Atlanta Fire Chief Fired For Anti-Gay Book

[nelliebelle1197]

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.

Well, I am absolutely horrified by racists and homophobes, but I guess you think you are protected by freedom of speech without consequence, huh?

[Mecca]

Cochran has a right to hold whatever views he wishes. But when he takes those views and openly pushes those views as a Fire Chief over his staff and makes the workplace hostile and his employer open to possible litigation due to that hostility, then of course he is going to get fired.

This is not an example of Christian persecution. This is about a Christian that is using his religion and his power as a chief to push an agenda onto his employees. The employees have a right to do their job without their chief trying to push his personal religious beliefs on them. Seriously. Why can't people just do their job without bringing this mess in the workplace? They are his personal beliefs, not the City of Atlanta beliefs. Keep it at home.

[Burris]

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.

If he wrote a book with which I disagreed, I'd consider it a matter that has nothing to do with me - unless he mentioned the name of my company in his book, in which case I would take him to court and sue that my name be removed.

I'd also issue a public statement through all the media to which I had access that I in no way endorsed his opinion. I would then go on to explain that I planned to keep him at his job because having to put up with the occasional hateful asshole is one price of freedom.

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?

There is a difference between supporting free speech and supporting the content of that speech. I would not be willing to take the hit by people who assume I agree with anti-gay rhetoric in the book. I would, however, be willing to take the hit in defending an employee's right to publish any fool thing he wants (within the confines of the law).

No, private citizens are not bound in the same way as the government in its duty to protect speech - and yet average people should, in my opinion, be willing to take a hit in defence of words with which they disagree.

The matter is this: If people - the majority of people - are not willing to defend free speech, then they may lose that freedom. Bit by bit, day by day, so slowly that no one notices until it's too late.

And then it's gone. It's gone. And every word one hears from the government, from the media - it's all suspect. It may be propaganda disguised as news.

And that is not merely a hypothetical situation: Such things can and do happen. "Free speech" becomes government controlled media. "Truth" becomes whatever the media chooses to air.

And it starts with the most unpopular opinions and the most unpopular people: Everyone agrees their speech is odious, and so they don't defend it. Eventually, however, the net grows wider, captures more kinds of speech.

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.

When he is at work, he is bound by contract to follow the policies in place.

When he is not at work, he should be considered a free citizen with the right to speak his mind - however small that mind may be.

And as for this matter of the hostile work environment, just because this one man wrote a book condemning homosexuality does not mean he's alone in his sentiments. Homosexuals must unfortunately put up with hostility in any number of environments, whether work rules prohibit such behaviour or not. (Discrimination is damned near impossible to prove, and so it's also difficult to punish.)

In other words, homosexuals in a field such as firefighting probably deal with hostility all the time. It isn't right. It isn't fair. And one day, the dinosaurs responsible for that kind of bigotry will die off.

Penalizing this one man by destroying his career is not going to change that. The only thing such an act will accomplish is to erode freedom.

[Burris]

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.

I missed that. If it's true, then you and DGayle (etc.) are correct: Such behaviour should have cost him his job.

[formergothardite]

I honestly don't feel that if he had been a white guy writing a racists book he would get any supporters and no one would think that his free speech was being threatened.

[nelliebelle1197]

Burris, he was not fired for his point of view. He was fired because he distributed the book to his employees, employees complained that he was pushing these views on them during work hours , and the mayoral staff determined that he created a hostile work environment, and because the book which he distributed on the clock to his underlings advocated discrimination in direct violation of city policy. This is not about free speech. THIS MAN DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE HIS RELIGIOUS OPINION TO HIS UNDERLINGS ON THE CLOCK. This is about a man in power pushing his viewpoints on those under him. The local fireman's union is refusing to support him and back his firing. It is not about free speech; it is about abuse of power. What about the employees' rights? He was at work when he did these things. That is why he got fired. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Burris]

I honestly don't feel that if he had been a white guy writing a racists book he would get any supporters and no one would think that his free speech was being threatened.

Wrong.

[nelliebelle1197]

I missed that. If it's true, then you and DGayle (etc.) are correct: Such behaviour should have cost him his job.

Yes, that is why he was fired and looney right here is trying to use this as a wedge to not only keep Kasim from running for governor or Senate but to enact a religious freedom bill that would seriously curtail my rights not have to put up with religious nuts.

[Burris]

Burris, he was not fired for his point of view. He was fired because he distributed the book to his employees, employees complained that he was pushing these views on them during work hours ...

Scroll up two posts: When I saw that he was distributing the books, I came to agree with the consensus that it was right to fire him.

