" Obi, while you're right free speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility, it is a violation of some ones civil rights to fire them for their political beliefs"

If you are health director, and you say evolution is of the Devil, and medicine derived from evolution is at the heart of modern health and medical science...

Then I think you've talked yourself out of a job.

Again--if you're a public figure...and thus know (or SHOULD know) that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of popular opinion..

Then you either talk and deal with whatever consequences arise or else keep your mouth shut and don't open yourself up to criticism.

I said the same thing when some friends got bothered that Kirsten Dunst came under fire for:

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kirsten-dunst-traditional-gender-role-comments-harpers-bazaar-uk-201484

Some took issue with her "Women belong in the home" approach, and some with:

"I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s how relationships work."

I myself agree with those taking issue, not because you CAN'T stay at home as a woman (or man) if you want, but rather because Dunst says you NEED to be that way...that's the word that bothers me, "need." You don't "need" to act anyway you want as a man or woman except for the way that makes you and those around you happiest and most comfortable. Period.

And Dunst Defenders took issue with the star coming under fire for such comments, to which I have to say--

THEN DON'T MAKE SUCH COMMENTS IN AN INTERVIEW. BOOM.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

If you don't want your feet to be held to the fire, don't even go near it, or say anything that might get you burned...and if you *do* want to voice an opinion, GREAT! ...Just be ready to deal with the burns as you play with fire.

And before anyone (krellin) ascribes this incendiary culture to modern liberals--

Look at one of the earlier races in Presidential history:

John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson.

FULL of burns. That's arguably one of the dirtiest political races in American history! If JQA said something to burn Jackson, Old Hickory took it and fired right back!

Or, in the spirit of Dunst's role as Marie Antoinette, consider the penalties paid by those in 18th century France ALL OVER the political spectrum for speaking their mind...losing your job as health inspector isn't quite so bad as losing your head, I think...

So perhaps we've mellowed a bit over time?

Can I just point out that the guy has *not* been fired? He's been temporarily removed from his duties while they check out his background and make sure it's not a huge reputational risk to them to continue employing him in his current role.

Now, presuming he was completely honest about his role at his local tabernacle, when he applied for the job, these are really things they ought to have checked out at the time of his initial appointment if that sort of thing is a major concern for them - Krellin is right on that point. However, having failed to do so at that time, when the concerns were brought to their attention later on, they probably felt for the sake of their public reputation, they had to be looked into. So that's what they're doing - they're looking into the complaints.

Behaving as if he has unjustly been fired is premature.

Agreed.

And I don't think this is so much Liberals vs. Conservatives, as much as Political Correctness against anything else that moves.

So anyone care to compare ongoing political correctness suspension/firing issues like this vs., say, Les Misérables, where a convicted criminal has to show that he was a criminal to potential employers?

Or is that too much trolling? :)

"Or is that too much trolling?"

Theo, you can't be THAT new here... :p

If this guy was a janitor, no one would care what he does in his free time or what he believed. The same goes for Brandon Eich and Donald Sterling. But those three are (were) in positions of power and influence. That's why it's acceptable to punish them for holding views that do not (or at least should not) represent the institutions to which they belonged.

This guy was the health director of a city and he was (is still, if the article is correct) paid in tax dollars. Yet he believes that evolution is a "religion created by Satan" and "criticizes" homosexuality. I would say those views would cast doubt on his ability to lead the health department and also on his ability to represent and uphold the values of the city he works for.

In the end, Eric Walsh, Donald Sterling, and Brandon Eich were not punished for exercising their right to free speech. They were punished for failing to represent their respective institutions properly.

Here in Canada, religious schools lost the right decades ago to fire teachers that weren't members of the respective religions, didn't regularly go to church, or led lifestyles that didn't agree with the religion...as long as they didn't bring it into the classroom.

I fail to see the difference.

There is no proof that his views affected his job or he, in any way, failed to represent the views, policies, etc. of his institution. In fact, the newspaper article shows that he put into place a clinic to help those with HIV/AIDS...hardly discrimination.

Just because he holds minority views doesn't mean he is incapable of looking after the needs of everyone else.

So, pangloss, you hold that his views "would cast doubt on his ability to lead the health department and also on his ability to represent and uphold the values of the city he works for."

Why? His actions, from the limited amount of the information in news article, show that he proactively did uphold those values.

Right. I agree that to any observer, it might seem that his views might influence his job. But that way lies madness. It seems to me we're only justified in disciplining a public servant if his job can be *shown* to be compromised, not just that the potential exists.


I don't think this is the case with Sterling and Eich and duck guy. These are private corporations who made a decision based on the prospective impact of these controversial views on their profits and/or values. They had every right to fire these guys.

Meh, krellin's reaching pretty hard for troll material, biding his time till the next Trayvon Martin.

