After days of backlash from Evangelicals, World Vision, an international nonprofit ministry, has reversed its decision to allow those in same-sex marriages to be employed.
“Today, the World Vision U.S. board publicly reversed its recent decision to change our national employment conduct policy,” the Christian humanitarian organization said in a letter to supporters Wednesday. “The board acknowledged they made a mistake and chose to revert to our longstanding conduct policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.”
This is about their profits and nothing else. Oh, yes I said that. If there had been no complaints they would have changed nothing.
I don’t believe in having sex outside of marriage, but frankly that has nothing to do with one’s work performance. The only reason people should lose a job is for chronic tardiness, missing constantly, stealing, failure to compete assignments on a regular basis, being rude to customers, sexual harassment and other criminal or destructive behavior. The rest is frankly not an employers business, regardless of Faith.
I concur, especially given that this organization is all about helping the poor. I can understand not hiring a person in a gay relationship as a teacher in a Catholic school, for instance, since they are expected to be instructing in the faith.
If everyone who sinned, even those who sin seriously and unabashedly, were excluded from ministering to the poor… we’d have very few people in that ministry.
They are a not for profit organization so it isn’t about profits. However, I am sure their original pronouncement resulted in some promises of curtailed donations and support. It’s a Christian organization. The organization has a duty to reflect its donors’ goals if it wants to keep those donors. “Work performance” has nothing to do with it.
Oh, yes I know the nonprofit organizations of the world are not suppose to make any profits. But let’s face it they do make plenty of money, and a whole lot of it goes to the top runners. Call it what you like, but it is at least about their personal wages (profits).
I do disagree about dismissing people from a job for any reason other than work performance. If I hire them I expect them to do the job given. I will not ask questions about their personal life. In most cases it is against the law, though I know the Church does ask these types of questions. I live according to our Faith but I have and will refuse to answer these types of questions out of principal.
What my family does and what I do at home has nothing to do with my ability to do my job, unless of course I am showing up drugged or drunk. Besides just how many people do you really think are honest about their dating life, personal relationships in a job interview? Not that many is what I think. Like I said I live the life, but it is not anyone’s place to ask me about my personal life to the extend some of these places do. I don’t care who they are.
The problem with this view is that when you work for a religious organization, that organization has the right to insure that employees live lives consistent with that religion. If a charity is an evangelical charity or a Catholic charity or a Muslim charity and yet its employees do not represent that religion in the way that they live then that charity is failing its mission to the community–which is not to be just a charity. It’s to be a religious charity, energized and motivated by its faith. That can only happen when the organizations overseers have a reasonable way of ascertaining whether employees are willing to live by the religion’s standards.
Furthermore, religious donors expect religious charities to actually be religious!. Oh the consistency!!! If I wanted to give my money to an organization that didn’t care how its employees lived their lives, I’d give money to the Red Cross.
Also, in the United States, it is not against the law for religious organizations to hire and fire employees based on statements of faith. The courts have tended to view the Establishment Clause as trumping anti-discrimination laws in many cases.