and on-work time to foist his book upon his employees, not only associating the city with his beliefs but creating a hostile work environment. again, freedom of speech does NOT equal freedom from the consequences. if what you're saying on the job makes fellow employees feel as if they are in a hostile environment, they have every right to report that to the employer, who in turn has every right to take any plan of discipline they see fit, up to and including termination.

[formergothardite]

Nobody would be defending this asshole he had been a Southern white man writing a book about how racists he was.

[sparkles]

I am so absolutely genuinely horrified at what you are saying in this post. You are absolutely are advocating to deny free speech.

He shouldn't say he works for the city. He shouldn't push his book on other employees, especially those beneath him, who will feel obligated to buy the book to keep his favor. He shouldn't make it seem or sound like his employer espouses his views or his book.

He should absolutely have the right to publish his opinions.

You actually said people should expect to suffer consequences for voicing their opinion.

Oh my, under these standards most FJ'ers would be unemployed for simplying voicing their opinions of Christianity, especially the fundamentalist version. So that makes it a matter of not being caught?

Oh boy. Somehow I think you wouldn't find it necessary to apply this evenly across the board either.

You seriously think my post was about denying free speech? Read my last paragraph again, but, you know, pay attention this time.

Each and every one of us is free to say whatever the fuck we please but that MAY come with price because we don't live in a vacuum. If you're going to shoot your mouth off about things you KNOW will be offensive and damaging, then you'd better freaking well be ready to accept the consequences. If you review the situation and conclude that it's best to keep your mouth shut, then it's a CHOICE you've made, not a denial of your rights. Discretion and common sense go a long way.

The world is undergoing a huge upheaval right now because of social media and the almost instant availability of information. What do we do about privacy issues and personal security? What is the dividing line is between our public and private lives? Unfortunately, for many this means there IS no privacy and like it or not, we've got to deal with it until it's sorted out.

ETA: Here's a little example of on- and off-the-job freedom of speech. We've got a couple of real entitled asshole clients at work and we do our best to treat them nicely, because that's how it should be. I've also encountered the worst of them outside of work, when I'm on my own as a private citizen, and he's been just as much of an asshole. I would love nothing more tell him exactly what I think of him and I certainly have the freedom to do so. No one's stopping me. However, I'm intelligent enough to know that, despite the fact that it's not a work day, I've run into him at the movies and I'm clearly on my own time, he still sees me as a representative of the company I work for. If I were to go off on him and word got back to my boss and/or got around town (which it would since the asshat in question is quite well known and in a position of power), it would absolutely be detrimental to my boss's business and it would be in his best interests to let me go. So I have a choice. I can shoot my mouth off and take the risk that I'll be fired or I can suck it up, bitch to my coworkers and keep my job. I still have right to freedom of speech; I've just CHOSEN not to exercise it.

[Sundaymorning]

I think this case has two scandals.

One is that he appearantly was using his work time and his power over his employees to spread this book. I mean, regardless of the content, this is just wrong. Even if he wrote a nice book about, for example, how clever grey parrots are, he wouldn't be allowed to do this on his work time, and he wouldn't be allowed to make his employees obliged to read or buy this book. The only books he should be writing and marketing (if it belongs to his job description) during his work time as a fire chief are actually publications which have directly something to do with his job. Like books about fire prevention or fire fighting.

About the content of his book. As a public employee, his employers were (basically speaking) the citizens of Atlanta. And that means every single one of them. Including the gays.

Imagine if someone in the private sector wrote and published a book in which he would call his employer these things this man called gay people. Would you be sursprised if he got fired? I don't think so.

Well, this man just called many of his employers these things. So it's no wonder he got fired.

Someone who wants to work as a public employee has to be aware of that she/ he actually works for the citizens, and thus has to treat each of them respectfully.

And also, if his direct boss felt that he was a threat to the work environment and wasn't able to treat his subordinates fairly, he has the right to fire him.

[DGayle]

I am so absolutely genuinely horrified at what you are saying in this post. You are absolutely are advocating to deny free speech.

You don't understand free speech. Free speech only applies to the government not being allowed to retaliate against you.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html

THAT is no freedom of speech. A Saudi man made a webforum for people to debate, and because that includes Islam, it was taken to mean he's anti-Islam. He got 10 years in jail and 1,000 fucking lashes. That's so many that it has to be broken down into 20 chunks of 50 so it doesn't literally kill him.

That doesn't compare to an employer being concerned with your non-job activities reflecting negatively on the employer or creating hostility.

You can say what you want, but you aren't free from consequences for it. You are only free from not being jailed by the government.

[DGayle]

What concerns me about this case is that that man is actually arguing that religion should exempt him from the laws. That is so incredibly dangerous. If religion should exempt you, this opens the doors for Islamic terrorists who interpret the Quran to mean to bomb the infidels in the US. And you can't apply religious exemption from the law only to Christians. Does he even realize how dangerous his religious exemptions are? He wants absolute protection for religion, but there is no way to only apply that to people who won't bomb people. If religious people should be protected no matter what, he basically making a case for his fellow Christian, Hitler.

There absolutely needs to be limits on religion. What we have now is perfect. You can have your religion for yourself. You can't force it into other people.

[nelliebelle1197]

What concerns me about this case is that that man is actually arguing that religion should exempt him from the laws. That is so incredibly dangerous. If religion should exempt you, this opens the doors for Islamic terrorists who interpret the Quran to mean to bomb the infidels in the US. And you can't apply religious exemption from the law only to Christians. Does he even realize how dangerous his religious exemptions are? He wants absolute protection for religion, but there is no way to only apply that to people who won't bomb people. If religious people should be protected no matter what, he basically making a case for his fellow Christian, Hitler.

There absolutely needs to be limits on religion. What we have now is perfect. You can have your religion for yourself. You can't force it into other people.

Well, look at the Hobby Lobby case. The idiots in the black robes certainly are paving the way.