Yesterday, Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired from Atlanta's fire brigade following a one-month suspension over a book he self-published in 2013 called "Who Told You that You Were Naked?". The book is a religious mix of homophobia, sexism and anti-semitism.
Here's what he said:
“Uncleanness — whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”
“Naked men refuse to give in, so they pursue sexual fulfillment through multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body-temple and dishonor God.”
To answer the question of if he should be fired purely for the reason of what he said, I will use my "just and civilized society" test.
Part 1: Are the views expressed by Cochran wholly incompatible with the operation of a just and civilized society, such that if society behaved in accordance with them, it would be neither just nor civilized?
The answer: an obvious yes. If a society treats gay people as "perverted", "vile" and "vulgar", it would be neither just nor civilized.
With one prong of the test met, I find that at the very least, the city is justified in firing him. We now move to the other prong:
Does the employment of Cochran by the city either endorse his views, or aid and abet the propagation of them?
The answer: his employment does not constitute an endorsement of his views by the city. You don't automatically endorse the views of everyone you hire. However, he had distributed his book to the firefighters that he led. Thus, his employment was aiding and abetting the propagation of his views.
With both prongs of the test met, my conclusion is that the city is morally obliged to fire him. However, even setting aside that reason, there are many others.
The first is that Cochran, through his actions, is in violation of Atlanta's non-discrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity. As you can see here, their anti-discrimination laws apply to "[a]ll City of Atlanta decisions and actions" and "[e]mployment, subcontracting and union membership decisions by contractors doing business with the City." In my opinion, the hiring of a man who uses his position to discriminate against gay people, women and Jews violates Atlanta's laws. So the city is obliged by its own laws to fire him.
Secondly, someone who holds the views that he holds is not fit for the job that he is in. Just as I would not vote for a homophobic, sexist and anti-semitic President, nor would I tolerate a homophobic, sexist and anti-semitic fire chief. If you're in command of a group of people, you need to have respect for them. Some people, because of their beliefs, do disqualify themselves from certain positions. It is possible that your beliefs Viki Knox, a former teacher in New Jersey, resigned in October 2012 after a homophobic Facebook post from 2011. While she resigned, there had been movement toward firing her.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookan put it this way:
When you have more than 1,000 people working under your command, you can't go around publicly suggesting that some of them are perverts on a par with those who indulge in bestiality or child sexual abuse, as Cochran did in a self-published book. When you serve as a top manager in a government that has pledged not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, you can't suggest to workers that such discrimination might be justified, as Cochran did by distributing copies of that book to his subordinates.
Could a Klansman lead a majority black fire brigade? Of course not. Your suitability for a job is not just affected by your ability to do your job. It's also affected by your ability to lead your subordinates in harmony and respect. Prejudiced and bigoted views make doing so impossible. So yeah, he had to go. To all the right-wing victim complex Christian conservative crybabies, I say: If he had written about Christians using similar language, he would also have to go. You are also protected by Atlanta's non-discrimination policy. It works for you as well, even though it worked against you in this case.
I guess the next question is: are the city's actions constitutional? The answer is yes. They do not breach the Establishment Clause, as someone with these homophobic views would have been fired regardless of religion. Christianity has not been disestablished under other religions. They do not breach the Free Exercise Clause, as firing him for writing this book does not constitute a "prohibition". He has not been banned from doing so. They do not breach the Free Speech Clause, as the Supreme Court has held that "[s]tatements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline." (Garcetti v. Ceballos) (Wikipedia's description of holding) As Cochran had distributed his book at work to his subordinates, his actions have no First Amendment protection. And the Free Association Clause is interesting. Forcing Atlanta to keep him employed could very well be in violation of its right to free association, as well as that of the firefighters (who support his dismissal). There's no constitutional right to work for the government, or to get a contract with the government. On the other hand, the government has the right to choose who it hires.
But don't expect any of this to appease the RWVCCCCs. From the Family Research Council:
Atlanta’s Kelvin Cochran knows all about fire -- but being fired? That’s a whole new experience -- one Cochran hopes other Christians never face. The long-time member of the city’s Fire Rescue Department was forced out of the squad in a shocking display of anti-religious prejudice after a distinguished career that an appointment by the Obama administration as the U.S. Fire Administrator.
[...]
In one of the greater ironies of the controversy, the New York Times covered Cochran’s story in today’s paper, just a few pages over from an editorial in which it proclaims that there are no consequences for religious liberty in the marriage debate! It would be comical if it weren’t so tragic. Meanwhile, Mayor Reed, who’s feeling the heat from this firestorm, insists that Kelvin’s “personal religious beliefs are not the issue” -- which is ridiculous, since that’s exactly what he’s being fired for!
