Lds Officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination

[tonie]

Yeah...I dont' feel like I have the whole story at all. It'd be weird if he were willing to do the duty, as someone had quoted him as saying, and yet he was still let go.

Seems like there's more to it. Something I might not get. is it possible that this is typically the type of grounds for firing among police? Going behind authorities backs to change assignments?

 

Yeah.  Seems pretty odd to be fired because you requested a different assignment.

 

 

Moutsos was not fired.

He resigned.

By his own account he lacked a certain level of diplomacy in refusing the assignment.

At some point he agree to the assignment.

He was placed on leave and under an Internal Affairs investigation.

He resigned shortly thereafter.

He was not fired. 

 

Edited: first edition of the post was based on my rememberance of readings from a few days ago.

Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

Scott, if you are going to keep wailing about false witness, then please demonstrate where I said Moutsos was lying. Otherwise, please follow you own advice and stop bearing false witness.

 

 

As for Moutsos, and as you seem unwilling to understand, he refused his assigned duties. He later agreed to those assigned duties.

[stemelbow]

Moutsos was not fired.

He resigned.

By his own account he lacked a certain level of diplomacy in refusing the assignment.

By the time decided to agree to the assignment, he was already placed on leave and under an Internal Affairs investigation.

He resigned shortly thereafter.

He was not fired.

Eh..."let go" as opposed to resigning after being placed on leave isn't much of a distinction to me. It seems like you have a better feel for what happened than me. So I ask, are you saying he was placed on leave after refusing to do the assignment? Something like, he went to his boss to ask for a change in assignment. When not granted, he responded by saying he isn't going to do it. Is that what happened? Perhaps that explains the placing on leave.

His own report seems to contradict what you are suggesting. He says when he was refused to change assignments, he told them he'd do that which he wasn't comfortable doing. "When my superiors refused to let me swap assignments and called me intolerant, I told them that I would perform the maneuvers. I didn’t want to lose my job or stability for my family."

I really don't see a cause for placing on leave, without a just cause I can see why he took that as a need to resign.

[sethpayne]

Moutsos was not fired.

He resigned.

By his own account he lacked a certain level of diplomacy in refusing the assignment.

By the time decided to agree to the assignment, he was already placed on leave and under an Internal Affairs investigation.

He resigned shortly thereafter.

He was not fired. 

 

My mistake, tonie.  Thanks for the correction.

[Scott Lloyd]

Moutsos was not fired.

He resigned.

By his own account he lacked a certain level of diplomacy in refusing the assignment.

By the time decided to agree to the assignment, he was already placed on leave and under an Internal Affairs investigation.

He resigned shortly thereafter.

He was not fired. 

Your time frame is screwed up.

 

From the Moustos statement:

 

But the Salt Lake City Police Department did not allow me to swap assignments. In an email, I

made it clear that I had “no uneasy feelings working any other assignment on this day at the

event [including] security, parade post, traffic, etc.” I explained that I took issue with doing maneuvers

as part of the parade because it would look like I was in support of the parade. I also

asked specifically: “Please allow me the choice for someone to trade me for whatever reason, if

at all possible.” But my request was denied, and I began to worry about jeopardizing my job, so I

informed my superior officers, “I will be there for practice and be there for the event to do my

assigned position.” Several days later, on June 4, the Salt Lake City Police Department placed

me on paid administrative leave and informed me that the department was opening an internal

affairs investigation for discrimination. As part of my suspension, they took all my issued

equipment and told me I could not act as a law enforcement officer. On June 6, a police department

spokesperson discussed my suspension with the media. Nobody in the department that I

know of, including myself, had been officially asked questions in an internal affairs investigation.

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, if you are going to keep wailing about false witness, then please demonstrate where I said Moutsos was lying. Otherwise, please follow you own advice and stop bearing false witness.

 

You have repeatedly held up as though it were the definitive, authoritative word the false statement that emanated from the police department last summer. The statement that Burbank has since failed to confirm or sustain.

