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.
This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
The beginnings of strong delusion seem to be popping up in all kinds of places.
Though the video seems to get some dates wrong regarding Joan Rivers I think you’ll find the early part where he reads from his own book interesting. I have only skimmed a couple pages from the book several years ago as I basically had little interest in it. But what I did skim told me all I needed to know.
the issue seems to be who’s opinion was being expressed.
the individual or the Police Department.
by signing with rank and department was he intending to speak for the department? had he signed only his name, the issue would be different
He signed the letter with his rank and employer — and the newspaper editor says that's how he wanted it to appear in print.That's where he went wrong.
Admittedly, it’s a hypothetical.
I also recognize you rightly caveated with the word “respectable”.
So, given that, can you imagine Apple or Google or Mozilla actually firing an employee who, using their name, criticized Christians who were against gay “marriage”?
If Chief Flying Eagle smokes peyote in his tribal ceremonies over the weekend — even if he does this under the full protection of the law — he ain’t going to be operating any heavy equipment for me.
I wouldn't know about this one way or another, but I can absolutely see these companies taking a hard line against employees who publish anything like this even when the employees take positions that the company's leadership fully supports.
The dilemma a company faces is that if they allow Employee X to freely publish opinions like that, they have compromised their ability to discipline Employee Y for publishing a different opinion in a similar case.
This is why most companies don't like to get involved openly in politics on controversial matters. There's very little upside in alienating a large portion of your potential customer (and employee) base.
The example of the letter to the editor that you gave (”sheep love”) is an extreme one.
Let’s go back to the example of the person writing about a safety issue.
In that example, he wrote to the paper, put his position and company and then was let go.
Then he spoke out some more, telling the press he was let go due to having previously written a letter to the paper about a safety issue.
So, that employee doesn’t work for the company any more- the contract, as you put it, is broken, so on what basis can the company go after him further?
That further action on the part of the company is retaliation on a whistleblower.
He was stating facts, and any retaliation for whistleblowing only makes the company look worse.
Since when is telling the truth slander?
So, let’s say your company does, oh, private investigations. One of your employees writes a paper about a public hot-button issue, and their name is connected to your company.
You’ll fire her?
Is this employee’s name somehow “connected” to the company by a reader who does the research and figures out where she works, or is the paper published with the company’s name affiliated with her identity?
that could have been construed to mean...setting an LGBTZYZ person on fire...
From Bored of the Rings...
‘Kodak Khaki No-Doz’ cried Gimlet, hurling a burning faggot at the pack of narcs.
‘Aiyee’ cried the faggot...
The Native American smoking peyote is another rare occasion. Give a more common example of something that is dangerous.
RG2,
I agree with you.
Those big companies involved themselves into the debate on homosexuality, and are being “in your face” to those that do not agree with their positions.
Not to mention being on the wrong side of Divine Law.
Alberta’s Child,
Now a small company doesn’t know about this in particular...
Well, they should.
The big companies opened up the can of worms and have kicked the hornets nest.
Lot of people don’t like it when they are told to ignore God’s Law.
And it’s getting more evident every day isn’t it?
What’s the title of the book, and who is the author?
I guess he missed the memo: TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.
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.