Krelly baby your troll techniques only really work when there is a combination of both your personal attacks and vitriol (hypocrite racist libtard Thucy, eg) AND a provocative topic to use as a medium. With this non-issue however, you're just making yourself look bad by trying too hard.

"Because there are people like krellin honestly think that Islam involves an entitlement to "kill your daughters/wives," a"

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE UNDER CERTAIN ISLAMIC LAW.

You ignorance of fact doesn't make it go away. There was a case just a couple years ago in Dearborn, MI where a Muslim guy killed his daughters for having sex and wanted Islamic law applied to him so excuse the murder. give me a fucking break. Under Islamic law in the Middle East women can be killed - deal with it, you fucking moron. They also can't drive, are forced to cover their heads, can't go to school in certain places, etc.

Anyone that is going to come into this discussion defending Islam, but saying this guy can/should lose his job for what he said in the Pulpit of his church is a perverse, disgusting human being.

Thucy - READ THE LINK asshole. Troll material? No...it's a fucking freedom issue, moron. you only think it's not an issue because your one of the jack-booted thugs that would try and convict a man and remove him from his livlihood for a word uttered in the past. Ironic, coming from such a self-confessed racist as yourself, Thucy, you fucking moron.

The article clearly states that he is on temporary paid administrative leave while city officials evaluate his ability to carry out his job. He hasn't been fired yet.

Theodosius wrote: "Why [should his views cast doubt on his ability to lead his department]? His actions, from the limited amount of the information in news article, show that he proactively did uphold those values."

Here is a quotation I pulled from another news website. (Source: http://www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20140430/pcc-commencement-speaker-cancels-amid-homophobic-sermon-furor)

"In a November 2006 sermon on the Biblical legend of Sodom and Gomorrah at a Seventh-day Adventist Church in Upland, Walsh condemned public schools for making homosexuality acceptable.

'In our public school system they began to teach moral relativism. They began to teach that there really is no absolute right or wrong,' he said. 'It’s more a matter of what you think or what you accept. And (according to that doctrine) if two adults agree to do something, it’s not wrong because they are both consenting adults. That is doctrine from the pits of hell. What makes something right is not based on man it is based on God.'"

Whether or not he has set up a clinic for people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, he said that. He has questioned the separation of Church and State. He decries the so-called moral relativism of allowing two consenting adults to have fun. And maybe, from 2010 up until now, he hasn't truly discriminated against anyone. But can he be guaranteed not to in the future? What about in times of crisis, where he is under pressure to make a decision quickly? Given that his department is in charge of declaring public health emergencies and he has shown a general disdain for a subset of the population, can he be trusted by the people of Pasadena? As a public official, he has to maintain the confidence of the people he serves. He faces public scrutiny, and there is a sizeable portion of the population who are rightfully upset with him. Is this not enough to get rid of him?

Now that quotation is from 2006, but I strongly suspect he still carries those views. I could be wrong, and everyone who is screaming and shouting for his removal could also be wrong. That's presumably why city officials have not fired him yet. But we could also be right.

MODERN LIBERAL AMERICA 2014:
1. If a person if a self-professed Christian, and states they hold a belief consistent with the Bible - such as homosexual marriage is wrong - Liberals believe:
A. They are now free to call this Christian person a hater; they can openly and publicly call this person vile, hurtful terrible names without fear of consequences
B. Liberals feel they are now justified in firing that person from their employment for stating a belief -- NOT acting on it, just stating it.
C. Liberals feel that this person should now be socially ostracized, and encourage others to limit their business activity with the person...in essence, commit financial terrorism on the Christian for simply stating a belief.

/\ Ironic, isn't it, that in response to something that is claimed to be hateful - the statement of a belief - Liberals believe is it fully acceptable to not only openly reply with equal hatred in word, but to compound that hatred by attempting to do true harm to the person.

Tell me...who are the most hateful in our society today? The religious person that states a belief (but doesn't act upon it)? Or the left-wing hate-mongers that attempt to destroy a persons life with true action against a person.

What a perverse crowd you leftists are...

krellin, if that comment is in whole or in part directed at me...

(1) Do not call me a liberal. I am anything but.
(2) I am not American.

But also

(3) By generalising with the phrase "belief consistent with the Bible" you remove any potential for nuance in any discussion. The Bible condones a lot of things we wouldn't think are that great these days. I'm sure that we're all OK with slavery not being allowed. And I'm equally sure that if the head of the department of labour says in any venue that slavery is God's command, we would rightly call for his (or her) removal.

(4) Social ostracisation is the penalty for saying things worthy of social ostracisation. But that's not the issue here. It's whether or not a public official, someone who is democratically accountable through a legislature, can carry out his job while holding objectionable views. There's room for discussion here, perhaps. It depends on the nature of the job and its public function. I'm not sure where "financial terrorism" comes in here, but you, as ever, are more enlightened than I. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

*financial terrorism*!?!?!! Ahahahahaha oh krelly baby. Keep straining

@pangloss: "But can he be guaranteed not to in the future?"