 

That statement and Moustos cannot both be right; ergo, one or the other is being untruthful.

 

 

As for Moutsos, and as you seem unwilling to understand, he refused his assigned duties. He later agreed to those assigned duties.

 

Show me in his statement where it says he refused.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Moutsos was not fired.

He resigned.

By his own account he lacked a certain level of diplomacy in refusing the assignment.

By the time decided to agree to the assignment, he was already placed on leave and under an Internal Affairs investigation.

He resigned shortly thereafter.

He was not fired. 

 

 

My mistake, tonie.  Thanks for the correction.

As stemelbow has pointed out it's almost a distinction without a difference. By branding him a bigot and a hater, management made it impossible for him to work there any longer.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Reposted for clarity

 

Scott, if you are going to keep wailing about false witness, then please demonstrate where I said Moutsos was lying. .

 

Yes, Scott, this is a CFR

 

Prove the CFR or retract. And when you fail to prove it; please follow you own advice and stop bearing false witness

[KevinG]

Again, the officer did not refuse to perform any assignment or order. He did not disobey the law.

 

It's a man's reputation we're talking about here. Please be careful about making implied accusations.

 

Careful hell!  He must be sacrificed for the greater politically correct good!  Were you not paying attention to Fergusun?

[KevinG]

This case parallels an incident I knew of in the USAF missile squadrons back in the 1980s.  A married LDS officer was not comfortable pulling a 72 hour shift alone in a launch facility with a single female officer and asked to be reassigned.  She flipped her crap and went after his career with a vengeance.

 

I disagree with the officers choice, but fail to see where he failed at anything, other than to anticipate he might be asked to do something against his preferences and avoid ceremonial duty in the first place.

[Scott Lloyd]

As it seems that there are still a lot of misinformed comments being posted here, I am taking the liberty of pasting in the written statement of Officer Moustos in its entirety. I found it moving, and, if anything, it has deepened my admiration for him. Please read it through to the end and pay particular attention to the closing comments:

 