[...]
Obviously, it’s one thing to use your platform to intimidate subordinates, but the idea that you should have to surrender your First Amendment rights merely for being a public servant is outrageous. What’s to prevent the government from going after another employer or contractor? Clearly, the goal is to sanitize the public space of all religious content -- whether or not it’s constitutional, which this is.
First, liberals wanted Americans to check our beliefs at the workplace door. Now they want us to check them at the door to our personal life. Increasingly, the expectation is that anyone in public service shouldn’t serve in Sunday school, lead Bible studies, write books, or believe anything contrary to the state religion of secularism.
From the
Faith and Freedom Coalition:
We are shocked and disappointed that an employee can be removed from a position of public service for his personally held views. Mr. Cochran's personal views did not inhibit over 20 years of decorated service, including being asked by the White House to serve as US Fire Administrator. But apparently Atlanta City Hall feels that, despite obvious professional qualification, certain personal points of view are not welcome.
Erick Erickson
suggested that we're like the terrorists who shot at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris:
The terrorist wants to sow fear. The destruction of an individual is not just meant to be a tool of vengeance, but a tool of instruction. It shows others what will happen to them if they dare do the same. It is generates self-regulating peer pressure. Others, fearing the fall out, will being to self-police and self-regulate. They will silence others on behalf of the terrorists. Out of fear, they will drive the ideas from the public square and society will make them off limits.
[...]
So when a publisher published something that mocked and offended a group prone to offense at such things, something had to happen.
The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender.
So they demanded the Mayor of Atlanta fire the Chief of the Fire Department for daring to write that his first duty was to “glory God” and that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was a sin.
And the terrorists won in Atlanta.
From
NOM:
The book contains, among other things, explanations of Mr. Cochran's biblically-based beliefs about sexuality and marriage, which predictably brought the wrath of LGBT activists who want to intimidate and bully anyone who dares speak out against their radical agenda to redefine marriage!
Marriage Supporter, this is an outrage, and we need to speak out against it! Please click here to sign a petition of support for Mr. Cochran and to urge the Mayor to reinstate him as Fire Chief and formally apologize to all people of faith for this harmful action.
Mr. Cochran was simply exercising his First Amendment rights, publishing a book as a private individual and not making any claims as a representative of the city. His views—which, incidentally, are views shared by a majority of Georgians and a majority of people throughout the country and across the globe—have no bearing on whether he is fit to serve as the city's Fire Chief. There is simply no justification for firing him on the basis of this book!
But, of course, the radical gay agenda isn't interested in the First Amendment, or in the values of tolerance and respect for a diversity of opinions. They simply want to silence any opposition and turn traditional values about marriage and family into the social and legal equivalent of hate speech and bigotry.
We cannot stand by and allow this kind of bullying and intimidation to continue. Click here right away to sign our petition and to say, "Enough is enough!"
And after you've taken action today, please use the buttons below to share this message with your family and friends and encourage them to take action as well.
We need to stand united against the intolerant bullies who want to drive good people like you and me and Mr. Cochran from the public square in shame. For the sake of future generations' rights to express their beliefs without fear of reprisal, we need to stop this kind of thing from continuing to happen.
First of all, we encounter their hypocrisy in the same blog post. They call for "tolerance and respect for a diversity". Of course, this runs completely one way. They expect us to be completely tolerant and respectful of Cochran's homophobia. But do they expect him to be tolerant and respectful of people who are not like him? Like hell. They applaud his explicit rejection of a diversity of sexual orientations and gender identities. They don't want him to have to accept it. But when it comes to opinions, which should be open to scrutiny (unlike sexual orientation/gender identity), they expect us to accept diversity. Well, fuck that. Dream on, NOM. It's not going to happen.
I have something else that I want to say about their claims about "tolerance", "respect" and "diversity". I have often argued against the knee-jerk demonization of contrary opinions. I believe that that is detrimental to serious discussions, and prevents an opinion that may be correct from spreading, and thus improving society. (This opinion does not seem to be very popular.) I still do hold that position, but it does not apply in two cases: lies/falsehoods, and opinions that are wholly incompatible with the operation of a just and civilized society. This is that, and we should condemn Cochran. His homophobia is no different to racism. We can't not challenge a pernicious belief just because quite a few people believe it. So yes: I fully agree with loud condemnation of Cochran and his opinions.
To the RWVCCCCs: No amount of false victimhood, grievance mongering and cries of persecution will ever deter us from challenging your sick beliefs.
3:59 PM PT: The diary has been clarified to point out that Cochran had distributed the book at work to his subordinates. As per Garcetti v. Ceballos, this removes First Amendment protection from employer discipline. I'd like to thank coffeetalk for bringing that to my attention.