Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The lesson of the last couple of weeks is that Religion is a good thing to mock, but not...

..something worthy of free speech protection.

//Things heated up when The New York Times editorial board set about discrediting Chief Cochran in particular and religious liberty in general. As they write:

 It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. . . . If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.

The argument suggests that even The New York Times believes Cochran’s firing was warranted based on views he holds, which would seem to contradict Mayor Reed’s claim that Cochran was removed “for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits.” Either way, The New York Times has sought to nationalize the issue and make Cochran the poster child for publicly holding unacceptable beliefs.//


No comments:

 
Who links to me?