Atlanta Fire Chief Fired for writing book with anti-gay views

[woodguyatl]

I hope he sues and I hope he wins. He didn't discriminate and didn't state that he intends to discriminate. And his book has nothing to do with his job.

Distributed it at work to subordinates who did not ask for it. Also, City policy required him to get permission to publish the book in the first place, which he did not do. Those are the grounds for the firing. If the Chief won't follow rules he should be fired regardless of his views on homosexuality.

Even the national union agreed with his firing.

 

[cooks1]

I wasn't speaking to that specific image since I don't know it's origin.

And I agree that gay people don't emasculate their opponents more or less than anyone else but I would think it should be less. Primarily because the LGBT crowd has raised concerns about how people attempt to stereotype them by painting them as effeminate when plenty of gay men are not.

Sort of like this thing about bottom shaming in the gay community where being a "bottom" gets treated differently than being a top. It's just interesting to me how even in the fight to receive equal treatment, the very stereotypes that people are fighting against can still influence thinking and behavior within the stereotyped group.

I'm not criticizing it, just observing it.

Even people that are discriminated against are capable of discrimination. Perhaps even more capable. Many gays are prejudiced toward transgender people and do not like being 'lumped' in with them even as they are gaining more rights.

It's highly amusing to me that for the next 20 years or so, the group that will feel the most discrimination is The Discriminators . We are seeing it already in abundance. Right now most of them are trying to hide under the 'God Rock' but if recent examples like this fire chief are any indication, that will not be a safe place to justify your prejudice much longer. Some are trying to hide under the 'Freedom Rock' as well. But they can only survive in pockets where bigots are concentrated enough to support each other. Soon tourists will probably visit these little enclaves like they would a museum or zoo. "Look Suzie, there is a real live bigot, and ooh!!!- There is a restaurant where only bigots go."

 

[cooks1]

I hope he sues and I hope he wins. He didn't discriminate and didn't state that he intends to discriminate. And his book has nothing to do with his job.

I'm not completely sure firing was the right way to go, but he made the book part of his job. He took his book to his job. His book on religious values that denounces the values of others. He took that book to his job and passed it out to some but not all of his subordinates. In his own words, he passed the book out to those he had identified as 'believers'.

I own a company and employ a dozen people. I would never consider doing this. And any employee trying to disperse religions material -whether it was written by their own hand or another- or promote their religious beliefs on company time would quickly find their position untenable. That's not unreasonable, so while discussing this, let's not act as if this cat did nothing wrong.

A place of business is not an appropriate place for proselytizing.

I think that while Atlanta is justified in firing him, the more appropriate course of action would have been to take the opportunity to educate the fire chief and the entire department that proselytizing on company time is not appropriate.

I suspect this might more challenging for firemen to adhere to than some other professions. As they are more likely to spend long periods of time together in groups 'waiting for the bell to ring' than most other professions. Gotta talk about something.

 

[panamaican]

Distributed it at work to subordinates who did not ask for it. Also, City policy required him to get permission to publish the book in the first place, which he did not do. Those are the grounds for the firing. If the Chief won't follow rules he should be fired regardless of his views on homosexuality.

Even the national union agreed with his firing.

What I read says there's no city policy that requires permission but I didn't look too deep. Link?

 

[panamaican]

He took his book to his job. He took it to his job and passed it out to some but not all of his subordinates. In his own words he passed the book out to those he had identified as 'believers'.

Right. But that doesn't make the book itself work related and thus an actionable offense. BKKMMA posted the S.Ct. position on this right after my post. If the published remarks are related to the job then they're not protected speech and the government can act.

This is a book about Christianity, not the Atlanta Fire Department - it's not related to his job and so protected by free speech. Passing it out at work is no different than writing a book of children's nursery rhymes and passing it out to the people you think have kids.

Now if he really was told not to do something during an investigation and circumvented that request (which I read somewhere else), that's something he can fired over.

 

[panamaican]

Even people that are discriminated against are capable of discrimination. Perhaps even more capable. Many gays are prejudiced toward transgender people and do not like being 'lumped' in with them even as they are gaining more rights.

