Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67
Thanks Tree67Thanks

Thread: Judge Rules in Favor of Fired Christian Fire Chief: Gov’t Can’t Put Out Fire of Faith

  1. #1
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state

    Judge Rules in Favor of Fired Christian Fire Chief: Gov’t Can’t Put Out Fire of Faith

    And until a few years ago, he was the Chief of the Atlanta Fire Department, a job he would probably still hold if city officials had any respect for Cochran’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.Cochran got into trouble over a book he wrote on his own time for a small group that he led in his church. The book entitled “Who Told You That You Were Naked?,” was directed at Christian men seeking to fulfill their biblical roles as “husbands, fathers, community and business leaders.” Six of the book’s 162 pages—yes, that’s 3.7 percent—addressed a biblical perspective on sexuality. As David French summed up, Cochran took “the completely conventional, orthodox Christian position that sex outside of male–female marriage is contrary to God’s will,” which “is the position of the Catholic Church and every orthodox Protestant denomination in the United States.”



    Unfortunately, “orthodoxy” is defined very differently at Atlanta’s City Hall. When the contents of Cochran’s book came to the attention of Mayor Kasim Reed, Reed ultimately fired Cochran, but not before saying “when you’re a city employee, and [your] thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”That makes it sound like Cochran was fired for his beliefs; but the city denied that. Instead it claimed that he was let go because he didn’t obtain permission before publishing the book.The problem is that, constitutionally-speaking, the city cannot require employees to get permission before expressing their religious views.Late last month, a federal court agreed. It concluded that the Atlanta pre-clearance policy “does not pass constitutional muster” because it does not “set out objective standards for the supervisor to employ.” As a result, the opinion continues, it “would prevent an employee from writing and selling a book on golf or badminton on his own time and, without prior approval, would subject him to firing. It’s unclear to the Court how such an outside employment would ever affect the City’s ability to function, and the City provides no evidence to justify it … The potential for stifled speech far outweighs an unsupported assertion of harm.”

    Still, as Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kevin Theriot emphasizes, the court ruled that Cochran’s firing was unconstitutional. According to Theriot, who represented Cochran, the ruling “sets a precedent that says that government employers have to be very careful about how they restrict the speech of their employees when they’re talking about non-work related stuff.”This is a real concern. Rules like Atlanta’s have had a chilling effect on the free speech of people on platforms such as social media. People have legitimately feared the consequences of speaking up for traditional Christian beliefs even on their own time. This ruling is an important step in the direction of eliminating that chill.

    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/j...t-put-out-fire

    Looks like the Government can't force a religious person to leave their beliefs at the door when they go to work like the city of Atlanta wanted. Glad to see the Atlanta Fire chief Cochran was justified in his actions. He didn't need permission to write his book on his own time as the judge found. A win in this case for Christians means a loss for Secularist that have been trying to control what Christians do even when they are off work. Good job Cochran and I hope you get your job back and win all past pay.

  2. #2
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    39,986
    Thanks
    38398

    From
    United States
    Cochran didn't win. The judge ruled that his firing was both reasonable and legal. She did, however, also rule that the City of Atlanta's pre-clearance rules for authorship were unconstitutional.

    That's not a win for Cochran. He's still just as fired as he ever was.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Cochran didn't win. The judge ruled that his firing was both reasonable and legal. She did, however, also rule that the City of Atlanta's pre-clearance rules for authorship were unconstitutional.

    That's not a win for Cochran. He's still just as fired as he ever was.
    The reasons for firing were unconstitutional. They couldn't fire him because he didn't leave his beliefs at the door, or because of the book he wrote when he was not working. Work cannot dictate the way you are supposed to think and that's what the judge said. Cochran could get back pay and his job back. The city of Atlanta did something wrong and the judge said so.

  4. #4
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    39,986
    Thanks
    38398

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The reasons for firing were unconstitutional. They couldn't fire him because he didn't leave his beliefs at the door, or because of the book he wrote when he was not working. Work cannot dictate the way you are supposed to think and that's what the judge said. Cochran could get back pay and his job back. The city of Atlanta did something wrong and the judge said so.