That's the exact type of witch hunt that I despise. Nobody can be guaranteed to behave in a certain way - all we have to use to predict future behavior is past behavior. Even though I find this guy's attitude and views stupid, I don't think it's appropriate to question his competence in a job he already has based solely on that.

@pangloss
Yes, that's right. You don't know if his views in 2006 were his true views, or just him publicly holding the views of his employer. Or if he is now representing his real views with his new employer. Or nether. None of my business, really, or yours, unless it impacts his job, of which is there is some proof right now that it hasn't, and no proof that it has.

So, "Is this not enough to get rid of him?" No, not even close. While I am at work, I represent my employer regardless of my personal views, as do most working professionals. He's shown that he has represented his employer's views in his last job and there is nothing so far to show that he isn't doing the same thing in his current job.

If more information comes up, that could change the situation, of course.


@krellin. Again, it's not a lefty-wefty, righty-tighty thing. It's Political Correctness and has different forms at different times. Even the Romans had political correctness.

An example of previous political correctness:

Mc·Car·thy·ism
məˈkärTHēˌizəm/
noun
a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.

Modern Conservative America 1950.

Same thing, different clothes.

Exactly.... next argument coming up is "but think about our CHILDREN." "Do we really want our CHILDREN at risk?"

What rot.

Theo - sure, Mcarthism, etc...I understand...it's the pendulum swing. Right not it's jack-booted Liberals, though - that can't be denied.

Yes, Thucy, what else do you call it when one group in society tries to deny someone the right to make a living based simply upon what they believe.

Thucy, you are such a fucking hypocrite - yet again, your extreme uber-bigotry is exposed. Hiel Thucy!

THUCY - by the way, this latest victim of Leftist Hate was a BLACK MAN.

I suppose you'll reconsider your position now, being the Noble White Liberal, Savior of All Black Men that you are.

This is part of the reason I want to go through the Bible and explain it to you guys. You have very little understanding about what the Bible/Christianity actually teaches. The Bible is honestly the ultimate guidebook; and Christianity truly the best thing that ever happened to humanity. But sadly most people won't read the Bible, and even those who do don't always understand it. As a result, the average person has patheticly little knowledge on what Christianity really is...

Christianity the best thing that ever happened to humanity? Wow. Just wow.

"Christianity truly the best thing that ever happened to humanity"

Really? Even coming from a christian perspective you have to confess that Christianity (a MAN-MADE institution) has been the cause of a lot of grief. Understand, I am separating the concept of "relationship with a personal God, through the revelation of his Word to man via the Bible" and "the corruption of man's relationship with a personal God through the man-made institution of Christianity"

I used Christianity for a lack of a better word. Christianity to me is the following of Jesus's teachings. Even from a non-Christian perspective, Jesus said some really great stuff that if we all followed would make the world a better place. (The golden rule, and all his other moral teachings) Unfortunately, some of his "followers" do stuff in the name of "Christianity" that is NOT Christian-like at all...

I didn't mean Christianity as in the man-made institution, because the man-made institution does a lot of crap wrong. I meant it rather in regards to the ACTUAL THING.

And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come over to this thread on some "Holy Crusade" or anything. I just got frustrated after seeing my belief system insulted and skewed out of proportion for the millionth time. It's utterly sickining to watch something you treasure more then anything in the world get torn apart and spit upon time and time again; especially when you're just trying to share its beauty with everyone else. But whatever, I guess I'm just another rambling nutjob who's been brainwashed by religion. I'll just go away, shut up, and be a good little boy...

Slyguy - don't go. I hope you didnt' feel I did that. But you do realize that your belief system is on the verge of becoming ILLEGAL in Modern Liberal America?

@slyguy:

I'm so sick to death of hearing this lame no true scotsman argument re: Christianity.

Christian is as Christian does.

So many of you keep saying things like, "you just don't understand what the Bible REALLY teaches." Perhaps that's because when I read it, it seems to endorse some horrible, horrible, things, and when I hear mainstream Christians talk about real-world action items that stem from their biblical beliefs, they are suggesting horrible, horrible, things.

So you know what? I'm pretty sure I *do* know what Christianity is. It's a comfort; your adult binkie. It's the kool-aid and the poison all in one. It's a cozy lie you've all agreed to pretend is the truth. It's the opiate, while you are the masses. Keep that focus on the afterlife, because it makes it that much more easy to screw you over in this one.

Your God is not real.

YJ sooooooooo....I guess you've done a body slam on the whole search for the holy spirit thing, huh? lol

But YJ - do you understand what I mean when I differentiate the difference between what is intended between God and man via the bible, and what the perverted institution that exists as Chrsitianity is?

By the same token, every good secular humanist thinks his ideology to treat man fairly is perfect and moral etc etc etc...and secular humanists do lots of shity things, too....for example, trying to destroy another human being's life for stating a belief (apart from actions)...

Yes?