Lds Officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination

[tonie]

Earlier in this thread, you repeatedly said this:

 

This has been contradicted by Officer Moutsos, who said he was quite willing to provide traffic control and security, but not be part of the show. He would even have relented and taken the initial assignment if it had not been possible to trade. In this, he has not been contradicted by Police Chief Burbank, who has had every opportunity to do so by now. Instead, Burbank's line seems to be that he expects his officers to do what they're told without question, regardless of what it is.

 

Now, at this late stage, it appears the police department is no longer standing by the statement you quoted above. What else am I to conclude other than that it was untruthful? At this point, that seems obvious on its face.

 

Moutsos did refuse in an admittedly undiplomatic manner. By the time he recanted, it was too late. So he WAS already put on leave for refusal.  But if you want to lambast others for what you will label libel while you engage in what I label libel, then keep on with you apparent libelous commentary.

 

 

It is not dissimilar. It's an apt comparison. In either case the officer would be compelled to engage in behavior that could well be perceived as support for the thing to which he objects. It would be unjust to require a black officer to do that at a KKK rally; it is similarly unjust to require someone with Moutsos's convictions to do it at a "gay pride" parade.

 

 

Moutsos claimed he would have to participate due to "celebratory circles". 

He made no mention of a black police being forced to participate in celebratory circles.

And I notice that you failed to take into consideration that Moutsos is claiming active participation, and his black police officer (failed comparison) is just an officer riding out front with no suggestion of celebratory conduct.

 

 

And while we are at it, is it unjust to ask black medical staff perform live saving measures on a dress klansman?

[Calm]

Scott's mention of the 47 parade led me to see if there might be more complete video of the police involvement in some.  There was, much, much more.

 

More can be seen of the motorcycle cops, there is much they are doing that isn't needed for traffic control, imo.  Besides at the beginning, you can see them at 2:10 and later.  It would appear, imo, that there are multiple appearances.  There is also the Fire Department that is obviously not there solely for their current service in protecting the parade goers.

 

 

But I don't see how it could reasonably be regarded as having anything to do with providing security or traffic control.

 

 

And from what I've seen in the past (not with cops, but regular cyclists), could actually be adding danger at least for the participants….not much given the training I would hope, but if it was just security and traffic control, then it would seem to me they would keep things as simple as possible because complicated tends to lead to more accidents.  Plus not that many officers are needed to clear the way or provide security all in one spot.  It would be more effective if they had been spread out rather than stuck together to look cooler.

Edited February 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he started the pissing contest.

There's no way you can know that at this point. You don't know what or how much provocation there may have been from management who trained their sights on him for even raising the question in the first place. Edited February 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott's mention of the 47 parade led me to see if there might be more complete video of the police involvement in some.  There was, much, much more.

 

More can be seen of the motorcycle cops, there is much they are doing that isn't needed for traffic control, imo.  Besides at the beginning, you can see them at 2:10 and later.  It would appear, imo, that there are multiple appearances.  There is also the Fire Department that is obviously not there solely for their current service in protecting the parade goers.

 

 

And from what I've seen in the past (not with cops, but regular cyclists), could actually be adding danger at least for the participants….not much given the training I would hope, but if it was just security and traffic control, then it would seem to me they would keep things as simple as possible because complicated tends to lead to more accidents.  Plus not that many officers are needed to clear the way or provide security all in one spot.  It would be more effective if they had been spread out rather than stuck together to look cooler.

Any reasonable spectator who has seen it live, as I have, would have to conclude it's not about public safety. It's all about crowd dazzle. It's impressive, to be sure. But let's not kid ourselves about its purpose. Edited February 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Our friend USU78 is wont to say, "I ain't bakin' nobody no cakes."

Perhaps we could add to that, "I ain't puttin' on no motorcycle precision stunt shows for nobody's party."

Together we can beat the tyranny of political correctness.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Attorney Bret Rawson said the officer didn’t refuse to work the parade, but asked to be taken off the motor team that leads the parade and reassigned to behind-the-scenes duty. Rawson declined to divulge the officer’s name. Salt Lake City police have not named him either.

 

The officer felt being on the motorcycle would make it appear he was advocating for gay pride, something that made him uncomfortable because of his personal and religious beliefs, he said. He never flatly said he wouldn’t work the parade, merely asking for a different duty, Rawson said.

 

“You are essentially participating in the actual parade,” Rawson said. “It’s more than doing traffic, or patrol or regular police duties.”

 

You can give the worst spin on this man's motive as possible and i'll focus on the best spin on his motives as possible and we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Neither one of us knows enough to pretend like we can judge the situation completely accurately.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out.

