Posted on 07/18/2015 7:09:19 PM PDT by markomalley
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.
In a letter to the editor of the Stockton Record, Stockton Police Lt. Toby Will called legal same-sex marriage "blatant debauchery." The letter, titled "Marriage ruling shuns God," was posted online on July 7.
The Stockton Record then printed an article headlined "Cop's letter sparks concern." It quoted police spokesman Joe Silva as saying Will "does not speak for the Police Department, and regarding his use of his police position, it is under administrative review."
Silva told NBC News that Will was officially placed on paid administrative leave on July 13, pending the outcome of the review.
The following day, the editor of the paper, Mike Klocke, wrote a lengthy response to questions the paper had received about printing the letter. He said Will was adamant that he wanted his official title to be printed if the letter was published.
Police chief Eric Jones told NBC affiliate KCRA that part of the investigation into Will's actions while he is on leave will focus on whether the lieutenant purposefully misrepresented the view of the entire department "because of the indication that it may have purported that it was the statement of the police department."
Jones visited the San Joaquin Pride Center with other Stockton officers on Thursday night to assure attendees that the Stockton Police Department is accepting. "We are responsible for treating everyone fairly and equitably — and that's what tonight was all about," Jones said at the meeting.
Renee Hall, president of the board for Pride Center, said she was "shocked" when she first read the letter. "I feel like if something like that gets out in the public from a pretty prominent person, then it gives folks the ability to act on those things," she told KCRA.
The Stockton Record printed several letters from readers responding to Will. Some readers supported his opinion, but disagreed with his choice to make them known in a public forum, while others supported his view and his choice to speak out. Others wholeheartedly disagreed with Will.
"I resent this man with real authority insinuating his law enforcement position into this discussion," one reader wrote.
Only if you are of the delusional, pro-sodomy persuasion
That is an irrational stretch.
If I send a letter to the editor, giving my position and place of work expressing concern about a safety issue as an engineer, no one should ever assume that I was speaking for anyone else, unless I explicitly so claim.
Your inclination to act the victim, and your delusion as universal arbiter notwithstanding..
I’ve been retired since 2003, so my wording isn’t a direct quote.
I disagree.
I don't feel like taking seriously PC victim freaks' inferences!
That remains just your personal inference and your personal opinion.
Controlling fanatics tend to overestimate the value of their delusions...
No, it's not an irrational stretch. The example you cited is a case where your job and employer are directly relevant to establishing your credibility on that issue. A better example would be if you send a letter to the letter, giving your position and place of work as an engineer, on an issue like the Federal tax code that has no relationship to your job, your employer or your expertise. In this case, listing your job title and your employer serves no purpose other than to drag your employer into a matter that they may have no interest in getting involved with.
Why did the guy insist on having his job title and employer listed with the letter when it was published?
A better example that directly relates to the protection of free speech would be one where an employee writes a letter to the editor and does not identify the employer. If the employer makes an inquiry with the employee and asks if that employee actually wrote the letter, the employee has every right to say: "That's none of your 'effing business."
That is a legitimate case where the employee's rights as a free citizen should be protected in a matter where the employer might get involved.
Sorry, I don’t like fags either, but as a former employer I have dealt with this situation before.
I made it very clear to my employees that I didn’t care what they did out side of work, but anything dealing with any exposure to the public using my company name they had to bring to me first. No exceptions. You have no idea how quickly an unprepared for attack can kill a company.
Even worse that this guy is a cop.
There are plenty in the military that can’t stand this president, but you will never hear that in public from an active duty soldier. Not allowed.
That cop used his police force to give his political view more validity. Doesn’t matter what the view is he can’t speak for the force and should have never used it in the letter.
So those Constitutional rights aren’t inalienable?
Not self evident?
Not given by the Creator?
And they are dictated by the corporation?
In that case, we’ve traded king George for king Corp.
Well, here you go, California conservatives. You have a leader speaking up. Get up off your fat asses and support him. Send him 10 million dollars to start up some measure of resistance against the neo-fascist California politicians. If you people can’t do that, then enjoy a jackboot stepping on your worthless faces forever.
The clearly do not believe in the First Amendment.
I suspect most people who are taking the side of the police officer here have never dealt with this kind of situation from an employer’s perspective.
You and everyone else on this thread who have this delusional idea that employees' rights outweigh their employers' interests should be very careful what you wish for. This is how private companies end up getting forced to accept all kinds of ridiculous -- and even dangerous -- conditions for their employees, under the threat of Federal EEOC actions. Mohammed can't bring in his prayer rug into my office and bend his @ss five times a day, and I'll be damned if anyone here thinks his First Amendment rights have any place in my place of business.
Yep I didn’t have many rules for employees.
Simple stuff, be sober at work, don’t steal, use the .45 under the counter if their life or anyone elses was in danger.
Heck I even sent them for beer after we closed.
But for me that was the first rule, day one, because the place we were in already had a bad reputation before we took over.
He will if the courts order you to let him, because it's happened at other businesses around the country.
Well the founding fathers would disagree with all your points except this:
” Mohammed can’t bring in his prayer rug into my office and bend his @ss five times a day”
And this is exactly why you're wrong on this matter ... because on principle you have already taken Mohammed's side here.
HUH?
Baloney. The Founding Fathers had no problem with private businesses enforcing religious practices among their employees. There was no Office of Civil Rights in the Federal government that cracked down on employers who refused to hire Catholics in the 18th and 19th centuries, for example.
If the cop in the original case has First Amendment rights that prevent his employer from firing him in that case, then Mohammed has the same First Amendment rights in the workplace, too ... right?
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.