1 of 6
My life changed forever on June 6, 2014. Overnight, I was thrust into the crossfire of a debate
over LGBT rights and religious liberties.
That evening, as I listened to news reports that a Salt Lake City police officer had been suspended
for refusing to work security and traffic during the 2014 Utah Pride Parade, I sat in disbelief.
They were talking about me, but I had never refused to work the parade, and certainly never
refused to provide security and traffic control. As a police officer, I’m sworn to protect and
serve. But I never believed that my oath required me to give up all of my First Amendment
rights.
So when I, due to my personal beliefs and conscience, did not feel right about performing choreographed
motorcycle maneuvers at the front of the Utah Pride Parade, I asked another officer
to swap assignments with me. Swaps are a common practice, and reasonable accommodations
have, in my experience, always been made for officers requesting a trade. We agreed that I
would cover his security and traffic post, and he would do the maneuvers in the parade.
When my superiors refused to let me swap assignments and called me intolerant, I told them that
I would perform the maneuvers. I didn’t want to lose my job or stability for my family. I thought
I would have the choice to be a part of the Motor Squad, or go back to patrol. But the police department
suspended me, took away my gun and badge, and told me that I would be investigated
for discrimination. Two days later, a police spokesperson gave interviews to the media, and the
news reported that I refused to work a security and traffic assignment at the parade. I was immediately
branded a bigot.
I recently read about a court case where a florist in Washington didn’t want to be a part of a gay
wedding. The court’s ruling said, “[The florist] cannot comply with both the law and her faith if
she continues to provide flowers for weddings as part of her duly-licensed business.” This case is
one of the reasons why I am speaking up now.
The Utah Legislature is working to develop balanced legislation that protects religious liberty
and safeguards LGBT people from discrimination in employment and housing. I do support leg2
of 6
islation that provides fairness for all. No one should be afraid to be who they are in their employment.
And no one should have to choose between their job and their conscience.
In balancing fairness for all Utahns, I ask legislators to consider what happened to me:
I became a Salt Lake City police officer in 2007, and in the summer of 2013, I joined the department’s
Motorcycle Squad, a group of approximately 30 well-trained motorcycle riders who
are responsible for traffic enforcement throughout the city. Upon request, the squad also provides
its services to a variety of special events, including parades, funerals, sporting events, marathons,
and more. For these events, the squad provides security and traffic control. On limited occasions,
officers are known to perform choreographed maneuvers for crowd entertainment and celebration.
These maneuvers include, for example, officers driving their motorcycles in tight circles
around one another. Typically, the most junior motorcycle officers are tasked with performing
these choreographed maneuvers, and last June, I was one of those junior officers.
When I thought about performing in the parade, my conscience did not feel right. I felt that by
being an actual participant in the parade, I would be perceived to be supporting certain messages
that were contrary to who I am. Had I been allowed to make the swap, it would have been my
duty to protect pedestrians at the parade from vehicle traffic.
But the Salt Lake City Police Department did not allow me to swap assignments. In an email, I
made it clear that I had “no uneasy feelings working any other assignment on this day at the
event [including] security, parade post, traffic, etc.” I explained that I took issue with doing maneuvers
as part of the parade because it would look like I was in support of the parade. I also
asked specifically: “Please allow me the choice for someone to trade me for whatever reason, if
at all possible.” But my request was denied, and I began to worry about jeopardizing my job, so I
informed my superior officers, “I will be there for practice and be there for the event to do my
assigned position.” Several days later, on June 4, the Salt Lake City Police Department placed
me on paid administrative leave and informed me that the department was opening an internal
affairs investigation for discrimination. As part of my suspension, they took all my issued
equipment and told me I could not act as a law enforcement officer. On June 6, a police department
spokesperson discussed my suspension with the media. Nobody in the department that I
3 of 6
know of, including myself, had been officially asked questions in an internal affairs investigation.
That night, I watched the news and learned that a Salt Lake City police officer—me—had refused
to work at the Utah Pride Parade. I was devastated. And I have not been the same since.
Branded as an LGBT bigot, I have found my relationships are not the same. Phone calls have not
been returned by some of my closest friends.
The first article I saw was done by The Salt Lake Tribune; then the story caught fire. The Deseret
News reported, “A Salt Lake Police Officer has been placed on leave for refusing an assignment
at this weekend’s Gay Pride Parade. . . . He had been given a traffic control and public safety assignment.”
KSL 5 Television reported, “The Salt Lake City Police Department confirms that one
of their officers refused to work his assigned duties at the Utah Pride Festival this weekend, citing
personal convictions.” KSL 5 also showed video clips of an interview with a police spokesperson
who said that the chief of police, “wants to make clear that bias and bigotry will not be
tolerated.” Fox 13 Television showed video clips of the same spokesperson, who said, “The vast
majority of officers understand: When they put their badge on and come to work, they leave their
personal beliefs at home, and we provide service to the community.”
The same story was in the news across America and even in Australia. Two days later, during the
pride parade, news outlets quoted the Salt Lake District Attorney as saying, “If [the officer]
wants to make that statement then maybe he should be in a different profession than this one. . . .
We cannot qualify the delivery of that service, that we promise to a community based on individuals
who say, ‘Well I’m going to pick and choose which call to respond to, which fire to put
out or which person to serve.’” The public verdict was swift, severe, and certain: the officer was
unquestionably an LGBT bigot. They were all talking about me. But that is not what I did, and
that is not who I am.
I have never refused to protect or serve any member of our community. I would never refuse to
protect or serve LGBT individuals, whether at a pride parade, or anywhere else.
4 of 6
