Posted on 07/18/2015 3:18:30 PM PDT by NetAddicted
A high-ranking California police lieutenant has been placed on leave after he sent a newspaper a letter condemning the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide. He signed the letter with his rank and employer — and the newspaper editor says that's how he wanted it to appear in print.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Yes they are. It’s shameful.
I suspect that his employer fears that people will view his opinions as their opinions. The same would probably happen if he had signed it, Hank Somebody, Chief of Purchasing, Honeywell, Inc. Organizations are terrified of being sued or becoming the target of the Gay Mafia.
I know that the last two Fortune 500 companies I worked for would have fired anybody for bringing their name up in a similar published context. No question about it. Doing this today is the same as asking to be fired.
His heart was in the right place, but his head was not. People are free to voice opinions on any subject they want. They are not free to do so in a way that implies endorsement by their employer, unless they really are speaking on their behalf. The same principal applies in the military. You can’t attend political events or make speeches in uniform.
I feel bad for the guy, but honestly he should have known better.
So now people are being fired for giving opinions that run counter to the central government’s official view of state-sponsored racism and gay-favoritism. Welcome to the 4th Reich.
Do you think the outcome would’ve been any different had he signed the letter with only his name?
Do you think the outcome would’ve been any different had he signed the letter with only his name?
Should be, and maybe. Depends on size and type of organization and whether the leadership believes it can affect the execution of your duties or the business functions of the business of government agency. It just depends, unfortunately. Yes we have 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, but that does not relieve us from the potential consequences. If you’re that principled and are willing to ride it out and possibly lose your job, or take it to court, then so be it. But don’t do it then complain about the consequences (which I don’t know if that’s the case here, or not). I commend people for standing true to their convictions.
Those swearing an oath to the Constitution would be well advised to read it at least once.
I think he would have been in a much stronger position legally. Civil servants have fairly serious protections in California that make it incredibly hard to get rid of them. They might well have tried to fire him. But it would have been a bloody fight in court.
Sadly this almost looks like a deliberate act of professional suicide.
If they are a politician, swearing to an oath doesn’t mean anything to them. As far as they are concerned, an oath is just a bunch of words.
I guess this poser punk is going after us for different thought at this point.
Now that sodomy is no longer a sin, an abomination, evil is good, or bigotry has now been defined as Leviticus 18:22, Christians have been relegated to NAZI status. If you had a KKK member on your police force, how long would he have his job once the rally photo was revealed? So much for freedom of association.
People have always thought about the End of Days, and what it would be like to be forced to "take the mark" or die, well, here it is! You can take the mark anytime you choose. We have many already saying they are devout Christians, BUT, I'm forced to hand out marriage licences to gays. Some have resigned, most not. It will take a while for the results of this to sink in fully, but a Christian is now a dog to be hunted down. The proverbial toothpaste will not be going back in the tube.
I tend to agree. It was a mistake to list his occupation and place in the organization. I’m reminded of a friend of mine back in college who wrote a letter to the school newspaper and included the fact that he was the president of his fraternity. Like the officer in this article probably thought, my friend thought that adding his office would make him appear more serious (i.e. a leader) and thus give weight to his opinion. In fact, it made it appear that he was representing the organization’s views with his letter, instead of his own.
Now, I do agree with the poster who brings up the probability that this guy was going to be “outed” (no pun intended) even without signing his name. There’s precious little anonymity with the internet making everything a click away. It stinks, but it’s the dark reality of the internet today. And also with the militancy of the gay activist crowd, whose tactics would make Torquemada blush. But I also agree with you that the guy would be on much safer legal ground had he just signed his name and nothing else.
Hope things work out for this guy, but I suspect he’s in for a rough time ahead.
They are? Coulda fooled me.
So, is the police chief not entitled to a personal opinion????
How would it have differed if he had signed the letter Pasquale Janowiczhiskien.?......might people have known that it was the police chief????(if that was his name)
When you append a formal title to your signature you are implying that what follows is not just your opinion, but also that of the organization whose title you are using. If he had signed just his name, he would have been in a much stronger position legally to resist punitive measures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.