It's highly amusing to me that for the next 20 years or so, the group that will feel the most discrimination is The Discriminators . We are seeing it already in abundance. Right now most of them are trying to hide under the 'God Rock' but if recent examples like this fire chief are any indication, that will not be a safe place to justify your prejudice much longer. Some are trying to hide under the 'Freedom Rock' as well. But they can only survive in pockets where bigots are concentrated enough to support each other. Soon tourists will probably visit these little enclaves like the would a museum or zoo. "Look Suzie, there is a real live bigot, and ooh!!!- There is a restaurant where only bigots go."

I think it's unfortunate to an extent. It doesn't bother me that public backlash against discriminatory behavior has ramped up to this extent. I think that's a great thing for our society. But there is some concern if people are going to start leveraging the government to force people to change their private thoughts. A completely different matter is where the government is actually carrying out a role and so has a responsibility to minimize discrimination and bigotry.

so, I support the bakers getting fined because the business is in the public square and governed by statute. But I don't support the fire chief getting fired because his book is completely unrelated to his job. I support Sterling losing his team because the government had no role in that. And I'd support that Boston professor losing her job for the same reason.

I guess I see it like this - I'm fine arguing about the rights and wrongs of people's behaviors and beliefs and I'm not fine trying to get the government to punish those beliefs. I rather the government protect people from victimization while allowing people their beliefs.

Interesting side story. I'm on the board of directors for my building and I was talking with a resident about something. He wanted to write a requirement for civility into our bylaws which I opposed. We both agreed that civility was extremely important so he couldn't see why I wouldn't want to penalize people for being assholes. Being as asshole is part of being free and being a discriminator is too (so long as you don't leverage the government to further your ends).

 

[PainIsLIfe]

He wrote that he views teh gayness as a sexual perversion and that he leads his department in accordance with these beliefs. I see how this could be an issue. The department gets associated with these views.

IMO, it depends on the process in place:

1) Was he obliged to get prior approval (per law or contract or policy)?
2) If so, did he fail to get it?

If the question to these questions is yes, you do not need to get excited about all this because he then committed a policy violation. If the answer is no, well, the question would be if voicing these views interfere with his abilities to make his job. He said himself that he considers his religious beliefs in his leadership decisions. However, I fail to see how it really can be shown that it interferes with his job. Unless he said 'would not promote gay eople' or 'would extinguish fire extra slow in liberal neighbourhoods' etc., I do not really buy that.

The final argument would be that it hurts public trust in the department. This is something that may technically true, but the question is whether he could necessarily foresee this. I would say no, which is why the question of approval comes into play again.

Not what he said. It was something along the lines of he runs the department with Biblical principles and for the glory of God.

- obviously suspending firemen for posting on FB about their support for chic-fa-lay shows that he didn't encourage any stonings of the gays.

 

[JDragon]

Not what he said. It was something along the lines of he runs the department with Biblical principles and for the glory of God.

- obviously suspending firemen for posting on FB about their support for chic-fa-lay shows that he didn't encourage any stonings of the gays.

He still is the one responsible for not clearly separating his private views from his profession.

Anyway: I think the two questions are key to determine whether it was truly at his superior's discretion to fire him. I do not think anybody here can answer this at this stage.

 

[klnOmega]

The fact that he suspended workers for supporting Chic-fil-et makes me secretly happy that he got fired.

If he doesn't stand up for others right to express their beliefs, why should I care about his?

 

[skombolis]

Distributed it at work to subordinates who did not ask for it. Also, City policy required him to get permission to publish the book in the first place, which he did not do. Those are the grounds for the firing. If the Chief won't follow rules he should be fired regardless of his views on homosexuality.

Even the national union agreed with his firing.

That doesn't mean much these days. Or shouldn't but unfortunately not a lot of people know why or would have a way of knowing. Most unions are in bed with corporate. Our national union supported the firing of someone who on personal property, on personal time, put together a protest about the contract in 2011. That's supposed to be the whole fucking point of a union, along with collective bargaining, worker safety, and pay. You are supposed to be able to unionize and speak your mind against things you are unhappy with when on your own time and dime.

