The ex-chief of Atlanta’s fire department filed a federal complaint Wednesday alleging that the city discriminated against him when he was dismissed for publishing a book that contained offensive comments on homosexuality.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that former fire Chief Kelvin Cochran filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The attorney backing Cochran’s legal effort is allied with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit that advocates for freedom to express one’s faith, according to the newspaper.
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) fired Cochran earlier this month, following a 30-day suspension while the city investigated the ex-chief’s self-published book “Who Told You That You Are Naked?”
Reed stressed at the time that he didn’t terminate Cochran for his religious beliefs, but because Cochran published the book without his permission and because its passages on homosexuality — including comparing it to a “perversion” like bestiality — could make the city vulnerable to discrimination complaints.
The mayor was unfazed by the complaint on Thursday.
“He can get all of the lawyers he wants so that he can continue to have publicity and sell books, but he’s going to lose the legal case,” Reed told local TV station WAGA. “What is not disputed is he never communicated with me, the chief executive officer, prior to the publication of the book. It’s clearly out of bounds.”
Evangelicals and conservatives, including RedState editor Erick Erickson, have taken up Cochran’s cause. Erickson slammed Cochran’s dismissal in a blog post and on his radio show, seizing on the deadly terror attacks earlier this month in Paris to brand gay activists as “terrorists.”
In Oscar Micheaux’ silent film “Within Our Gates” the character Efram thought he was the white man’s best friend too – until they lynched him just to have something to do while they waited for the man he falsely accused of murdering a white plutocrat to be apprehended.
A law-abiding citizen should have full confidence that a fireman, a police officer, a doctor, etc., will provide the utmost care and protection, regardless of that citizen’s sexual orientation. Do we really want a Fire Chief who publicly compares legal sexual relations between consenting adults to bestiality?
I live in Atlanta, and I sure don’t.
Does anybody know exactly what the passages in question said?
I would suspect that he’ll lose the federal case because as I understand it fire chiefs and police chiefs serve at the pleasure of the mayor. However, it is possible that said passage(s) were simply religious opinions in which case he would be likely to win his case, since the book is sited as the reason for his firing.
So that brings us back to the beginning. What did he say?
A few followup questions.
The answer to that final question the most important. If the answer is yes, I support the firing. If not, I don’t support it because people should not be fired for their beliefs (even if I happen to find those beliefs repellent).
As an aside, this illustrates a problem I have with journalism like this. The article tells us what Reed says are the reasons for the firing, but it doesn’t help me assess the truth of what he said.
Followup: The first two linked articles add another reason for the firing: Cochran was not supposed to talk about the investigation while it was ongoing but did so anyway. That indicates a lack of judgement.
The answer to the last question is ‘yes’. It opens the city to complaints from the gay community (and especially the LGBT enclaves in the city) that fires were not put out in due time because of the Fire Chief’s on the record beliefs. Whether or not he would do such a thing is not important because it is the perception of bigotry which means that the city could face tons of litigation based upon that.
Go back a couple of years and there were several incidents where the police force in Atlanta targeted several gay nightclubs. If I recall correctly, the city was still sued over the arrests and the targeting of the business despite no such statements from the Police Chief in the city. So, having those sentiments on the record no only could lead to more cases, but could easily be used to sway a jury and make them side with the plaintiff and not the city.