1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News ATL Fire Chief fired for homophobic remarks, Christians call for reinstatement

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by AwesomGaytheist, Jan 12, 2015.

  1. trailrider

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Pretty close to Lake Erie
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    This is a very slippery slope that you are defending. I'm not going to agree with the fire chief or his stance. However, I feel that I must defend his "lack of action". If you look at the details of the story, is there actually an individual that was specifically discriminated against, within the scope of his authority? It would seem that he was relieved of his duties for the fear of potential discrimination, and THAT is a very dangerous overreach of legal interpretation.

    I know I will be attacked on here because everyone likes the outcome and the "he got what he deserved" attitude. But I warn you. This point in history is the 15 minutes of fame for the gay and lesbian community. If this is set as a precedent, what are you going to do with the next group that rises up and screams "discrimination" every time someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle?

    ---------- Post added 16th Jan 2015 at 11:36 AM ----------

    OH OH OH Let me ask this in reverse.
    Everyone on her thinks that this was a just act because as a fire chief he is never really"off the clock".

    So let me ask you this. Hypothetically say that I own some large distribution company( I do not). It is policy that my reps always maintain a professional appearance in the public eye. Let's say that one of my reps was gay and I knew all about his lifestyle but it was never an issue with his job or how he was treated. Then, while watching the news I see him walking in a pride parade, wearing nothing but body paint and portions of his shlong are exposed. ( yeah, ok, apparently for the sake of the story it is so big that only portions of it are covered.) Now, this parade is in his market area and I know that amny of MY customers are going to recognize him and his "exposure".

    As a business owner do I have a right to terminate his employment for violating company policy or is he protected because he was expressing HIS lifestyle choice on HIS time?
     
  2. GabrielAdam

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honesdale, PA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I completely understand what your saying, Im not one to march at a PRIDE parade in a speedo, But I feel that if someone wants to walk I'm a parade basically nude, let them. I don't think its gonna affect your business in any negative way, just that in this case you'd be considered an LGBT friendly business (Which is a powerful thing). Besides how many calendar's have half naked actual Firemen posing in them?

    It's like firing someone because, "You were dancing too much at the Puerto Rican Day Parade"
    Or "You were shown drinking heavily at the St. Patty's Day Parade"

    ---------- Post added 16th Jan 2015 at 12:00 PM ----------

    Thats crazy, we have a looong way to go as an LGBT people.
     
  3. trailrider

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Pretty close to Lake Erie
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    So you don't think a gay person expressing his/her sexuality, beyond the norm of our societies moral compass would affect my business. But you DO think that a person expressing religious belief would affect business? .......hmmmm

    ---------- Post added 16th Jan 2015 at 12:21 PM ----------

     
  4. GabrielAdam

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honesdale, PA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I haven't read about any Homosexuals forcing their lifestyle down someones throat. The ONLY time you see it on television is when there's a new law that allows Marriage Equality, when LGBT peoples are being persecuted (I'm looking at you Russia.) or during PRIDE Parade. If you find it offensive just look away, you dont have to be apart of it. Yet there are countless Christian tv programs. No one is trying to get those removed, we just ignore them and change the channel. Why do religious people feel they have a right to control who we are and what we should do?

    Religion has been force fed to the world for centuries, through television, little vending machines you find in supermarkets, its everywhere. Yet when a company features a Gay couple in an ad, it blasphemy.
    No Christian employee has ever been told, "You worship Jesus to much, you shouldn't work here."

    I mean why does someone who doesn't agree with Homosexuality feel the need to comment on EVERY article that features any Gay topics. You dont see Homosexuals swarming Christian communities spreading hate.

    So to answer your question, No, I don't think a homosexual person expressing themselves beyond the norm is bad, there's always an option to just ignore it, the way I do when someone tries to preach to me and inform them I'm Pagan, then they respond with. "Your going to hell." If that's okay to do then I don't really see the Morality in religion.