In my duties as a police officer, I have been called upon to protect events I disagree with, including
several LGBT rallies. I never felt that my personal or religious beliefs “exempted” me from
serving or protecting anyone’s First Amendment rights or safety. I love and respect them as fellow
children of God; however, I should never be forced to personally celebrate any messages.
That is my right.
It is unquestionably my duty as a police officer to protect everyone’s right to hold a parade or
other event, but is it also my duty to celebrate everyone’s parade?
What if a group held a “Traditional Marriage Pride Parade” and asked a Utah police department
to provide security and traffic control for the parade? What if that police department also supported
the parade’s message and ordered some of its motorcycle officers to perform in that parade?
If an LGBT officer were to ask for a reassignment, so that he or she could protect the parade-
goers rather than perform in the parade, would anyone challenge his or her right to make
such a request? Would their request make headlines?
I was told the parade organizers paid the sum of $900 for the department to do the motorcycle
maneuvers and we would have to do it for anyone who paid. So, if this event is now in the name
of customer service, would we also have to perform maneuvers for the Westboro Baptist Church
or the KKK if they paid the $900? If so, what if a cop who lost a family member in the war in
Iraq or Afghanistan in the first instance, or an African American officer in the other, didn’t want
to be a part of the perceived celebration? Should we force those officers to perform maneuvers in
the name of “service”? The idea is preposterous. To be clear, I do not equate the LGBT community
with either of these hateful groups, rather I use the example to question forcing law enforcement
officers to do any more than protect and serve.
Law enforcement officers are not pawns to be used according to the political whims of the agencies
that employ us; rather, we are servants who are proud to live in a country where fundamental
constitutional rights are universally applied.
In an email to my superiors I brought up some of these points and explained that it looks as
though we as a police department, a governmental entity, were in support of the messages of the
5 of 6
Pride Days parade organizers, when I believed we should simply be neutral for service and protection.
The superior over the event then replied in an email, “As far as ‘supporting’ the Event;
unless I am sadly mistaken, our Department does support equality and understanding of the
LGBT community, as well as that of diversity and that of being open-mined towards others who
share differing preferences in their lives. In fact, we have several fellow Officers and Civilian
employees who are homosexual whom you should not have issue with on that basis alone either;
as you should not with any of the entrants or patrons of the upcoming Pride Day Parade.”
This response by my superior, in my opinion, attempts to validate everyone else’s First Amendment
rights at the expense of mine and those of similar officers – those with conservative beliefs
that are rooted in religion, and worse, it ignores the fact that my relationships and interactions
with homosexual employees were never strained or borne out of anything but mutual respect, as
far as I was concerned.
What I was being told, essentially, was to leave my religious beliefs at home when I put on the
uniform, and worse, to ignore those convictions in circumstances where my employer is forcing
me to participate in someone else’s protected speech. This is constitutionally deficient. We do
not lose our rights as police officers or first responders, or public officials of any stripe, merely
by choosing to work in public service. Since when does our duty to protect and serve include
subjugating our core beliefs to those who we serve through circumstances where we are forced to
adopt the “speech” of others - thereby participating in a statement that we would not otherwise
make?
I am sharing my experience to unite, not to divide. I want to be part of the solution, not part of
the problem. I ask that the Utah Legislature act now to balance protections for religious liberty
with safeguards for LGBT people, unifying these important interests to the end that all
are protected from discrimination in employment and housing. Through this experience, I
have gained greater compassion and empathy for anyone who has lost their job because of who
they are. No one should be forced to choose between their job and their conscience.
Some have said that I should leave my beliefs at home when I go to work. I couldn’t imagine this
thought. I fear I then would not be equipped to be the best I can be to protect and serve the com6
of 6
munity that I have proudly served for seven years. In the first half of my life I did not take seriously
my relationship with God, but I do now, and He is my life. We are all sinners, and fall
short from time to time. How we manage this reality and organize ourselves morally is a
uniquely personal and constitutionally protected privilege.
My prayers steady my nerves on dangerous calls, in a profession where a fraction of a second
could mean the difference between someone’s life or death. As a cop, I’m not always popular, so
I have a lot of opportunities to practice the commandment, “Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you.” I strive to follow this commandment – it’s not always
easy. I’m still working on this.
Prior to the Motors Squad, as a bicycle officer on Salt Lake City’s streets I tried working with
the homeless almost every day. Many of them were afraid of police officers. I offered them a
smile, helped them find the charitable services they needed, and did my best to be their friend.
My religion taught me not to dwell on anything they possibly had done, but to see in them what
they could become. To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable in others, because God
has forgiven the inexcusable in me; and as far as all the people who have called me a bigot, I
forgive you. I love you and pray for you. From time to time, I also strongly disagree with you.
Most certainly, I am not a bigot. I want you to know that. These experiences teach me that we are
all children of God and can somehow unite under the principle of love.
Finally, I also want you to know that if I really did have to leave my beliefs at home, I do not
know if I could show up for work. If I must choose between my religion and my job, my faith
comes first. I hope and pray that lawmakers and policy-makers can find a way to ensure that no
one will have to make that choice in the future. Nobody in the United States of America should
have to. I believe that we can wholeheartedly disagree with each other on even fundamental levels,
but somehow also reach across that divide and love each other through this human experience.
We should have laws that reflect that. Thank you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Reposted for clarity