The union being in bed with corporate makes it worse than not having a union because of this very reason. People can point to the fact that their own union didn't support them so it is presumed they have to be wrong. Whether he was or not i guarantee you never came into play. They decided he was a public liability from a P.R. standpoint and the union sacrificed him up. That's just how things work these days.

 

[skombolis]

The fact that he suspended workers for supporting Chic-fil-et makes me secretly happy that he got fired.

If he doesn't stand up for others right to express their beliefs, why should I care about his?

When did this come out? That sounds illegal. If he did that, I would be way less inclined to care as well that the same thing happened to him essentially, just worse. Is there a link or something that shows this? I haven't read the entire thread. It would also go a long way to arguing their was discrimination within the workplace and he was creating a hostile work environment.

 

[JosephDredd]

He absolutely should not have been fired unless there was some evidence that on the job he discriminated against gay people, or unless his views caused so much furor among his staff that he was no longer an effective leader. Especially because this was presumably a government job, as the government should not be in the business of establishing ideological litmus tests for non-partisan public office. Was he a good fire chief? Was there any evidence that he refused or delayed fire fighting services to gay people or gay neighborhoods? Does he refuse to hire potential fire fighters he thinks might be gay? If not, then firing him was completely out of line.

If it were a private business I think it would be different as those have reputations to consider and have no obligation to maintain employment of people with ideologies that diverge from the corporate line, but the state has no such concerns and additionally has the burden of acting in a non-ideological, non-partisan fashion in the provision of public goods and services. This strikes me as a reactionary decision that, while somewhat understandable from an emotional perspective, sets a dangerous precedent that you can remove people from government for having beliefs you don't like even when those beliefs don't affect their job performance.

I think this is the first time I've disagreed with you. I can understand why they fired him. It's the government's job to promote and uphold equality and it's inappropriate for its employees to advocate against equality.

 

[phoenixikki]

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[skombolis]

The larger question I think is whether a work environment is a place for any of this to transpire.

Is it appropriate for an employee to bring into their place of business their own book they wrote about religious principles regarding sex and marriage, or the bible, or the Koran, or the Al Jilwah and start passing it around?

Why shouldn't it be though? The Constitution guarantees our freedom of religious expression. If what he did was disruptive or created a hostile work environment then No he shouldn't be allowed. But if he handed out some copies to friends, what is the termination for cause?

I guess that is the bigger question to me. I could even go as far as agreeing it may not always be appropriate. But does it rise to level of a firing for cause action? That's a pretty dangerous precedent IMO.

For example, many companies have policies forbidding discussions or religion or politics during work hours. They figure you are there to work, not get into debates that are likely to become hostile and then create tension, bad for morale, etc. Let's say the day after Obama was elected one guy passes another guy in the hall and says "pretty convincing victory" and the other guy says "yep, it was good to see" and they keep going. If it was reported should they be fired for cause? They weren't in the lunchroom standing on table calling people racists that didn't vote for him.

I don't know what the policy was that got him fired for cause but for what has come out so far, this seems like may be using some real technical letter of the law shit that nobody would have ever thought would be enforced. But I gotta see the reasons first to say for sure.

 

[cooks1]

I think it's unfortunate to an extent. It doesn't bother me that public backlash against discriminatory behavior has ramped up to this extent. I think that's a great thing for our society. But there is some concern if people are going to start leveraging the government to force people to change their private thoughts. A completely different matter is where the government is actually carrying out a role and so has a responsibility to minimize discrimination and bigotry.

so, I support the bakers getting fined because the business is in the public square and governed by statute. But I don't support the fire chief getting fired because his book is completely unrelated to his job. I support Sterling losing his team because the government had no role in that. And I'd support that Boston professor losing her job for the same reason.