    And yes, I firmly believe claiming "religious freedom" just to discriminate against someone's sexuality is ridiculous. I'm Pagan and I have VERY involved Christian friends and co-workers, and I'm not going around claiming "Religious Freedom" to not listen to my supervisor.

    ---------- Post added 16th Jan 2015 at 12:52 PM ----------

    No but the Christian faith has deemed Sunday to be the only Worship day. That's no one else's fault. The moral compass of society has to be changed to a different direction, if not society will never progress. Pentecostal church goers attend church everyday, and Pagans (Witches) practice everyday. No put any restrictions on Christianity other than the ones that control it, Christians

    ---------- Post added 16th Jan 2015 at 12:54 PM ----------

    *No one but the Christian has deemed Sunday as the the ONLY day of worship.*
     
  5. trailrider

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Pretty close to Lake Erie
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Wow. I thought that this was going to be a fun debate, but instead you took a hypothetical scenario, got offended by it, and went off on a tirade on how you feel that people of a religious faith should have no say in the direction of the societies moral compass.

    I also love your claim that Christians only worship on Sundays and that is our choice. Yet, if you actually understood the true nature of the faith, AND AT LEAST HAD AN IOTA OF RESPECT FOR IT, as you claim you do, you would at least acknowledge the reality that a part of our worship is how we live our lives each day and treat others.

    So back to your hypocritical ideal. Let me sum up what you have said.

    The LGBT movement is ALWAYS right. Regardless of what each individual decides to do. If you disagree with any portion of it, you are discriminatory. You are not allowed to have ANY opposing views on this subject. It is all or nothing.

    If any portion of your personal moral compass comes from the Judeo-Christian background. IT IS WRONG. PERIOD.

    As a moderate, what I find extremely sad is that the liberal agenda and that extreme conservative agenda are both doing the same amount of damage. You are all so busy jumping up and down in the garden, proclaiming superiority over each other, that you don't realize that you are both trampling the flowers underfoot.
     
  6. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    I want to address this first right out of the gate. Here again and again you used the word "lifestyle" and at the end you inadvertently showed why it is an inappropriate word to use: choice. Christian fundamentalists came up with the word lifestyle as a buzz word to do exactly what you did with it--to infer that being gay is a choice, and to infer that gay men are all promiscuous animals crazed about sex.

    Being a Christian is a lifestyle choice. Being gay, like being a woman, like being black, like being left handed, like being blue-eyed is an intrinsic characteristic.

    Whether he took action or not is irrelevant. If a Fire Chief, CEO, or some other person who has power and influence over other people goes around saying that they hate portions of their workforce it is a problem. If a Fire Chief goes around saying that he thinks black people are unintelligent animals, then every single time he refuses to hire someone who is black his actions are suspect. Every single time he disciplines an existing black employee his actions are suspect. Every time a black employee has to deal with him, they have to do so knowing that he thinks of them as disgusting unintelligent animals.

    We would not ask that of someone who is black or someone who is a woman. Yet, it is completely acceptable to do this to gay people--why? Because it is culturally acceptable to discriminate against us. It is culturally acceptable to be bigoted toward us. It is culturally and socially acceptable to think of us as abominations, perverts, deviants, and sinners simply for existing. It is perfectly acceptable to define our existence as a "lifestyle choice"--because, after all, if you just pray hard enough the gay goes away, don't ya know.

    To me, this sounds like a threat. It is basically saying that once those "15 minutes of fame" are over that Christians are going to rise up and get their "vengeance."

    Ironically I do not disagree with you here. Throughout history there have been times when people like us could flourish and exist without punishment and persecution. However, like the tides these periods ebbed and flowed. This is EXACTLY why I advocate for endless vigilance and against apathetic complacence or acceptance of the status quo--or even the belief that things are "good enough."

    We will never be safe so long as there is one human being somewhere in existence that wants to cause us harm, wants to discriminate against us, or hates us for who we are--there is always the danger of that belief catching fire and spreading again. The only way you deal with this is by making it culturally and socially unacceptable to hold these views, and creating social punishments for those that do.