 

Scott, if you are going to keep wailing about false witness, then please demonstrate where I said Moutsos was lying. .

 

Yes, Scott, this is a CFR

 

Prove the CFR or retract. And when you fail to prove it; please follow you own advice and stop bearing false witness

Already responded to.

 

And you've not yet shown from his statement where he refused to fulfill his duties.

 

I just posted the statement in its entirety. That should make things more convenient for you.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Already responded to.

 

And you've not yet shown from his statement where he refused to fulfill his duties.

 

I just posted the statement in its entirety. That should make things more convenient for you.

 

Sorry that does not meet the CFR.   So please prove your claim or recant it, and most of all stop bearing false witness.

 

You received your answer...  move on. -Ares

Edited March 2, 2015 by Ares

[sethpayne]

I am sharing my experience to unite, not to divide. I want to be part of the solution, not part of

the problem. I ask that the Utah Legislature act now to balance protections for religious liberty

with safeguards for LGBT people, unifying these important interests to the end that all

are protected from discrimination in employment and housing. Through this experience, I

have gained greater compassion and empathy for anyone who has lost their job because of who

they are. No one should be forced to choose between their job and their conscience.

Some have said that I should leave my beliefs at home when I go to work. I couldn’t imagine this

thought. I fear I then would not be equipped to be the best I can be to protect and serve the community that I have proudly served for seven years.

 

 

 

Here is the fundamental problem.  I don't doubt that this officer is well-intentioned and a nice guy.  But he fails to differentiate between his "job" as a police officer and the "job" that you or I hold.

 

A police officer works for and serves the public.  He/she must uphold the Constitution.  Being a cop means seeing and doing things one may not otherwise choose to do.  Like a soldier, you can't pick and choose when/where/how you decide to be a cop.

 

Riding motorcycle in public parades was a responsibility this officer voluntarily took upon himself with the full knowledge that he may be called upon to participate in public parades.  The officer himself has said that he didn't handle this diplomatically.  

 

The other day I got a call from a buddy who was curious to see if I was interested in a project he was working on.  After hearing the details I decided it wasn't for me.  That it may put me in situations that I would feel morally uncomfortable.  I turned his offer down.

 

If being a cop causes this officer to have such a problem with his conscience, he can find another job.  Because guess what?  That's how life works.  You have to decide if you can live with the duties you are taking on.  If not, don't take the job.

 

This officer is not a victim.  But he's not the devil, either.  He failed to meet his employment obligations.  End of story, IMO.  If he was unjustly persecuted I'm sure the Police Union will not miss an opportunity to swoop in.

Edited March 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is the fundamental problem.  I don't doubt that this officer is well-intentioned and a nice guy.  But he fails to differentiate between his "job" as a police officer and the "job" that you or I hold.

 

Based on his written statement, I can't agree with that.