I guess I see it like this - I'm fine arguing about the rights and wrongs of people's behaviors and beliefs and I'm not fine trying to get the government to punish those beliefs. I rather the government protect people from victimization while allowing people their beliefs.

Interesting side story. I'm on the board of directors for my building and I was talking with a resident about something. He wanted to write a requirement for civility into our bylaws which I opposed. We both agreed that civility was extremely important so he couldn't see why I wouldn't want to penalize people for being assholes. Being as asshole is part of being free and being a discriminator is too (so long as you don't leverage the government to further your ends).

LOL-Civility clause. Your neighbor should just move to Singapore, he would love it there. And there there are definite positives in that kind of system that compensate you for the freedoms you give up.

We are really not that far off. I am fine with people believing what they want. And if a person wants to discriminate in their personal life, that's up to them. They can find a white heterosexual garder and maid all they want. And they can certainly congregate with like-minded people in their private lives and bitch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

The challenge is this age though is that private life, public life, and work life are much more easily entangled than at any other point in human history.

People put their personal 'private' thoughts and opinions of Facebook. But the whole world can see it. It's not really personal and private any more now is it? So the guy that 20 years ago told his neighbor he hated gays today tells the world he hates gays. And since his place of employment can be on Facebook or people know where he works, He has now also said, 'I work for XYZ and I hate gays' Then the company clips him and people bitch about the 'thought police'.

I think I will always err on the side of a company or entity that want to separate itself from a person who has shown the world a value system that is abhorrent to them.

People can still think what they want, and have thier own beliefs. It is just harder than ever to keep those thoughts and beliefs personal. But that is an individuals responsibility. And the bigoted person is going to have to be much more mindful of this than the non-bigoted. And that is just fine with me.

 

[Harmonica]

People put their personal 'private' thoughts and opinions of Facebook. But the whole world can see it. It's not really personal and private any more now is it? So the guy that 20 years ago told his neighbor he hated gays today tells the world he hates gays. And since his place of employment can be on Facebook or people know where he works, He has now also said, 'I work for XYZ and I hate gays'

Yeah, people are stupid enough to believe that private remains private in spite of it being on the internet. What baffles me is what makes people so eager to voice their opinion on everyone and everything, why not keep it to yourself and people closest to you ? Seeing how it may fuck up your life, it would be a smart thing to do.

 

[cooks1]

Why shouldn't it be though? The Constitution guarantees our freedom of religious expression. If what he did was disruptive or created a hostile work environment then No he shouldn't be allowed. But if he handed out some copies to friends, what is the termination for cause?

I guess that is the bigger question to me. I could even go as far as agreeing it may not always be appropriate. But does it rise to level of a firing for cause action? That's a pretty dangerous precedent IMO.

For example, many companies have policies forbidding discussions or religion or politics during work hours. They figure you are there to work, not get into debates that are likely to become hostile and then create tension, bad for morale, etc. Let's say the day after Obama was elected one guy passes another guy in the hall and says "pretty convincing victory" and the other guy says "yep, it was good to see" and they keep going. If it was reported should they be fired for cause? They weren't in the lunchroom standing on table calling people racists that didn't vote for him.

I don't know what the policy was that got him fired for cause but for what has come out so far, this seems like may be using some real technical letter of the law shit that nobody would have ever thought would be enforced. But I gotta see the reasons first to say for sure.

Are you trying to make the argument that a person does not have the right of religions expression unless they are allowed to proselytize at work? I don't think that is what the framers had in mind, do you?

You bring up a salient point though about the scale of the action. Making a comment about an election victory is certainly different than say, passing out pro Obama or Pro Romney stickers. I am not sure where the line should be drawn for termination grounds. But I would say selectively passing out a book written by thine own hand to pre-determined subordinates decrying extra marital and gay sex as a sin probably should cross it. But obviously you should always look at the history of the employee as well. If this was a case of an otherwise exemplary fire chief who made a mistake by crossing the line and was contrite afterwards, and promised not to do this in the future, one might consider acting differently. I'm not sure that was the case here though.