    For exactly the reason you outline here--that we are under attack and under threat--that what happened to the Fire Chief is necessary. It sends a message to others who think like him, letting them know what they think and believe is unacceptable. ...and we must continue to push, and push, and push until these beliefs are completely extinguished. Then we must remain vigilant against them ever returning.

    This is why they call it a culture war. Only one set of values can survive, and it is impossible for us to peacefully co-exist without turmoil. Either we are equal or we are not. Either we are abominations, perverts, deviants, and sinners or we are not. There is no middle ground.

    Companies already do this on a regular basis. This is why people have to be careful what they post on social media. So, the answer to your question is yes. A company is fully within their legal right to do so--they already do it on a regular basis.

    However, is it ethically right? I think that is debatable. I think people are entitled to have a life outside of their work.

    ...and I know what you are thinking having just read that last sentence. "Oh! Oh! Oh! I got you now! You just engaged in hypocrisy!" Actually, no. These are two completely different scenarios that have nothing in common.

    Running around with your dick hanging out is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. You cannot compare these two things, because they are nothing alike. It is not even an apples to oranges comparison--where you are at least comparing fruit. It is more of an apples to trucks comparison, using the flimsy logic that trucks are sometimes used to carry apples to grocery stores.

    This bigot is attacking an INTRINSIC characteristic of other human beings. It is literally no different than attacking someone on the basis of race or gender, which like sexual orientation, is an intrinsic characteristic.

    If he had gone around saying that people in Pride parades should not run around with their dicks hanging out, or people during parades should not dance--or whatever else... then that is completely different. He is opposed to an action, not a group of people. He is expressing an opinion, not attacking an entire group of people.

    He is attacking all of us because of our sexual orientation. Period. It does not matter that he claims that this comes from his religion. Where it comes from is irrelevant. People do not get to hide behind their religion like it is a magical shield that should protect them from all criticism. Religion is not a shield, it is a belief system with values. If your belief system encourages you to have values that are abhorrent, then we have a right to criticize it and to take action to marginalize it.

    I do not see anyone crying crocodile tears that we marginalized the KKK. They just get labeled as "not real Christians" by other Christians and we move along. One day, hopefully within my life time, people like this Fire Chief will be viewed through a similar lens and be treated identically by the bulk of society.
     
  7. GabrielAdam

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honesdale, PA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Hypocritical.
    None of what I said was hypocritical, it was the truth.

    I'm sorry, but that hypothetical scenario happens now.

    As I recall you were the one that said Christians are forced to worship on Sundays and only then.

    Honestly, yes. In matters like this the LGBT Community is right, religious faith shouldn't have any effect on the world. Hence why there is a "separation" between church and government.
    Seeing that faith is having more power over morality is sickening to me.

    Again a person's Moral Compass should be their own and theirs alone. It shouldnt dictate how the rest of the world lives.

    Do I think its right that Gay men dance around almost naked during the parade? No, I don't, its counterproductive actually, but its their right to exercise what little freedom the gay community has.

    Do I think its right that someone claims religious freedom to not have to deal with homosexuality? No, I don't, religious freedom is exactly that, freedom from religion, but thats their right. It's ridiculous but its their right.

    I know enough about Christianity and other faiths to see right from wrong.

    As for having respect for Christianity, its the person who practices I respect, if they have respect for me. I can't respect it if someone uses it against a people that have done nothing wrong.

    As far superiority goes, pretty sure progressives aren't the one backtracking the country 50 years.
     
  8. trailrider

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Pretty close to Lake Erie
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Now that was a nice rebuttal. Well done sir.

    First. I don't see homosexuality as a choice. I am sorry if my former response gave that indication.

