3
3
0
From the "World Net Daily"
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/axed-for-his-christianity-fire-chief-fights-back/
Axed for his Christianity, fire chief fights back
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed erupted on Facebook against his fire chief’s personally published book several weeks ago, declaring Kelvin Cochran’s writings “deeply disturbed” him. Reed threatened he would not “tolerate discrimination of any kind” and suspended Cochran.
An investigation cleared Cochran of the discrimination charges, but when his suspension was over, Reed fired him.
Now, one of the nation’s most influential teams of attorneys defending individual and religious rights, the Alliance Defending Freedom, says it is taking up Reed’s case.
“The city fired him for nothing other than his faith, and that’s not constitutional,” said Kevin Theriot, a senior counsel for ADF. “We are currently assessing the legal options available to vindicate his rights to free speech and freedom of religion.”
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- The existence of a law suit is not in question, the only question is how large the judgment is going to be. Of course neither the Mayor nor anyone in the city government is going to have to pay much more than 0.0002% (assuming that I did the math right) of that judgment personally so they really don't care.]
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/axed-for-his-christianity-fire-chief-fights-back/
Axed for his Christianity, fire chief fights back
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed erupted on Facebook against his fire chief’s personally published book several weeks ago, declaring Kelvin Cochran’s writings “deeply disturbed” him. Reed threatened he would not “tolerate discrimination of any kind” and suspended Cochran.
An investigation cleared Cochran of the discrimination charges, but when his suspension was over, Reed fired him.
Now, one of the nation’s most influential teams of attorneys defending individual and religious rights, the Alliance Defending Freedom, says it is taking up Reed’s case.
“The city fired him for nothing other than his faith, and that’s not constitutional,” said Kevin Theriot, a senior counsel for ADF. “We are currently assessing the legal options available to vindicate his rights to free speech and freedom of religion.”
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- The existence of a law suit is not in question, the only question is how large the judgment is going to be. Of course neither the Mayor nor anyone in the city government is going to have to pay much more than 0.0002% (assuming that I did the math right) of that judgment personally so they really don't care.]
Posted in these groups: 
Discrimination
Freedom of Speech
Discrimination Freedom of Speech
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
Yes, sir, I heard about this story before reading your post. It "deeply disturbs" me that people can be fired for voicing Christian beliefs. I guess that's the new "in" in our great country. I count it as part of the moral decline in our great country. Anything goes ... except for being a Christian. (And I'm obviously exaggerating for effect, but not exaggerating a whole lot, as I see it anyhow.)
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW5 (Join to see) Mr. Montgomery; A true cynic would wonder if it was the fact that he was opposed to heterosexual sex outside of a heterosexual marriage that REALLY got him into trouble.
Maybe, as a first step, we should forbid the possession and/or operation of cars with back seats by anyone who is not married to (or the parent of) the only other occupants of that vehicle. That'll fix the horny little beggars.
Maybe, as a first step, we should forbid the possession and/or operation of cars with back seats by anyone who is not married to (or the parent of) the only other occupants of that vehicle. That'll fix the horny little beggars.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The right to free speech does not include an imperative to be employed. Speech that an employer considers disruptive has long been reasonable grounds for dismissal.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Richard I P. Captain; <sarc> Yeah, but this is "Christian" speech protected by 'The BIBLE' and God's Law is higher than any man made law so we should have 'Christ Law' ruling the country.</sarc>
PS - The statement makes just as much sense if you substitute 'Muslim', 'The QU'RAN', and "Sharia'.
PS - The statement makes just as much sense if you substitute 'Muslim', 'The QU'RAN', and "Sharia'.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Captain (Londonderry, NH) ; Are you trying to tell me that NONE of the core concepts of ANY religion are real or valid and that none of them are relevant in the modern world?
[NOTE:- I might buy that position if you are talking about the corporate business structure of "The Church", but that isn't what we are talking about here.)
[NOTE:- I might buy that position if you are talking about the corporate business structure of "The Church", but that isn't what we are talking about here.)
(0)
(0)
MSgt Brian Welch
I do agree with Capt Porter's main argument that an employer can fire based on speech that it finds disruptive. But in this case it's based on a book the the fire chief wrote on the subject of religion. Now if he was pushing those thoughts on duty, maybe. But a privately published book? It depends on the content of the book I suppose.
What if the free speech the employer found objectionable was a sermon he gave in a church as a Minister off duty and never delved into it while on duty?
What if the free speech the employer found objectionable was a sermon he gave in a church as a Minister off duty and never delved into it while on duty?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sir,
They didn't fire him because he was Christian, they fired him because he was a bigot. He says he has the right to express his belief without hate or discrimination, but he views an arbitrary aspect of someone else as a perversion of nature. I'm pretty sure that's the same justification the Nazi's and the KKK use. And, I'm pretty sure if a person had someone working for them that was a part of the aforementioned groups, they'd seek to fire them as well. He views the LGBT as less than human. And, because he has publicly come out with these views, he can no longer be viewed as impartial.
Why are Christians so upset when their religious doctrine cannot be a part of law? Neither can the doctrine of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, ect. I usually see Christians complaining about a supposed "moral" decline happening in today's country. I view it as society moving on from archaic rules and principles. The Bible was written 2000 years ago. Society and humans have change since then; thus, so do the rules which govern us. Just because something is tradition does not mean it is right or useful.
The bottom line is, their rights are not being attacked, they're just not allowed to force their opinions on others. But it seems there are many out there who cannot wrap their heads around this idea. So, they continue to proselytize using anti-homosexual propaganda, and, in this man's case, using his position to do so. Then, they turn around and claim their freedom of speech is being violated when they get reprimanded for violating others' freedom of thought.
They didn't fire him because he was Christian, they fired him because he was a bigot. He says he has the right to express his belief without hate or discrimination, but he views an arbitrary aspect of someone else as a perversion of nature. I'm pretty sure that's the same justification the Nazi's and the KKK use. And, I'm pretty sure if a person had someone working for them that was a part of the aforementioned groups, they'd seek to fire them as well. He views the LGBT as less than human. And, because he has publicly come out with these views, he can no longer be viewed as impartial.
Why are Christians so upset when their religious doctrine cannot be a part of law? Neither can the doctrine of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, ect. I usually see Christians complaining about a supposed "moral" decline happening in today's country. I view it as society moving on from archaic rules and principles. The Bible was written 2000 years ago. Society and humans have change since then; thus, so do the rules which govern us. Just because something is tradition does not mean it is right or useful.
The bottom line is, their rights are not being attacked, they're just not allowed to force their opinions on others. But it seems there are many out there who cannot wrap their heads around this idea. So, they continue to proselytize using anti-homosexual propaganda, and, in this man's case, using his position to do so. Then, they turn around and claim their freedom of speech is being violated when they get reprimanded for violating others' freedom of thought.
(1)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot According to the definition of a bigot, and the beliefs he has stated in his works about homosexuals, he his a bigot. You don't have to act on the thoughts to be a bigot.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA (Join to see) Airman; Quite right. Just as a celibate homosexual priest is still a homosexual even though they aren't having sex with anyone, an inactive homophobic idiot is a homophobic idiot even though they aren't out there "dragging queers behind their pickup trucks".
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google