 

[panamaican]

LOL-Civility clause. Your neighbor should just move to Singapore, he would love it there. And there there are definite positives in that kind of system that compensate you for the freedoms you give up.

We are really not that far off. I am fine with people believing what they want. And if a person wants to discriminate in their personal life, that's up to them. They can find a white heterosexual garder and maid all they want. And they can certainly congregate with like-minded people in their private lives and bitch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

The challenge is this age though is that private life, public life, and work life are much more easily entangled than at any other point in human history.

People put their personal 'private' thoughts and opinions of Facebook. But the whole world can see it. It's not really personal and private any more now is it? So the guy that 20 years ago told his neighbor he hated gays today tells the world he hates gays. And since his place of employment can be on Facebook or people know where he works, He has now also said, 'I work for XYZ and I hate gays'
Then the company clips him and people bitch about the 'thought police'.

Agreed. The ability to broadcast those personal beliefs has changed the game for racists, bigots, etc. Before they could control the message and act with impunity, now everyone knows and they have to deal with it.

I particularly despise the people that cry "thought police" when a private company fires an employee for something that would hurt the company's image.

I think there's an unfortunate amount of people who think that freedom means freedom from consequences. And there's an unfortunate amount of people who think that gaining equality means that they must, in turn, penalize those who previously worked against them.

I try to stay in the middle. Freedom comes with consequences and fighting against discrimination doesn't require you to harm those who discriminated to "prove" you've now won the issue. As my dad says "I'm not anti-you, I'm pro-me." I think it's a hard line to walk.

 

[skombolis]

Are you trying to make the argument that a person does not have the right of religions expression unless they are allowed to proselytize at work? I don't think that is what the framers had in mind, do you?

No, that is not the argument I am trying to make. My point is we have the right to freedom of religious expression but work has the right to put limits on that while on their dime. The limits however, should be within reason.

You bring up a salient point though about the scale of the action. Making a comment about of an election victory is certainly different than say, passing out pro Obama or Pro Romney stickers. I am not sure where the line should be drawn for termination grounds, but I would say selectively passing out a book written by thine own hand to pre-determined subordinates decrying extra marital and gay sex as a sin probably should cross it. But obviously you should always look at the history of the employee as well. If this was a case of an otherwise exemplary fire chief who made a mistake by crossing the line and was contrite afterwards, and promised not to do this in the future, one might consider acting differently. I'm not sure that was the case here though.

He gave a book with common held religious beliefs (involving all sorts of sin, not just centered on homosexuality) to some people he probably knew were believers. As far as I know he didn't advocate discriminating against any sinner and may very well (and should) consider himself a sinner as well. How did that cause harm to others? I think that needs to be demonstrated to rise to level of fired for cause. They may be able to prove that. I simply would like to see the details that would allow them to make that argument. So far, i haven't.

 

[cooks1]

Agreed. The ability to broadcast those personal beliefs has changed the game for racists, bigots, etc. Before they could control the message and act with impunity, now everyone knows and they have to deal with it.

I particularly despise the people that cry "thought police" when a private company fires an employee for something that would hurt the company's image.

I think there's an unfortunate amount of people who think that freedom means freedom from consequences. And there's an unfortunate amount of people who think that gaining equality means that they must, in turn, penalize those who previously worked against them.

I try to stay in the middle. Freedom comes with consequences and fighting against discrimination doesn't require you to harm those who discriminated to "prove" you've now won the issue. As my dad says "I'm not anti-you, I'm pro-me." I think it's a hard line to walk.

Definitely agree. Soldiers are out there dying for our freedoms. Yet back on US soil people menstruate about being ostracized or fired for their freedoms. Ironically these are the same people that have the 'freedom isn't free' bumper sticker on their trucks. It's like people think they should be allowed to be douchebags without being treated like douchebags. Hirlarious.

Oppressing your oppressors is much harder to avoid doing. If someone had been kicking your ass for a good long while, would it be easy for you to walk away the split second you got the upper hand, or would you want to hang back for a bit and give them a little taste of being the nail? In the long run though, it is definitely not productive.