    Second, you notice that you did reverse your stance on the scenario of the guy hanging his Johnson out. Well sort of. You agree that it is counterproductive, but then YOU became hypocritical. you stated that it was the little freedom that the gay community has. Actually, NO. No we don't. We have public decency laws that everyone should abide by. Your comment was that if I didn't like it, I could just look away. Isn't that the same as shoving it in peoples faces. "literally"

    As for the 15 minutes of fame. That was in no way a threat. I believe that the future holds a very bright light for the gay community coming into a harmony with Christian beliefs. ....I just find it very sad that when people feel threatened by a faith that they admit they don't fully understand, they want to throw the baby out with the bath water.....but that's not my point. The 15 minutes refers to the fact that historically peole groups that are being oppressed will rise to the surface and get the full attention of the public eye. We have watched it in this country alone....Polish, Irish, Native Americans, Blacks, women, gays...what's next? That's my problem with the extreme groups screaming so loud about the current issue. Nobody cares about what comes next. Only what is best for me and those exactly like me.

    Remember you wrote it " A persons moral compass should be theirs and theirs alone."
    That is a very scary scenario for any country.

    By the way. You have painted yourself a bit of an enigma. You say it is the right of someone to run naked down the street, but you also respect the Christian like me , who supports gay rights. Yet earlier you told me to look away, even though it is not the site of the guy that bothers me, but the 80yr old lady down the street that is offended and made physically ill by it. Of course my concern for her comes from my moral compass, which is mine and mine alone.

    It begs the question: how do societies survive when there can be a multitude of moral compasses all in direct opposition of each other, with no real determining factor to offer peaceful solutions? Does this mean that the biggest bully wins? Please let me go back to my original comment. I don't think that what the fire chief says is right. However ,that does not change the fact that he did not actually commit an act of discrimination. I have read cases of women who have cried abuse but the law said that there was no protection until the husband actually did something. Why, because they couldn't over reach the interpretation of the law.
    ....Witch hunts are never never never a good thing.

    Oh and as for your last line. Ok, you can believe that progressives are backtracking 50 yrs,, I don't disagree, but I will also contend that the liberal movement is taking us back 1500 yrs as a society. And that has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with civilized society. Oh and I can believe that if I want to because that is MY moral compass and mine alone. :slight_smile:
     
  9. GabrielAdam

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honesdale, PA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    How is that hypocrital? Lol It'd be hypocritical if I said "Oh wow that's gross." And then did it myself.

    1. We both agree that theres no need to have a mans junk hanging out in the open to show pride.

    2. I didn't tell you personally to look away, I apologize if it come off that way. I was talking about persons who find homosexuality in itself repulsive to just look away. The same way I look away when someone tries to preach to me as I casually stroll down the street.

    3. I think, you think I'm attacking you personally......I'm not. Im talking about the others that picket LGBT events with "God Hates Tags", and "Tags Burn In Hell" signs. Im speaking against homophobia not you.

    4. I would definitely feel for the elderly woman, I imagine we have the same morals when it come to those types of situations. But I'm pretty sure that innocent ol lady has seen her fair share of penis. Lol
    Now I've never been to a PRIDE parade, (I only came out this passed September)I plan on this year though

    5. Progressives arent taking society back, we're simply trying to progress. I believe The parade should have restrictions. I believe we (LGBT people) shouldn't have to fear being beaten near death just fpr holding hands in public and giving a kiss on the cheek, and the people that are stalling that progression to a (somewhat) safer future are the conservatives.
     
  10. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    I know that you, personally, do not think homosexuality is a choice. My point was that when you use the word lifestyle--as you did--you are using their language. The word lifestyle was embraced after it became socially unacceptable to openly call us deviants, perverts, and abominations in public. The word is intended to convey those meanings without saying it. It is also intended to convey that being gay is a choice--like a lifestyle. People choose lifestyles, obviously, and thus can also choose to change them.

    There is no such thing as 'the gay lifestyle'. We exist in every religion, culture, ethnic group, and economic status. As much as there is diversity among the human species and ways of living, so too is there an equal amount of diversity among us--because we reflect that human diversity.