 

A police officer works for and serves the public.  He/she must uphold the Constitution.  Being a cop means seeing and doing things one may not otherwise choose to do.  Like a soldier, you can't pick and choose when/where/how you decide to be a cop.

 

 

I think he recognizes that. He made a request. When the request was denied, he would have been willing to do what was required of him. He never got the chance, because he was summarily suspended.

 

 

Riding motorcycle in public parades was a responsibility this officer voluntarily took upon himself with the full knowledge that he may be called upon to participate in public parades.  The officer himself has said that he didn't handle this diplomatically.  

 

I've already made a point of this, but what he said was that he could have been more diplomatic, not that he didn't handle it diplomatically. You may not see the difference, but I do. The former phrasing leaves open the possibility that he did use a measure of diplomacy. Reading over his written statement, I'm guessing that what he meant was that he argued his case a bit too forcefully. That's not insubordination, and it's definitely not the same thing as an outright refusal.

 

 

The other day I got a call from a buddy who was curious to see if I was interested in a project he was working on.  After hearing the details I decided it wasn't for me.  That it may put me in situations that I would feel morally uncomfortable.  I turned his offer down.

 

If being a cop causes this officer to have such a problem with his conscience, he can find another job.  Because guess what?  That's how life works.  You have to decide if you can live with the duties you are taking on.  If not, don't take the job.

 

 

He's a professional. He's apparently good at what he does. Being a professional does not mean he should have to violate his conscience, not when other options are available. And he definitely should not be forced out and humiliated merely for raising the question.

 

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has said on at least two occasions now within my hearing, one of them general conference (I'll paraphrase here to avoid having to look it up): Rule number one for discipleship: You NEVER check your beliefs at the door (or leave them home, in this instance).

 

 

I reiterate: By all appearances, Salt Lake City has lost a quality police officer due to the hasty overreaction of the police chief.

 

 

This officer is not a victim.

 

 

I quite disagree. He is a victim. And his going public with this may serve to prevent others from being victims.

 

 

 But he's not the devil, either.  He failed to meet his employment obligations.  End of story.

 

He did not fail. He would have done what was required. He did not get that chance.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Seth, did you read the article?  It is difficult to understand the points you are making when they have nothing to do what took place in this situation. It may be worth while going back and reading the article.  Scott's responses are accurate.  

 

It is strange how stories are created from whole cloth so easily and quickly.  What is the motivation that causes this distortion of facts?  It is fascinating to see this repeated by both sides.  It is not unique and occurs far more often than it should. 

[stemelbow]

Here is the fundamental problem.  I don't doubt that this officer is well-intentioned and a nice guy.  But he fails to differentiate between his "job" as a police officer and the "job" that you or I hold.

 

A police officer works for and serves the public.  He/she must uphold the Constitution.  Being a cop means seeing and doing things one may not otherwise choose to do.  Like a soldier, you can't pick and choose when/where/how you decide to be a cop.

 

Riding motorcycle in public parades was a responsibility this officer voluntarily took upon himself with the full knowledge that he may be called upon to participate in public parades.  The officer himself has said that he didn't handle this diplomatically.  

 

The other day I got a call from a buddy who was curious to see if I was interested in a project he was working on.  After hearing the details I decided it wasn't for me.  That it may put me in situations that I would feel morally uncomfortable.  I turned his offer down.

 

If being a cop causes this officer to have such a problem with his conscience, he can find another job.  Because guess what?  That's how life works.  You have to decide if you can live with the duties you are taking on.  If not, don't take the job.

 

This officer is not a victim.  But he's not the devil, either.  He failed to meet his employment obligations.  End of story, IMO.  If he was unjustly persecuted I'm sure the Police Union will not miss an opportunity to swoop in.

I think your take would make more sense, Seth, if he did not say he would do the job after his request for a change was rejected.

[KevinG]

Seth, did you read the article?  It is difficult to understand the points you are making when they have nothing to do what took place in this situation. It may be worth while going back and reading the article.  Scott's responses are accurate.  