I don't think it's foregone that this will go to trial. If Salt Lake City Corp. is prudent it will try to settle out of court. And Officer Coustos strikes me as gentlemanly enough he might be content with a public apology and a retraction of the initial false statement about him refusing to provide security or traffic control.

Burbank is exacerbating an already bad situation by doubling down and digging in.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

I don't think it's foregone that this will go to trial. If Salt Lake City Corp. is prudent it will try to settle out of court. And Officer Coustos strikes me as getlemanly enough he might be content with a public apology and a retraction of the initial false statement about him refusing to provide security or traffic control.

Burbank is exacerbating an already bad situation by doubling down and digging in.

 

 

And yet, you have not shown a false statement. Moutsos admitted he undiplomatically refused the assignment. Moutsos's lawyer also admits Moutsos refused the assignment.   So where is the false statement? Should we resurrect your lecture about libel? Though, I see you still have not qualms about libel when you are posting the potentially libelous statement.

 

And you obviously didn't notice the admission from Moutsos attorney that assignment was traffic.

[california boy]

You guys have gone on for 10 pages basically doing a he said he said case against what ever side you support using very little facts that are available to the public.  So let's for a moment look at what facts we do know that haven't been discussed.

 

Fact 1, this incident took place in Salt Lake City not some city were few Mormons live.  Does anyone think that this officer is the ONLY Mormon on the SLC police force?  Does anyone think he was the ONLY Christian on the SLC police force.

 

Fact 2. He was the ONLY police officer reported who felt that performing his assigned duties met that he was participating in the parade to the point where he was unwilling to take the assignment..

 

Fact 3.  He was the ONLY police officer reported who felt that performing his assigned duties was a violation of his religious beliefs to the point where he was unwilling to take the assignment.

 

So is he the only Mormon or Christian who has enough conviction to stand up for his beliefs in the entire SLC police force?  Actually is he the only Mormon or Christian reported who has EVER had a problem performing his duties on a gay pride parade in the entire country in the past 25+ years.  What does that say about the validity of his position???????????

 

Or is he the only police officer in the country in the entire history of gay pride events who is making a huge deal over NOTHING. 

[tonie]

You guys have gone on for 10 pages basically doing a he said he said case against what ever side you support using very little facts that are available to the public.  So let's for a moment look at what facts we do know that haven't been discussed.

 

Fact 1, this incident took place in Salt Lake City not some city were few Mormons live.  Does anyone think that this officer is the ONLY Mormon on the SLC police force?  Does anyone think he was the ONLY Christian on the SLC police force.

 

Fact 2. He was the ONLY police officer reported who felt that performing his assigned duties met that he was participating in the parade to the point where he was unwilling to take the assignment..

 

Fact 3.  He was the ONLY police officer reported who felt that performing his assigned duties was a violation of his religious beliefs to the point where he was unwilling to take the assignment.

 

So is he the only Mormon or Christian who has enough conviction to stand up for his beliefs in the entire SLC police force?  Actually is he the only Mormon or Christian reported who has EVER had a problem performing his duties on a gay pride parade in the entire country in the past 25+ years.  What does that say about the validity of his position???????????

 

Or is he the only police officer in the country in the entire history of gay pride events who is making a huge deal over NOTHING. 

 

Good point.

 

He isn't the only religious person on the SLC police force, and he states as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's another news media perspective on the Moutsos affair:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/27/policeman-claiming-he-was-forced-out-over-lgbt-controversy-mulls-lawsuit/

Basically it recites the known facts in the case. But it adds the element that he has the quiet support of other officers in the force, but they have been cowed into silence. Says the officer who was compelled to take away his gun and his badge sobbed while doing it. Says officers have taken down their Facebook pages because they take too much flak in public for expressing religious beliefs. Yet an officer can with impunity declare his support for "gay rights."

I see a glaring double standard here. And worse than that, more evidence of the growing tyranny of political correctness.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet, you have not shown a false statement. Moutsos admitted he undiplomatically refused the assignment. Moutsos's lawyer also admits Moutsos refused the assignment.   So where is the false statement? Should we resurrect your lecture about libel? Though, I see you still have not qualms about libel when you are posting the potentially libelous statement.

 

I have Moutsos's direct and forceful contradiction of the police department statement that he refused to perform "a traffic control and public safety assignment." Unless one insists on declaring  a priori that Moutsos is a liar, as you, The Nehor and others seem determined to do, that has to count for something.

 

Since then, Chief Burbank has had plenty to say, essentially accusing Moutsos of bigotry and hatred. Yet, in all of that, there is nothing that even hints of sustaining or corroborating what the department said last summer -- that Moutsos had refused to perform a traffic and public safety assignment. Why is that? The reputation and credibility of Burbank's department is at stake. You'd think the first thing Burbank would want to do is counter what Moutsos is saying, if he can. Yet, from what I've seen, he has failed to do so. Do you have something to the contrary? I have asked you that more than once now, and you have failed to respond. From this, I infer that you have nothing.

 

Moutsos admitted he undiplomatically refused the assignment.

 

You keep using the word "undiplomatic." Can you provide a direct quote and cite or link where Moutsos "admitted he undiplomatically refused the assignment"? Do so, or stop bearing false witness about the man.

 

What I remember is he said he could have been more diplomatic. That's not the same thing. That implies the very real possibility, if not the liklihood, that he did employ a measure of diplomacy but honestly acknowledges he could have done better.

 

And it's easy for vindictive persons far removed from the circumstances and under cover of anonymity to be judgmental. From what I've observed of your manner and discourse on this board, I highly doubt you would be especially diplomatic in a situation where you felt your freedom of conscience was on the line.

 

Moutsos's lawyer also admits Moutsos refused the assignment.

 

The lawyer says what Moutsos says: that he asked to trade for an assignment where he really would be protecting the public as opposed to doing motorcycle tricks for the entertainment of the crowd. This contradicts what the police department said last summer. And as I've pointed out, Burbank has yet to confirm or sustain that statement from last summer. From my layman's perspective, it seems that any upcoming court case is going to hinge on whether or not he can do so.

 

And you obviously didn't notice the admission from Moutsos attorney that assignment was traffic.

 

I don't think I saw it. Please provide a direct quote and cite.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You guys have gone on for 10 pages basically doing a he said he said case against what ever side you support using very little facts that are available to the public.  So let's for a moment look at what facts we do know that haven't been discussed.

 

Fact 1, this incident took place in Salt Lake City not some city were few Mormons live.  Does anyone think that this officer is the ONLY Mormon on the SLC police force?  Does anyone think he was the ONLY Christian on the SLC police force.

 

Fact 2. He was the ONLY police officer reported who felt that performing his assigned duties met that he was participating in the parade to the point where he was unwilling to take the assignment..

 

Fact 3.  He was the ONLY police officer reported who felt that performing his assigned duties was a violation of his religious beliefs to the point where he was unwilling to take the assignment.

 

So is he the only Mormon or Christian who has enough conviction to stand up for his beliefs in the entire SLC police force?  Actually is he the only Mormon or Christian reported who has EVER had a problem performing his duties on a gay pride parade in the entire country in the past 25+ years.  What does that say about the validity of his position???????????

 

Or is he the only police officer in the country in the entire history of gay pride events who is making a huge deal over NOTHING.

Please see my post #185 above.

 

If you're apt to get hounded off the force and labeled in public as a bigot and hater merely for asking to trade an assignment, how apt are people going to be to speak up?

 

Again, the tyranny of political correctness.

 

Maybe more will be encouraged to come forward now that Officer Coustos has shown courage.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Please see my post #185 above.

 

If you're apt to get hounded off the force and labeled in public as a bigot and hater merely for asking to trade an assignment, how apt are people going to be to speak up?

 

Again, the tyranny of political correctness.

 

Maybe more will be encouraged to come forward now that Officer Coustos has shown courage.

 

 

Before you get too comfortable in quoting this article as a "reliable source", you might note that the author,  Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM, a SPLC designated the group as an anti-LGBT hate group.  This guy is no AP reporter.

 

If you read former officer Eric Moutsos's carefully crafted statement, that is sighted in the C-FAM article, there is NO mention of any other officer or personel supporting his actions.  

 

What is really suspicious of this guys story is this statement from his official response.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

So according to this guys OWN story, he decides to arrange a switch with another officer to do a different job at the pride parade.  Then he goes into his chief's office to tell him about the trade.  When the chief denies the trade, he agrees to do the Motor Squad.  Combined with his own statement that he could have been more diplomatic and that by his own admission, his chief branded him a bigot after that meeting, I think it is reasonable officer Eric Moutsos may have said a bit more than "can I trade jobs with a fellow officer."  And that is a more likely reason his chief took action and put the officer on leave.

 

This btw is all from officer Eric Moutsosn own statement. He also volunteered to be on the motor squad.  And when he volunteered, he most likely knew by his own statement that the squad regularly performs not only public safety, but also performs at various parades upon request.  He joined the force according to his own statement in 2007.  The SLC gay pride parade has been going on since 1997.  It sounds like a lot of the situation he found himself in was his own doing. 

 

Also, according to his own statement, it is the junior members of the motor squad's responsible to do the manovers at the beginning of all these parades and the more experienced officers are assigned crowd control and public safety.  He may simply been to inexperienced to do the job he wanted to swap for.  He had only been on the motor squad for barely a year. 

 

I also find this interesting 

 

 Moutsos issued a six-page statement through his attorney Monday that didn't have his name. But he decided to reveal his identity in an interview he gave to the Deseret News and KSL-TV that came out Tuesday night.  

 

 

 

 

This guy really doesn't sound like the most forthcoming guy I have come across:  Unwilling to perform his assigned duties for the gay pride parade, then willing to do the duties, then condemning his chief for putting him on leave for a mess he created, then writing a statement without his name, then coming forward affirming that he was actually was the author of the statement??  

 

The more facts that come out, the worse this guy looks.  I can hardly wait to see how Scott spins this mess.

[sethpayne]

I don't think it's foregone that this will go to trial. If Salt Lake City Corp. is prudent it will try to settle out of court. And Officer Coustos strikes me as gentlemanly enough he might be content with a public apology and a retraction of the initial false statement about him refusing to provide security or traffic control.

Burbank is exacerbating an already bad situation by doubling down and digging in.

 

I hope it goes to trial and that Coustos loses big time.

 

Next time he has to call the fire department or an ambulance I hope he gets a Mormon on the line and that all of the first responders sent  are Mormon as well.  Because, of course, we know that any public safety officer is free only to "serve and protect" those whom he likes and approves of.   Else, they don't have any responsibility to help a Mormon.  Being Mormon invalidates all of his basic civil rights to equal protection.

 

The problem here is that fascistic things do happen and are supported by those on the far left-right of the spectrum.  Both want to force other to behave as they believe they should behave.

 

This isn't one of them.  The dude is a cop.  He swore an oath to protect the Constitution.  Part of the Constitution is the 1st amendment.  He took and oath and he has broken that oath.  

 

If he doesn't want to protect the gays then he made the right choice to step down because his prejudices prevented him from fulfilling his duties.  But if he thinks that how he's going to milk the taxpayers -- who have long paid his salary -- because he REFUSED to fulfill his public duties -- then I hope he both loses, and is counter-sued by the Utah taxpayers who have to tolerate this man's selfishness.

Edited March 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

Burbank is exacerbating an already bad situation by doubling down and digging in.

 

Burbank is a hero because he takes his oaths seriously.

 

I thought Mormons took oaths pretty seriously too.  Are there some clauses in the covenants we make that excuse from our obligations any time we feel "uncomfortable?"

Edited March 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

 

This guy really doesn't sound like the most forthcoming guy I have come across:  Unwilling to perform his assigned duties for the gay pride parade, then willing to do the duties, then condemning his chief for putting him on leave for a mess he created, then writing a statement without his name, then coming forward affirming that he was actually was the author of the statement??  

 

The more facts that come out, the worse this guy looks.  I can hardly wait to see how Scott spins this mess.

 

 

Agreed.  What a nightmare.

 

We need to add more good cops to our forces so its nice to get rid of a bad one.  One who refuses to keep his word and then tries to spin the situation to his own advantage.

[KevinG]

Just a show of hands.

 

How many of you who are fully prepared to condemn this officer in the court of public opinion also support Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin in their principled opposition to the rigid hegemony of the LDS Church leadership?

 

 

 

...I thought so.

[thesometimesaint]

While that is a Non Sequitur. I support neither.

Edited March 2, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

...and lest you think this is just a Mormon corridor thing.

 

Atlanta’s former fire chief sues the city, says he was fired because of religious beliefs

[KevinG]

While that is a Non Sequitur. I support neither.

 

It follows...  demanding obedience to the principles of political correctness on the part of police officers, while taking the LDS Church to task for demanding consistency in teaching its doctrines.

 

However - at least you are being consistent.  Carry on!

[sethpayne]

 

How many of you who are fully prepared to condemn this officer in the court of public opinion also support Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin in their principled opposition to the rigid hegemony of the LDS Church leadership?

 

 

I condemn this officer and have offered no support to KK and JD in their opposition to the Church.

 

Strawman.

[KevinG]

CFR for Sethpayne and SometimeSaint on why my statement and explanation contain logical fallacies.  I explained the parallels in the situations.  Please elucidate rather than just throw a word out and hope it sticks.

[sethpayne]

Kevin

The Church is a private institution. It can do what it pleases. I support this right of private institutions.

SLCPD is a public institution and is funded by the public. The Constitution is its handbook.

[stemelbow]

I condemn this officer and have offered no support to KK and JD in their opposition to the Church.

 

Strawman.

Me too. I'd say supporting KK and JD is running the same game as supporting Moustos. They all seem to be individuals wanting to take advantage of others, and circumstance to me.

But I grant, I could be wrong on all three or any one of the three. So whateves.

[sethpayne]

We could all be wrong Stem. We are human after all.