[Georgiana]

I honestly don't feel that if he had been a white guy writing a racists book he would get any supporters and no one would think that his free speech was being threatened.

Even if he backed his racist views with Bible quotes and stated it was a religious position...which people did for hundreds of years.

[formergothardite]

Wrong.

Well, I personally don't feel that there would not be a ton of support for a guy who got up introduced himself as a government employee and then said "Interracial couples are as vile and perverted as a person who rapes animals." You apparently would support him not being fired, but I think that there would be a ton of outrage from most other people.

[nelliebelle1197]

Scroll up two posts: When I saw that he was distributing the books, I came to agree with the consensus that it was right to fire him.

We cross-posted.

[Burris]

Well, I personally don't feel that there would not be a ton of support for a guy who got up introduced himself as a government employee and then said "Interracial couples are as vile and perverted as a person who rapes animals." You apparently would support him not being fired, but I think that there would be a ton of outrage from most other people.

If he introduced himself as a government employee, for example during a speech, and then shared his unfortunate views, I would support sanctions against him. His mentioning ties to the government - or to any other employer - could be taken by audience members as evidence that his employer endorses his views.

That goes beyond the exercise of free speech and into another territory: He would essentially be slandering his employer by mentioning where he worked.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I do not generally believe an employer's influence should extend beyond work hours. There are a few exceptions, such as in the case of a police officer who breaks the law while off-duty, but these exceptions are related to how an employee acts and not merely to what he says.

[Howl]

Op-Ed piece from today's (Jan 13th) New York Times clarifies the issues in their usual succinct way:

Excerpts:

Mr. Cochran, a veteran firefighter, is also a deeply religious man, and he was eager to bring his Christian faith into the daily functioning of his department — or, as he put it in a book he authored in 2013, to “cultivate its culture to the glory of God.â€

But, as the book revealed, his religious beliefs also include virulent anti-gay views. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?†Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,†compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.â€

...Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits...

...Mr. Cochran said he was fired “for no reason other than my Christian faith.†But he and his sudden coterie of supporters have it backward. This case is not about free speech or religious freedom. It is, as Mr. Reed said at a news conference, about “making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against.â€

for full text of this editorial, titled God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department, click here.

I'd also be interested in knowing who Cochran actually works for -- is he considered a civil servant or does he serve at the pleasure of the mayor?

[DGayle]

When an employee's off-work activities can reflect in a harmful manner on the employer, I do support it.

What would you do if you had an employee who did a great job at his work, but who went out and campaigned to have the company closed because, for instance, he was mad that you gave the time needed for prayers to mecca in addition to time for Christians to pray, and so he decided that means you're supporting Islamic terrorism and need to go under?

Of course this is an extreme example, but it's still off the clock. Would you really do nothing more than say, "We do not support terrorism," and continue sending him a paycheck?

If you read reviews from before he was fired, it becomes very clear that he wasn't separating this book from his job, and reviewers were expressing concern. What he did undermined people's security in rescue services. That's dangerous.

If he really wanted to put these thoughts out there, he could have done what authors through the ages have done, and used a pen name. If Diphallic Dude can keep his identity s secret even while posting pictures of his 2 penises, Cochran could have published this book while keeping his identity secret. But personal attention was important to him.

What would you do if you were gay, had an emergency requiring surgery, went to an ER in your Gay Pride t-shirt, and the doctor who was assigned to your surgery is someone you recognized as writing a whole book against gay people calling you perverted, and you knew he knew you were gay because of your shirt, would you really be completely comfortable with the guy doing your surgery, or would you be scared and hope he didn't intentionally botch something? Most, if not almost all, LGBT people would be scared about putting their lives in the hands of someone who publicly spoke out against them, even if it's only off the clock, and if word got out that a hospital was keeping an open and loud bigot on staff, that wouldn't reflect well on the hospital especially since people needing emergency services need to be able to trust those in charge of their care instead of being scared of them.

[DGayle]

You know, I don't understand how people who have been the target of discrimination can possibly think it's okay to discriminate against others. During the Civil Rights movement and before, white people used the bible to justify the discrimination against black people. This probably won't be a popular opinion, but if you want to deny other people of their civil rights because of your personal religious views, then you need to be prepared to have over the civil rights you enjoy because there are still people out there who think you shouldn't have rights because of their beliefs. Cochran is a hypocritical asshole.

He'd be the first to cry foul if someone wrote and distributed an anti-black book and backed it with religion, because that would be wrong because it's against him. But he wants to do the same thing to someone else. He wants to discriminate openly against gay people, and is trying to get a law in place protecting it as freedom of religion. If he doesn't want to be told to use a "coloreds only" water fountain or to get his ass to the back of the bus or to be denied marriage to a white women or for his kids to be limited, then he needs to shut the fuck up. Keep his personal beliefs person instead of doing what he's done.

[Cleopatra7]

You know, I don't understand how people who have been the target of discrimination can possibly think it's okay to discriminate against others. During the Civil Rights movement and before, white people used the bible to justify the discrimination against black people. This probably won't be a popular opinion, but if you want to deny other people of their civil rights because of your personal religious views, then you need to be prepared to have over the civil rights you enjoy because there are still people out there who think you shouldn't have rights because of their beliefs. Cochran is a hypocritical asshole.

He'd be the first to cry foul if someone wrote and distributed an anti-black book and backed it with religion, because that would be wrong because it's against him. But he wants to do the same thing to someone else. He wants to discriminate openly against gay people, and is trying to get a law in place protecting it as freedom of religion. If he doesn't want to be told to use a "coloreds only" water fountain or to get his ass to the back of the bus or to be denied marriage to a white women or for his kids to be limited, then he needs to shut the fuck up. Keep his personal beliefs person instead of doing what he's done.

You know, I don't understand how people who have been the target of discrimination can possibly think it's okay to discriminate against others. During the Civil Rights movement and before, white people used the bible to justify the discrimination against black people. This probably won't be a popular opinion, but if you want to deny other people of their civil rights because of your personal religious views, then you need to be prepared to have over the civil rights you enjoy because there are still people out there who think you shouldn't have rights because of their beliefs. Cochran is a hypocritical asshole.

He'd be the first to cry foul if someone wrote and distributed an anti-black book and backed it with religion, because that would be wrong because it's against him. But he wants to do the same thing to someone else. He wants to discriminate openly against gay people, and is trying to get a law in place protecting it as freedom of religion. If he doesn't want to be told to use a "coloreds only" water fountain or to get his ass to the back of the bus or to be denied marriage to a white women or for his kids to be limited, then he needs to shut the fuck up. Keep his personal beliefs person instead of doing what he's done.

I think a not insignificant number of religious black people think that all gays are rich white people who are trying to play the victim by appropriating civil rights rhetoric (this view ignores the fact that there are LGBTS in every ethnic and socio-economic group and that the gospel music world is full of LGBTS). Too many people lack empathy for people who are different. It reminds me of the graphic novel Maus, where the author's father, who is a Holocaust survivor, is completely racist to black people, unable to connect the dots between the prejudice he endured and the prejudice he's doling out to others.

[moon rocks]

I think a not insignificant number of religious black people think that all gays are rich white people who are trying to play the victim by appropriating civil rights rhetoric (this view ignores the fact that there are LGBTS in every ethnic and socio-economic group and that the gospel music world is full of LGBTS). Too many people lack empathy for people who are different. It reminds me of the graphic novel Maus, where the author's father, who is a Holocaust survivor, is completely racist to black people, unable to connect the dots between the prejudice he endured and the prejudice he's doling out to others.

This is so true. I remember how startling it was for me, in my early twenties, to watch for the first time as one minority group was bigoted against another. I was so naive, I had no idea that could even be possible. How anyone could face discrimination and then perpetuate it on others baffles me into my forties.

[Burris]

Well, I personally don't feel that there would not be a ton of support for a guy who got up introduced himself as a government employee and then said "Interracial couples are as vile and perverted as a person who rapes animals." You apparently would support him not being fired, but I think that there would be a ton of outrage from most other people.

Before I get into the rest of this, I would like to clarify something: If the speaker identifies himself as an employee or the government or of Company X, he is suggesting - whether he realizes it or not - that his employer endorses his views. For that he would deserve to lose his job.

If, on the other hand, he spoke to a crowd without mentioning his work, then no, I wouldn't support firing him.

You're correct, of course; a lot of people would be angry at his comments. And they should be: That kind of rhetoric should make people mad. Their distaste for his personal, off-the-clock opinions should not be reason enough to terminate his employment, however; because the protections surrounding free speech were never meant to help the popular. They exist to protect the unpopular.

The test of whether people are committed to free speech or not occurs when someone voices an unpopular and even odious opinion. There may be nothing of value in that opinion, but the failure to protect it sends a message: "Free speech" is an illusion; a privilege of people who hold popular opinions.

That cannot be permitted to happen: The price to maintain free speech for everyone is that it must also be maintained for people whose opinions really aren't worth the air required to express them.

Although the government is the only entity bound by law to protect free speech, it is a very good idea for every citizen who values that right to also protect free speech - even, and especially, when the speaker is unpopular.

Slowly but surely, times change and so too do those things that people find acceptable or unacceptable. Although it's unlikely to happen in your lifetime, it is possible that the climate could change in such a way that the things you say and believe will become unpopular.

If there is no one there to defend you - if there is no one willing to defend even the most odious speech (so long as it doesn't violate the law such as by counselling murder) - then free speech no longer exists.

It is no longer a right but a privilege, and a day may come when those with the power to do so decide you are no longer entitled to that privilege.

I don't know how you'll react to this post. Maybe you'll argue that such a thing won't happen here or that I'm engaging in a slippery slope fallacy - but neither one of those potential responses is accurate. Nations do turn against their own citizens. It has happened before, and one of the first places a hostile government goes is to the media where slick propagandists replace free speech with falsehood.

And because speech in such places has become a privilege, there is no one left to call out the lies of a government-controlled media.

If the cost to avoid that is having to listen to some jackass rave about black people or homosexuals, then it's a small price to pay - especially since (a) the more he talks, the more people recognize he's unhinged, and (b) his targets can use their own freedom of speech to rebut him.

[Burris]

Burris, he was not fired for his point of view. He was fired because he distributed the book to his employees, employees complained that he was pushing these views on them during work hours , and the mayoral staff determined that he created a hostile work environment, and because the book which he distributed on the clock to his underlings advocated discrimination in direct violation of city policy. This is not about free speech. THIS MAN DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE HIS RELIGIOUS OPINION TO HIS UNDERLINGS ON THE CLOCK. This is about a man in power pushing his viewpoints on those under him. The local fireman's union is refusing to support him and back his firing. It is not about free speech; it is about abuse of power. What about the employees' rights? He was at work when he did these things. That is why he got fired. Why is that so hard to understand?

As I mentioned above, I missed that initially. I shouldn't have, so mea culpa.

Had he not distributed those books, however, then I would still oppose firing him.

[formergothardite]

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. My husband is perfectly free to blog about how some of his company's clients are vile perverts who are equal to animal rapists. The government is not going to stop him. He will not get arrested. But the consequences of doing so is that he will lose his job. By publically saying such things about some clients he is putting his employer in a position that they very well might get sued. He will also be creating a work environment that does not live up the company's standards because no matter how nice he acts at work, he will have made clients feel uncomfortable and like the company cannot be trusted. He is free to do this, but he is not free of consequences. I think that is where we differ in our beliefs you believe it should be free speech with no consequences(at least that is how it sounds).

[sparkles]

As I mentioned above, I missed that initially. I shouldn't have, so mea culpa.

Had he not distributed those books, however, then I would still oppose firing him.

Burris, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. In theory. But as I've stated upthread, it's nearly impossible these days to separate private from public, given the immediacy of information and the availability of social media. Things that you'd never expect to go further than your office or home suddenly go viral WORLDWIDE. One small mistake, a misstep in your youth, a comment that may or may not be taken out of context can haunt you forever. It can take you down, take a business down and other innocent parties as well.

Cochran's actions and statements in this particular case (over and above what he did by distributing his book on the job) not only cross a line but obliterate it, in my opinion. He's condemning his some of his employees as well as a significant portion of the people he's supposed to protect, he's put his employers in the hot seat and to keep him on the job sends a very bad message. Obviously your mileage varies, so I'm asking, at what point do you think that what one does or says off the job or in "private" SHOULD have an affect on his or her job? Short of making actual threats or outright libel, should we ever be held accountable?

[browncoatslytherin]

Burris, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. In theory. But as I've stated upthread, it's nearly impossible these days to separate private from public, given the immediacy of information and the availability of social media. Things that you'd never expect to go further than your office or home suddenly go viral WORLDWIDE. One small mistake, a misstep in your youth, a comment that may or may not be taken out of context can haunt you forever. It can take you down, take a business down and other innocent parties as well.

this is incredibly true these days. and whether it's right or not, like it or not, it's the way it is, and we have to deal with that reality and not just say "well it shouldn't be like that! i don't think it's right!". because even if it's wrong and you're right, the reality doesn't change, and we all have to deal with the reality.

[Burris]

What would you do if you had an employee who did a great job at his work, but who went out and campaigned to have the company closed because, for instance, he was mad that you gave the time needed for prayers to mecca in addition to time for Christians to pray, and so he decided that means you're supporting Islamic terrorism and need to go under?

You may not believe this, but I would likely do nothing unless the employee became a security risk.

His hypocrisy in continuing to work for a company he alleges is supporting terrorism would be apparent for all to see. And when someone inevitably asks him on what he has based his theory, and he cites the prayer room as his only example, then virtually no one whose opinion matters would take him seriously after that.

If, however, a rumour were to start concerning the prayer room, I would release a statement that goes something like this (and send it out to absolutely everyone with even the most remote ties to the company):

"Employee X has been a valued member of our team since he joined the company. When our management committee decided to set aside a room for our Muslim employees to exercise their religious freedom, however, Employee X objected for reasons we consider spurious - namely, that he sees the prayer room as evidence our management committee supports terrorism.

"This should go without saying, but our creating a prayer space for valued employees is in no way an endorsement of terrorism.

"We have no intention of changing our new policy towards Muslim employees. We will continue to accommodate their prayer times. We do not see these short intervals as damaging to the company, and nor do we agree with Employee X's assertion that such accommodations pose any kind of risk.

"Although we value the work Employee X has done for us, we have made it clear to him that we will not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination regardless of his personal feelings. Moreover, we will not tolerate libel or slander and will take legal action against him if he makes inflammatory remarks designed specifically to defame our company.

"We have reminded him that his employment here is voluntary. If he strenuously disagrees with our position in this matter, he is free to seek employment elsewhere."

Of course this is an extreme example, but it's still off the clock. Would you really do nothing more than say, "We do not support terrorism," and continue sending him a paycheck?

As I said above, I would do quite a bit more than that - but I still wouldn't fire him unless he engaged in defamation or workplace harassment, or if he became a security risk.

If you read reviews from before he was fired, it becomes very clear that he wasn't separating this book from his job, and reviewers were expressing concern. What he did undermined people's security in rescue services. That's dangerous.

I agree: I was mistaken in my assumption that he had written this book on his own time and distributed it while off the clock rather than sending it around at his workplace. That was my own fault.

I was wrong on that point, and so yes, I believe it was right to fire him: He abused company time, he used his position at work to push his odious book on underlings. He did much more than merely engage in free speech.

If, however, he had written the book on his own time and distributed it to those who asked while off the clock, then I would not support firing him.

If he really wanted to put these thoughts out there, he could have done what authors through the ages have done, and used a pen name.

That is true.

Since he believed in his words, however, it seems he was prepared to own them.

What would you do if you were gay, had an emergency requiring surgery, went to an ER in your Gay Pride t-shirt, and the doctor who was assigned to your surgery is someone you recognized as writing a whole book against gay people calling you perverted, and you knew he knew you were gay because of your shirt, would you really be completely comfortable with the guy doing your surgery, or would you be scared and hope he didn't intentionally botch something?

I would exercise my patient rights, call patient relations, tell them what the problem is, and have them bring in a different doctor or send me to a different hospital - or, if that weren't possible, I would ask for a monitor with medical training to supervise the procedure.

You are right, here: Medical and other emergency professions are special cases: People, some of whom might face discrimination at the hands of those individuals on whom they must depend for survival, would justly feel uncomfortable in the very least in having to deal with a bigot.

There needs to be a protocol in place that allows patients a greater range of choice whenever possible - because indeed some doctors, who aren't bigots, can still be terrible at their jobs so that a patient once injured by them would not want to be put in the same position twice.

But I stand by my assertion. Freedom of speech was never meant to protect the popular; they don't need protection. Freedom of speech is meant to protect the unpopular. If that protection is unravelled, even if such a thing begins at the bottom, the process of unravelling will eventually reach us.

[Sundaymorning]

As I mentioned above, I missed that initially. I shouldn't have, so mea culpa.

Had he not distributed those books, however, then I would still oppose firing him.

I mean look, heres the thing: if you would own a company, and one of your employees would write a book which would have passages in it where he describes how much he condemns you and how vile and perverted you and some of your costumers are. And even though he called you all these things and even though some of your costumers would call you and tell you that they don't want anything to do with you anymore, and some of your other employees would quit, you would chose to keep him as an employee, well that would be your choice.

However, this man was a public employee, and thus, this employers were the citizens of Atlanta. And as a public servant, you have to serve everybody and treat everybody with respect. After all, those are the people who pay your salary! And since the offended citizens couldn't fire this fire chief directly cause he heavily insulted them, it was the job of his direct supervisor to make sure that this man respects all of his employers or finds a new job.

And I mean, imagine, if an employee of Kens or the Maxwells company wrote a book slamming them in it. Or if a FRC employee would experience some kind of enlightement and wrote a book about how gay marriage is awesome and the FRC is really stupid. Or if a Mc Donalds employee would write a tell-all book about how horrible McDonalds is. What do you think would happen? Cause I'm pretty sure those people would have to go job hunting very soon. And no one would say anything about how discriminatory it is that they got fired.

Publicly bad-mouthing your employer(s) is actually one of the things that can get you fired for sure. Even in countries with more extended employment rights.