    My point in going after that terminology is that it invokes a certain 'way of being gay' -- a certain type of 'lifestyle' that is in no way indicative of what it means to be gay. Being gay simply means you are attracted to individuals of the same gender. That is it. There is no lifestyle attached to it, and as a result using the word in relation to a sexual orientation is always incorrect. Imagine how silly it would sound if people went around saying, "the heterosexual lifestyle." It is something that just does not make sense, and neither should it make sense to say it about us.

    I do not mean to imply that you intended malice. I know you did not. You obviously come from a religious background, and are used to hearing it. That is another reason I draw your attention to it, because you are likely unfamiliar with the intention in which it was created to be used.

    I think you intended this for GabrielAdam, as I did not say that, nor do I necessarily agree with those statements. I do not find it counterproductive, nor do I find it--as I stated in my previous post--hypocritical. I believe we should be as free to express our sexuality as straight people. If straight people (though I should aim this at straight men directly here) have women dance around in skimpy bikini's for their titillation and enjoyment, then gay men should be able to enjoy men dancing around in skimpy bathing suits for their titillation and enjoyment.

    I believe in equality. Anything and everything that straight people can do, gay people should also be able to do. No one cries rivers of tears that millions of straight people run off to celebrate spring break each year with wet T-shirt contests, tons of drinking, tons of sex... I mean holy crap. Pride Parades are 98% a family friendly event. They go out of the way to create spaces for people and their children.

    Most of the time, straight sexuality is ignored. It is almost invisible, despite the fact that we are constantly swimming in it. The only reason gay sexuality is noticeable is because it is an uncommon thing--a rarity. The more normalized it becomes, the less noteworthy it will become, and that is why gay sexuality on display is important. It normalizes our public displays of sexuality to be equal to that of heterosexual displays of sexuality. The problem is not that it is on display at a Pride event, the problem is that it is frequently limited to the Pride event.

    I do not believe that being gay will ever be in harmony with 100% of all the Christian community. Large segments of it? Yes. It is up to those segments to then turn against those that seek to oppress us, and denounce them as being non-Christian. The same way today we would find endless streams of Christians standing up and denouncing the KKK as being an anti-Christian organization, despite the fact that there was a time when their beliefs were commonplace within American Christianity.

    This is the problem with defending the Fire Chief from a Christian perspective. By defending him, you implicitly give his views legitimacy. Christian groups should not be coming out in support of him, they should be coming out and condemning him for the message that he is spreading. Instead, what they are doing is showing that they identify with him, because they feel THEIR faith is under attack--meaning that they align themselves with him in their hearts if not also in their minds. It means that, rather than seeing him as a perverter of Christian beliefs, he is instead a victim being persecuted for his beliefs.

    I know this was not directed at me, because I said none of this. However, I will answer it anyway, because as an atheist it bothers me. It has a base assumption that we must adopt Christian beliefs, or that without a God there can be no sort of "moral compass"--or whatever you want to call it.

    It begins with the mistaken assumption of what morality even is, as a Christian I am going to assume that you believe God decides what is moral and what is immoral. I am going to assume that you believe in moral absolutes--that there is a clearly defined right and wrong.

    Yet, we both know that not all Christians share the same beliefs. We know that they do not all agree on what is right and what is wrong. For the Quakers, all war is wrong. In their view Christians are called to be strict pacifists. Many Christians disagree. Who is right? Who makes that choice? The answer is the individual.

    You can pretend all that you want that morality comes from some higher power, but the reality is what we understand as our morality is shaped in part by biology (our ability to empathize), in part by our culture (both religious and secular culture), and in part by our life experiences and upbringing. These things come together to forge what we define as our values. Obviously, since we have different life experiences, and sometimes even different cultures we have different values.

    However, similar to you I do believe that some values are better than others. I believe that this is an objective fact, because values can be measured. Some values are going to lead to negative outcomes and some values are going to lead to positive outcomes. Some values will lead to human flourishing, and some values will not. We can measure these values, we can understand them, and then we can debate them logically. That is how we determine what values are good and what values are bad.

    As an atheist, I am frequently in opposition to people not because of their religion, but because of the values that stem from their religious beliefs. I am opposed to the Islamic State, not because they are Muslim, but because they engage in barbaric acts like killing innocent people by cutting off their heads, actively engaging in slavery, and brutal gang rape. These are their values manifested through action.

    I frequently find myself in opposition to many Christians, because of the values that they expose. Some of their values are abhorrent, destructive to others, and in some cases even destructive to themselves. From their perspective, I am fighting them because they are Christian, but from my perspective I am fighting them because they have a religion that encourages them to have values that causes them to do awful things.

    I do not care what their religion tells them. I only care about what they do. I do not believe in their God, and I am not in the least bit concerned about what he, she, or it has to say on any matter of importance. I only care about their values, and the actions they take in relation to those values. If their religion leads them to have values that do not cause harm to other people, that enhance their followers lives, and improve society then great. They may even be values that I may want to adopt myself. On the other hand, if their religion leads them to have values that cause harm to other people, that hurt their followers lives, and undermine society -- then I must oppose them. Not on religious grounds, but on ethical grounds.
     
  11. LiquidSwords

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Yeah I'd just like to endorse everything Aldrick has said..

    This man is a public servant and his bosses are the politicians that the public have chosen to represent them, who have every right to fire him if they believe that his actions have made him less qualified to do his job. I imagine this man is in charge of a large number of firefighters some of which no doubt are lgbt and if he's talking this sort of shit then certainly there is an issue about how appropriate it is for him to be in charge of a whole city's worth of firefighters

    Seriously religious folk whinging about discrimination like they're a victim because they're not allowed to be as openly bigoted as they were before is the fucking worst just no. What's this shit about lifestyle choice too do you even know what you sound like :dry:


    That we're even debating the merits of the decision to fire this man as if there's any sort of doubt as to it being the right call is so America
     
  12. GabrielAdam

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Honesdale, PA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Aldrick just shut this shit down (Including things I said). Bro your so on point its not even funny.
     
  13. Manta

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Surrounded by trees
    I would also like some clarification on a certain topic. First:

    As a city employee in Oregon, any creative/written works, inventions, or ideas for creative/written works, inventions, etc. thought up/made while I was on the clock were the product of the city and the city had sole power of the creation, distribution, or destruction of those ideas/inventions.

    In the article it was mentioned briefly that the ex-fire chief published without the city's consent, although he claimed to have received it. Earlier someone wrote that fire chiefs are always "on the clock."

    So I guess I was wondering on the legality of him publishing any work without city approval. I understand the mayor initially cited discrimination as the cause for firing him, but it seemed to me like he broke another law instead. I'm not the most well read on laws and copyright; anyone know? If he was, then although he self-published he was passing his work of as endorsed by the government and that steps over several lines.
     
  14. raiden04

    raiden04 Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere in Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Very eloquently and succinctly put, Aldrick.
     
  15. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    After reading all the arguments, pro and contra, all I can say is that I'm glad he's gone.

    I hope he's replaced by a more tolerant sort. I don't care if the new chief is a Christian or a Jew or from Mars, just so long as he's not a bigot, acts professionally, and sets a positive example that doesn't paint a certain sector of the population as inherently flawed and evil.
     
  16. ANewDawn

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Florida
    Religious fanatic as think they gay movement has gone overboard in crucifying anyone who dares express a contrary opinion. But that is so not the case here. If your religion makes you think that homosexuality is a sin, fine, but keep it to yourself. If you're job is to protect people, and you publish a book saying that you don't believe part of the population deserves protecting, your ability to perform your job indiscriminately falls under doubt and you should be fired. No one wants firemen who ask about race, religion and sexuality before deciding whether to enter a burning home - not even republicans.