DescentBB

Seems the Democratic Mayor in Atlanta thinks you ought to be fired over your religious beliefs:

"The city of Atlanta fired its fire chief solely because of his religious beliefs about same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court."

Now before you think the fire chief is a christian extremist not able to do his job properly:

"Until last November, Cochran had a stellar record. He was named Atlanta’s fire chief in 2008. He served there until 2009 when he accepted a position in the Obama Administration as a U.S. fire administrator."

So you see even Obama liked him. Additionally:

"He returned to Atlanta in 2010 after Mayor Reed “begged” him to serve as the city’s fire chief. In 2012, Fire Chief magazine named Cochran the “Fire Chief of the Year.”

"Even though an investigation concluded that Cochran had not discriminated against anyone – he was fired."

All this over writing a book.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/ ... latestnews

there was more to it than Faux News lets you in on. Also, this is OLD news, why bring it up now? The matter is about behavior in the workplace, not writing a book, and in the specifics leading to firing, it is about insubordination.

Links or it's not as you say. And "old" news doesn't make the idiot Mayor any less a idiot.

LoL media matters. I'm Sure there is 100% truth written there

callmeslick wrote:http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/07 ... def/202040

Umm, your link only references his book and nowhere does it say that he singled out any gays or anyone else under his command for punishment/firing/ridicule. Your indoctrinated mind may interpret the twisty wording in your link as proof but it is not. Nice try tho.

Seems to me like he should have been reprimanded and put on suspension, before such an extreme action was taken…but hey, it’s impossible to know the truth in the age of the internet.

That site starts out with inflammatory remarks like “anti gay” so I can’t really take anything on that site seriously.

Although I doubt he was fired for being a Christian.

he was fired for distributing the book in the workplace, after being ordered by his superior(the mayor) NOT TO DO SO. It's that simple, and yes, the Media Matters article states that.

callmeslick wrote:he was fired for distributing the book in the workplace, after being ordered by his superior(the mayor) NOT TO DO SO. It's that simple, and yes, the Media Matters article states that.

First, believing George Soross/Media Blather is like me posting a article about Hillary written by the Koch Bros.

Second, define "Distributing". Forcing each employee to take one and read it is one thing, setting a pile of books on the counter and saying "read one if you want to" is quite another. Your sad link makes no such distinction.

There's a little more to it. Not only was he distributing his books to other employees, he went and published it without city permission. He said he got verbal permission, the city says they didn't give it. The lesson is that he should have gotten written permission to write his little sleeze book, then the egg would be on the faces of the city. He's a public employee, so he has to follow the rules of the city administrators. If he wants to go into the private sector and be an outspoken asswipe, then he may just find that even a private company might also object to his religious rantings and fire him too.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/at ... uti/njFMT/

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/at ... -pa/njg3F/

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:he was fired for distributing the book in the workplace, after being ordered by his superior(the mayor) NOT TO DO SO. It's that simple, and yes, the Media Matters article states that.

First, believing George Soross/Media Blather is like me posting a article about Hillary written by the Koch Bros.

Second, define "Distributing". Forcing each employee to take one and read it is one thing, setting a pile of books on the counter and saying "read one if you want to" is quite another. Your sad link makes no such distinction.

distribution by the boss in the workplace, of a book written by the boss is wrong. The link can come from anyplace and wrong is still wrong. What a cheesy defense, Woody...."I don't like the source and will blame my usual BoogieMan, George Soros, and WHINE!" Good job.

I'm only doing what you do when it is someone like Fox News doing the story telling. You are so messed up with trying to explain yourself that you can't remember what you posted 4 hours ago.

As to putting a couple books out and saying here's a book I wrote, you can read it if you want to is hardly a no no. What do you want to promote next? Book banning or better yet how about burning all the books that offend you.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:he was fired for distributing the book in the workplace, after being ordered by his superior(the mayor) NOT TO DO SO. It's that simple, and yes, the Media Matters article states that.

First, believing George Soross/Media Blather is like me posting a article about Hillary written by the Koch Bros.

Second, define "Distributing". Forcing each employee to take one and read it is one thing, setting a pile of books on the counter and saying "read one if you want to" is quite another. Your sad link makes no such distinction.

distribution by the boss in the workplace, of a book written by the boss is wrong. The link can come from anyplace and wrong is still wrong. What a cheesy defense, Woody...."I don't like the source and will blame my usual BoogieMan, George Soros, and WHINE!" Good job.

hypocrite. You just did the EXACT same thing with Fox news in this thread. Pretty pathetic when you call someone out on something that just a few posts earlier you did yourself

I can’t wait for the left wing puke rag has more credibility than the right wing puke rag defense.

the facts come out, then suddenly MY information source is the problem. Incredibly lame. Prove those aren't the exact facts stated in the dismissal records.

Prove that they are

Blinders. That's how people shield their eyes from the dirty, inconvenient truth so that they can tunnel onto what they want to see.

woodchip wrote:Prove that they are

you don't want proof. you want something that reaffirms your belief.

now be a good republitard and jerk off to hillary clinton.

HAHA Ferno, you say something and when called out to back up what you say you give some lame reply to cover up your inability to do so. My hero.

I posted the Mayor's statement, Woody, now prove it wrong(you likely can't).

You posted a left wing hit piece. Come up with a better source.

my source included the Mayor's direct response. Deal with reality, please.

Like I said, if I presented a Koch Bros sponsored story you would be all over the validity of the source. Don't like it when I do the same to you?

I have never questioned direct quotes regardless of sourcing. Ever. Quit whining, put up or shut up. The facts were presented, by the party involved. Now refute them, if you can.

So the “facts” presented here are…

1…from a right wing opinion piece.

2…a left wing counter right wing opinion piece blog.

Laughable…both of you.

Opinions and editorializing galore…the internet…what a ★■◆●ing joke.

mine may have been from a 'left wing' source, but contained the Mayor's statement. That is what I'm about: FACTS, straight from the source in question. I have posted similar from left, right, in between. I simply look for the accurate quotes. Sure, I'll post opinion pieces here, too, but this is not one of those times. I tend to let you know, directly, or otherwise, which are opinion pieces.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Prove that they are

you don't want proof. you want something that reaffirms your belief.

now be a good republitard and jerk off to hillary clinton.

"Republitard". Damn, that's a keeper. I've got remember that one Ferno. Is it trademarked?

Woody and slick are weird. You both start arguing about the source of a particular statement, even when said statement is also in a whole bunch of other sources on the net, like the local TV station for instance, ignoring woody's original rant like it's a side piece.

that's the current state of political discussion. we don't try to debate, we just go straight to discredit and ideology

Well, I have read just about enough on this matter from many sources…

1. He wasn’t fired because he was a Christian.
2. He wasn’t fired because he wrote a book. (If he had wrote about the daisies blooming in the spring, and making little kids smile, there wouldn’t be a peep)

He was fired because of the content of the book, and being stubborn. (but mostly because of the content of the book)

That's the way this whole thing look to me.

he was fired, quite simply, because he was told not to distribute the book on Fire Department premises, and failed to comply. It's called insubordination, and folks get fired every day for that.