    No. You're wrong about that.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #5
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,612
    Thanks
    34220

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/



    Furthermore, from the OP article itself:

    Unfortunately for Cochran, that glass is only half-full. The court rejected Cochran’s claim that his rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated by his firing.
    See also:

    https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvfdco161013000095
    Last edited by Ian Jeffrey; 27th May 2018 at 08:03 PM.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    No. You're wrong about that.
    When the contents of Cochran’s book came to the attention of Mayor Kasim Reed, Reed ultimately fired Cochran, but not before saying “when you’re a city employee, and [your] thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”That makes it sound like Cochran was fired for his beliefs; but the city denied that. Instead it claimed that he was let go because he didn’t obtain permission before publishing the book.The problem is that, constitutionally-speaking, the city cannot require employees to get permission before expressing their religious views.Late last month, a federal court agreed. It concluded that the Atlanta pre-clearance policy “does not pass constitutional muster” because it does not “set out objective standards for the supervisor to employ.” From the OP. Want to read this again?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    10,799
    Thanks
    8923

    From
    In my mind
    The opinion piece cited in the OP is from January. The dude is still fired.
    Thanks from Friday13 and the watchman

  8. #8
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    39,986
    Thanks
    38398

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    When the contents of Cochran’s book came to the attention of Mayor Kasim Reed, Reed ultimately fired Cochran, but not before saying “when you’re a city employee, and [your] thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”That makes it sound like Cochran was fired for his beliefs; but the city denied that. Instead it claimed that he was let go because he didn’t obtain permission before publishing the book.The problem is that, constitutionally-speaking, the city cannot require employees to get permission before expressing their religious views.Late last month, a federal court agreed. It concluded that the Atlanta pre-clearance policy “does not pass constitutional muster” because it does not “set out objective standards for the supervisor to employ.” From the OP. Want to read this again?

    I know all about this case. This is at least the third time you've posted about it, and you've misrepresented the facts in every one of those threads.

    Do you never get bored with it?

  9. #9
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I know all about this case. This is at least the third time you've posted about it, and you've misrepresented the facts in every one of those threads.

    Do you never get bored with it?
    The court denied most of Cochran’s constitutional claims but found in his favor on the unconstitutionality of the City’s policies requiring “pre-clearance” before writing a book. (That apparent ambiguity may be why some outlets appear to have said the Court “sided with Atlanta,” which belies the fact Atlanta was defending and did not prevail in its defense — meaning the Court actually sided with Cochran.)

    In its legal filings, the City claimed it fired Cochran because of the issue of pre-clearance — and not because of his beliefs. Thus, on what even the City admits was the core constitutional issue related to his firing, Cochran won.

    There is some concern, however, in the way the court tossed out the other constitutional claims. For example, in granting the City’s position on some of the other points, the Court essentially said any individual person’s potential offense — even deceitful and manufactured offense — was sufficient justification for the City to act against Cochran
    That asinine logic takes the heckler’s veto — no, the ignoramus’ veto — to a whole new level. The idea that the government should proactively restrict an individual citizen’s liberty because another person might possibly, and falsely, claim discrimination is beyond the pale.

    Apply that logic to the military: Should a military officer who is a “known” Christian be allowed to command a unit — if, possibly, one of his subordinates might falsely claim animus or discrimination because of their preferred sexuality?

    That’s an argument that should fall on its face, yet it is the one presented as a legal conclusion by a judge. It is also not hypothetical within in the US military.

    When the government “prohibits the free exercise thereof” to avoid someone being offended, it tramples on protected human rights to preserve someone’s personal feelings.

    For now, it seems Cochran has prevailed on the merits of being fired. Whether the claims against the exercise of his liberties are re-addressed remains to be seen.Fired Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran Wins Lawsuit Against Atlanta ? God and Country

    I remember the Liberals arguing on a thread I started a few years ago, where they all said Cochran was fired for not getting permission to write his book. Well the judge ruled on this issue and said he did not need permission to write his book, it was unconstitutional for the city of Atlanta to do this.

  10. #10
    El Psy Kongroo Lunchboxxy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,694
    Thanks
    16018

    From
    Oregon
    I think you must be hallucinating, because that is absolutely not what the judge ruled

    Judge Leigh May says Reed’s termination of Cochran did not violate his rights to free speech or religious expression. This wasn’t a case of Reed discriminating against Cochran because of his views, according to the judge.
    The only somewhat victory she gave was that the city can’t make people get permission for writing a book

    However, she did find that the city’s policy of requiring employees to get permission before taking outside work – as in, writing a book – is unconstitutional.
    That has nothing to do with religious rights what so ever.
    Last edited by Lunchboxxy; 27th May 2018 at 09:36 PM.
    Thanks from KnotaFrayed, Friday13 and boontito

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22nd December 2017, 01:54 PM
  2. Trial To Begin For Christian Fire Chief Allegedly Fired For His Faith.
    By the watchman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29th July 2016, 08:23 PM
  3. Atlanta Fire Chief Fired for Expressing Christian Beliefs
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 893
    Last Post: 28th March 2016, 07:20 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 28th March 2015, 06:30 AM
  5. Judge rules in favor of mandatory anthrax inoculations
    By Blueneck in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 1st March 2008, 01:43 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed