Lds Officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination

[stemelbow]

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

More than that, we are all wrong in some way or another all the time. We are human after all.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

The Church is a private institution and sets the rules for their membership. The police are a governmental function and are subject to the laws of the state. It is logically consistent to support neither.

[sethpayne]

The Church is a private institution and sets the rules for their membership. The police are a governmental function and are subject to the laws of the state. It is logically consistent to support neither.

 

Preach it!

 

Can I get an AMEN??

 

Amen.

[california boy]

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.

I have not condemned the officer nor the other two you mentioned.  Frankly I am not in a position to judge.  But I have put out some FACTS that some seem willing to ignore in a rush to defend the officer.  

 

 

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.

 

Fact 4.  He voluntarily signed up to be on the Motor Squad whose duties included perfoming at parades one of which was the gay pride parade that had been in existence long before he volunteered.

 

Fact 5. The newer members of that squad always did the parade performances and the more experienced officers did the crowd control.

 

Fact 6,  He had been on that squad for barely a year.

 

Maybe others can add actual facts about the case and spend less time guessing 

 

Fact 6,  

[sethpayne]

I have not condemned the officer nor the other two you mentioned.  Frankly I am not in a position to judge.  But I have put out some FACTS that some seem willing to ignore in a rush to defend the officer.  

 

 

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.

 

Fact 4.  He voluntarily signed up to be on the Motor Squad whose duties included perfoming at parades one of which was the gay pride parade that had been in existence long before he volunteered.

 

Fact 5. The newer members of that squad always did the parade performances and the more experienced officers did the crowd control.

 

Fact 6,  He had been on that squad for barely a year.

 

Maybe others can add actual facts about the case and spend less time guessing 

 

 

 

Fact 6,  The officer took an oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States and broke that oath because of his own personal preferences.

[thesometimesaint]

Fact 6,  The officer took an oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States and broke that oath because of his own personal preferences.

 

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

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.

 

Why the scare quotes around "reliable source"? I never used that phrase. Don't act like you're quoting me when you're not.

 

But one thing you need to understand about me: I don't genuflect to political pressure groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Thus, I'm not apt to be overly impressed when, as part of their gay-rights support, they include on their list of entities-to-be-vilified a faith-baed, family-advocacy organization.

 

That said, this is a diversionary irrelevancy anyway. The term ad hominem attack gets misapplied a lot in these discussions, but this is one instance in which it may be fitting. My intent in posting that link was to counter your ill-founded supposition that Officer Moustos is without sympathizers or supporters among his law enforcement colleagues.

 

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.  

The article said he was interviewed. Some of the information probably came from that interview.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

What is clear to me is that the police chief overreacted. Nothing in Officer Moustos's reported behavior as a police officer, nothing in his quoted statements since the incident, justifies his being branded a bigot. What you've said about his meeting with his superiors is entirely your own supposition.

 

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. 

 

 

 

Have they been doing the choreographed maneuvers for the gay pride parade since 1997? Are they asked to do it every year? In any case, asking to be reassigned on occasion to a duty more related to public safety than performing entertainment in a parade is not unreasonable.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

As is already apparently clear to you, he would have been willing to do the maneuvers had it not been possible to swap the assignment. Let's be clear here: He was not suspended for refusing to do the maneuvers. He was suspended because the police chief got mad at him for even asking about it.

 

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??  

 

 

 

He nearly has his career ruined by a domineering  police chief who suspends him and then allows a false statement to be put out to news media. I don't blame him for being guarded. It seems that what he really wanted was to set the record straight. When it became clear this could not be done effectively without disclosing his identity, he had the courage to come forward.

 

You've been posting on this board for years under cover of anonymity. It seems to me you are hardly one to talk about being forthcoming.

 

The more facts that come out, the worse this guy looks.  

 

 

 

I quite disagree. He is coming across as courageous. He is a hero in my estimation.

 

I can hardly wait to see how Scott spins this mess.

 

 

With all the may-haves and might-haves, it seems to me the spin is coming from your end.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Fact 6,  The officer took an oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States and broke that oath because of his own personal preferences.

 

 

Agreed.

Buncomb!

 

Performing motorcyle stunts in a parade is NOT protecting the Constitution. And asking to be reassigned to duty that would have been more in line with that oath is not breaking it.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

You're not making any sense.

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. 

 

Which he would have been happy to do in a role related to public safety, not performing precision motorcycle tricks as entertainment in a parade whose message he disagreed with.

 

 

Part of the Constitution is the 1st amendment.  He took and oath and he has broken that oath.  

 

This is a false accusation.

 

 

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.

 

Seriously?

 

Have you missed the reports where it has been noted that he has protected gays in the line of his duties? That he took the call a few years ago when two gay men were apprehended for kissing on the Church Plaza at North Main Street, and he defused the situation, earned the respect of the two men and was even cited in the media as siding with them?

 

You are engaging in character assassination on the slimmest of understanding. It is unlike you. Shame on you.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

Buncomb!

 

Performing motorcyle stunts in a parade is NOT protecting the Constitution. And asking to be reassigned to duty that would have been more in line with that oath is not breaking it.

 

Is serving up slop at a Marine base in Afghanistan protecting the constitution?  Our soldiers take the same oath and by volunteering to serve in that capacity they have accepted the obligation.  EVERYTHING THEY DO is part of keeping that oath.

 

Same with the cop.

 

It's like saying that temple oaths don't count once you hit the NV border.  Come on!  Either we keep our promises or we don't.  This cop didn't.  Good riddance.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is serving up slop at a Marine base in Afghanistan protecting the constitution?  Our soldiers take the same oath and by volunteering to serve in that capacity they have accepted the obligation.  EVERYTHING THEY DO is part of keeping that oath.

 

Same with the cop.

 

It's like saying that temple oaths don't count once you hit the NV border.  Come on!  Either we keep our promises or we don't.  This cop didn't.  Good riddance.

He never refused to perform a duty -- any duty. He was even willing to perform the motorcycle maneuvers if required.

 

All he did was make a request. For that, he was pressured out of his job and falsely accused of refusing to provide traffic control or public safety duties. He is owed an apology at the very least.

[sethpayne]

 

 

Seriously?

 

Have you missed the reports where it has been noted that he has protected gays in the line of his duties? That he took the call a few years ago when two gay men were apprehended for kissing on the Church Plaza at North Main Street, and he defused the situation, earned the respect of the two men and was even cited in the media as siding with them?

 

You are engaging in character assassination on the slimmest of understanding. It is unlike you. Shame on you.

 

I'm simply stating the facts, Scott. 

 

So everything is OK because he decided to be nice to gays a couple of times?  This means he can completely ignore his duties and oath at others?  He eschewed his assigned public responsibilities because of personal prejudice.  Earlier you have said that you wouldn't care if Evangelical cops didn't want to participate in a Mormon-related parade.  Great.

 

Let's go hold a Mormon-related parade in Birmingham or Little Rock -- let the police know that their personal beliefs that Mormons are not Christian is a perfectly good excuse for them NOT to participate as part of their official responsibilities.

 

I don't think this is a road you want to go down, Scott.  Public officers cannot decide what portions of the public they want to engage with.  They have made a promise to the whole community.  You know Church History and have an appreciation for the importance of public officers fulfilling their duties.  We have cases where they chose not to and the Saints suffered.  

 

Joseph Smith begged the President to intervene because Missouri was lawless.  And now we applaud someone for breaking an oath and then trying to benefit off of those who paid his salary?

 

As CB pointed out, he knew about Gay Pride for a long time and he freely CHOSE to participate in the motorcycle team.  Plenty of opportunities to decide he didn't want to be seen with the gays.

[stemelbow]

He never refused to perform a duty -- any duty. He was even willing to perform the motorcycle maneuvers if required.

 

All he did was make a request. For that, he was pressured out of his job and falsely accused of refusing to provide traffic control or public safety duties. He is owed an apology at the very least.

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?

[sethpayne]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

There was no going behind their backs, from what I can see. He first checked with another officer to see if it would be OK with him, then went to management to get it cleared.

 

It would be a similar situation if, in my job, I found I couldn't cover a story because of a prior commitment, so I asked another reporter if he/she could fill in, then took it to the editor to get her OK on it.

 

In fact, that happens often in my organization.

[thesometimesaint]

Buncomb!

 

Performing motorcyle stunts in a parade is NOT protecting the Constitution. And asking to be reassigned to duty that would have been more in line with that oath is not breaking it.

 

All governmental officers swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and obey all lawful orders. It is part of the price they/we pay for being officers of the government. We can't have governmental officers substituting their personal feelings for obeying the law.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

And yet, from the police chief's quoted statements, that's the message coming through.

[sethpayne]

 

In fact, that happens often in my organization.

 

And this doesn't raise red flags for you?  Perhaps make you think that the officer -- and others -- may be leaving out some key details?

 

How many times have you been fired for swapping assignments with coworkers?

Edited March 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

All governmental officers swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and obey all lawful orders. It is part of the price they/we pay for being officers of the government. We can't have governmental officers substituting their personal feelings for obeying the law.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

And this doesn't raise red flags for you?  Perhaps make you think that the officer -- and others -- may be leaving out some key details?

