NYT Defends Punishment of Thought Crimes, and In Return Is Used To Defend Actual Punishment (Odd But True)

The "editorial board" of the NYT went out of its way to defend the firing of the Atlanta Fire Chief for his religious views. No, he is not Islamic, that would be an offense to Islam. He is Christian. His offense: he wrote a book in which he criticized homosexuality.

God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department

"Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department, where he oversaw a work force of more than 1,000 firefighters and staff.

Mr. Cochran, a veteran firefighter, is also a deeply religious man, and he was eager to bring his Christian faith into the daily functioning of his department — or, as he put it in a book he authored in 2013, to “cultivate its culture to the glory of God.”

But, as the book revealed, his religious beliefs also include virulent anti-gay views. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, 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."

Other sources report that Cochran did have permission from the mayor's office to distribute the book. But that wasn't what got him fired. It was his opinion which got him fired. It was deemed a thought crime. Given that there is no record of discrimination by which to punish Cochran, the thought crime aspect is very clear.

Here's the money quote:

"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."

Yes. Constitutional standards no longer apply to Victimhood Classes. There are different standards for them, and those standards are dictated by the self-anointed elites of the Messiah Class.

The Mayor has doubled down, while forked-tonguing the issue:

Mayor: Fire chief not axed for writing anti-gay book

"Here is the letter:
Dear Supporters,

Last week, I made the decision to terminate our Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran. It was a decision that was not made lightly because I appreciated Chief Cochran's service to the City of Atlanta. While you may have read articles that asserted the issue at hand was Chief Cochran's religious beliefs, I can assure you that those comments could not be further from the truth.

The truth is that I am a man of deep faith myself, and we are a city of laws. Chief Cochran's book, "Who Told You You Were Naked," was published in violation of the city's Standards of Conduct, which required prior approval from the Board of Ethics. I believe his actions, decisions, and lack of judgment undermined his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse workforce. Every single City of Atlanta employee deserves the certainty that he or she is a valued member of the team and that fairness and respect guide our employment decisions. His actions and his statements during the investigation and his suspension eroded my confidence in his ability to serve as a member of my senior leadership team.

Please take a moment to read this editorial that was published in today's New York Times.

Thank you for all of your kind offers of support. Please take a moment to remind everyone you know that the City of Atlanta is a city too busy to hate.

Sincerely,

Mayor Kasim Reed"

The fork in the mayor's tongue might get a lawsuit going, should Cochran care to fight back. The mayor claims first that it was not Cochran's beliefs, it was his failure to get permission that got him fired. Then with his other tongue he says that it was Cochran's opinions (Christian) which drove the decision, and with his third tongue claimed that the opinion of the editorial board of the NYT served as justification, as if the NYT were some legal/moral authority.

It's possible that Cochran is toast. Sexual deviants are fully protected Victimhood Class perpetual victims. And even though Cochran is black, that is cancelled out by his status as an Oppressor Class thought criminal.

Here's a thought experiment: What if Cochran were actually a Muslim, and expressed the exact same opinions? Would the mayor "offend" the Imams and Mullahs by firing him? There is no class more favored by the Messiahs than Muslims; the moral weighting would tend to tip away from sexual deviancy and toward Islam, I suspect. But the point is that moral weighting is what is going on at the mayor's office and at the NYT, and they are very comfortable in their moral authority to condemn and punish their enemies, completely outside any lawful, legal process. They ARE the Messiahs. They will make the moral rules and decisions.