 

It is strange how stories are created from whole cloth so easily and quickly.  What is the motivation that causes this distortion of facts?  It is fascinating to see this repeated by both sides.  It is not unique and occurs far more often than it should. 

 

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".  - Mark Twain

[sethpayne]

 

I reiterate: By all appearances, Salt Lake City has lost a quality police officer due to the hasty overreaction of the police chief.

 

 

Well, if that is the extent of it then I have no doubt the Police Union will fix the problem.   Public employees can't be let go simply because they tick off the chief.  There are protections upon protections against that stuff.

 

 

I quite disagree. He is a victim. And his going public with this may serve to prevent others from being victims.

 

 

Or, perhaps he has a very savvy attorney who, as is required by his duty to his client, trying to shape the narrative in a way that benefits his client.  I see no reason to believe he's lying.  But at the same time his story doesn't add up and it is interesting how all of the facts presented are presented in such a way as to minimize any mistakes this officer may have made and taut his victimhood.

 

In any case, if he truly is a victim the Union will have his job back by the end of the week.

[tonie]

 

He did not fail. He would have done what was required. He did not get that chance.

 

He refused to fulfill his assignment. We can assume, that by the time he had agreed to the assignment, he had already acted in a manner lacking a certain degree of diplomacy. 

 

The fact remains is that he refused the assignment.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, if that is the extent of it then I have no doubt the Police Union will fix the problem.   Public employees can't be let go simply because they tick off the chief.  There are protections upon protections against that stuff.

 

 

 

Or, perhaps he has a very savvy attorney who, as is required by his duty to his client, trying to shape the narrative in a way that benefits his client.  I see no reason to believe he's lying.  But at the same time his story doesn't add up and it is interesting how all of the facts presented are presented in such a way as to minimize any mistakes this officer may have made and taut his victimhood.

 

In any case, if he truly is a victim the Union will have his job back by the end of the week.

Given how politically charged this thing is (I've been surprised by the heated reaction here in this thread among some of our own people) I doubt the police union will be of much help in this instance. I might be wrong in that; I hope I am.

[sethpayne]

Seth, did you read the article?  It is difficult to understand the points you are making when they have nothing to do what took place in this situation. It may be worth while going back and reading the article.  Scott's responses are accurate.  

 

It is strange how stories are created from whole cloth so easily and quickly.  What is the motivation that causes this distortion of facts?  It is fascinating to see this repeated by both sides.  It is not unique and occurs far more often than it should. 

 

I don't dispute Scott's account, nor the officers.  As I say, there is no reason to think anyone is lying or being deceitful.  But what I am saying is that the story, as told, makes no sense whatsoever.  Where is the union?  What is the SLPD policy on discrimination?  Do we really believe that an officer would be harassed for making this request?  

[Scott Lloyd]

He refused to fulfill his assignment. We can assume, that by the time he had agreed to the assignment, he had already acted in a manner lacking a certain degree of diplomacy. 

 

The fact remains is that he refused the assignment.

Raising the question -- and even pressing the point to a degree -- does not equate to refusing the assignment.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

Given how politically charged this thing is (I've been surprised by the heated reaction here in this thread among some of our own people) I doubt the police union will be of much help in this instance. I might be wrong in that; I hope I am.

 

But the Union doesn't have much choice.  They are under contractual obligation to protect members because members pay dues.  If they don't step in, they are shirking their duties to the officer.

 

But he's Mormon.   Union is made up of those southern baptists.  So that's OK.  JK!  

Edited March 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't dispute Scott's account, nor the officers.  As I say, there is no reason to think anyone is lying or being deceitful.  But what I am saying is that the story, as told, makes no sense whatsoever.  Where is the union?  What is the SLPD policy on discrimination?  Do we really believe that an officer would be harassed for making this request?  

It's a new day, sethpayne. Gay-rights activists are feeling their oats and, in large measure, have gotten what they want in an astoundingly short period of time.

 

That's why we have to be on guard against the the tyranny of political correctness.