 

How many times have you been fired for swapping assignments with coworkers?

Show me a statement from Burbank that provided such "key details." All he has done that I can see is to hunker down and throw out more accusations of bigotry and hatred.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

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.

 

If I fail to do what my boss asks of me, I have not fulfilled my duties.  There are no accusations, just facts.  He took an oath and signed up to be part of the motorcycle squad.  

 

When someone chooses not to perform work they have previous agreed to do, what do you call that?  I call that refusing to perform a duty.

[stemelbow]

If I fail to do what my boss asks of me, I have not fulfilled my duties.  There are no accusations, just facts.  He took an oath and signed up to be part of the motorcycle squad.  

 

When someone chooses not to perform work they have previous agreed to do, what do you call that?  I call that refusing to perform a duty.

I was pretty much with you, until I reconsidered what he said here:

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.

It's possible he's lying and he really did not agree to still do the assignment when they rejected his request. But then we'd have to see evidence to contradict him, no?

I'm switching course on this topic at least until further info is revealed. Indeed, I probably shouldn't have even given my impression. I'm much more sympathetic to the officer than when I first read about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Didn't see this one until now. It cries out for a response.

 

I'm simply stating the facts, Scott. 

 

So everything is OK because he decided to be nice to gays a couple of times? 

Gross mischaracterization. He has a pattern of fulfilling the duties of his job, including when it involves gays. And yes, that contradicts the false accusations that are being made against him here.

 

This means he can completely ignore his duties and oath at others?

 

False accusation. He hasn't done that.

 

 He eschewed his assigned public responsibilities because of personal prejudice.

 

 

 

 

False accusation. He eschewed nothing. Apparently the worst he did was to make a request.

 

 Earlier you have said that you wouldn't care if Evangelical cops didn't want to participate in a Mormon-related parade.  Great.

 

And I stand by that. I would expect them to perform protective or public safety services but not to provide entertainment.

 

 

Let's go hold a Mormon-related parade in Birmingham or Little Rock -- let the police know that their personal beliefs that Mormons are not Christian is a perfectly good excuse for them NOT to participate as part of their official responsibilities.

 

 

I have not advocated that. Nor has Officer Coustos, according to his own account, done such a thing.

 

 

I don't think this is a road you want to go down, Scott.

 

See above.

 

 Public officers cannot decide what portions of the public they want to engage with.

 

This is not about "deciding what portions of the public they want to engage with." Again, the incident with the gay men on the Church Plaza illustrates that he is not only willing to do such engagement but skilled at it. SLPD apparently lost a good officer due to the hasty actions of its police chief.

 

What is this about? It is about not wanting to appear to support a message or advocate a political cause that he disagrees with.

 

That would be tantamount to assigning a police officer who is a Democrat to provide entertainment in the official course of his duties for a political rally for Orrin Hatch or Mia Love.

 

They have made a promise to the whole community.  You know Church History and have an appreciation for the importance of public officers fulfilling their duties.  We have cases where they chose not to and the Saints suffered.  

 

Joseph Smith begged the President to intervene because Missouri was lawless.  And now we applaud someone for breaking an oath and then trying to benefit off of those who paid his salary?

 

A lecture is unnecessary. I don't approve of politicians' acquiescence of oppression of the Mormons. And it doesn't apply in this instance.

 

 

As CB pointed out, he knew about Gay Pride for a long time and he freely CHOSE to participate in the motorcycle team.

 

 

Already answered when I responded to california boy's post. Asking for a reassignment under the circumstances is not unreasonable. When that was denied, he was willing to fulfill the requirement.
 

 

Plenty of opportunities to decide he didn't want to be seen with the gays.

 

That remark is manifestly unjust.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

If I fail to do what my boss asks of me, I have not fulfilled my duties. 

He did not fail, and he did not refuse. Going by his account, he made a request.

 

There are no accusations, just facts.  He took an oath and signed up to be part of the motorcycle squad.  

 

When someone chooses not to perform work they have previous agreed to do, what do you call that?  I call that refusing to perform a duty.

 

But he did not refuse. He would have done it after the request was denied. But he didn't get the chance. He was suspended and then publicly humiliated with a false statement made to news media.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was pretty much with you, until I reconsidered what he said here:

It's possible he's lying and he really did not agree to still do the assignment when they rejected his request. But then we'd have to see evidence to contradict him, no?

I'm switching course on this topic at least until further info is revealed. Indeed, I probably shouldn't have even given my impression. I'm much more sympathetic to the officer than when I first read about it.

:clapping: :clapping: