I suppose you're right. I would be a difficult thing to prove. All staff applicants are required to be Advanced Class Grads and have the endorsement of local leadership. I think the intent would be to steer those people away before they even apply.
I wonder if just saying what she said counts for anything. It's on a tape somewhere.
what about chronic mental disorders. rozie (with your rozie way colored glasses) you should start packing
i probably shouldn't say "mental" because i am and there's nothing shameful about it, but i don't know what to call it.... chronic cult disorder maybe..... chronic MEAN disorder.... chronic hypocrisy disoder.... i'll think of other stuff....
Greasy is absolutely right. How you get your information, at least in CA, is immaterial (except that someone else could end up named in a lawsuit against an employer).
The gray area TWI will use is that the phrase "screening candidates" is a normal HR phrase used thousand of times daily. It is also true that to fill one slot you may interview 50 candidates and make a single final selection. Law allows for "best" selection and leaves it gray on purpose (otherwise how would attorneys pay their house notes?). If you acurately post a job description you can even make physical ability judgements, eg position requires being able to enter through a 24 inch by 18 inch hatch to work on widget... as long as you POST it in the job desc and you can prove it is a legit requirement you can ask that and demand proof during an interview.
So...(and make no mistake I am probably one of the more venomous anti TWI users here) if I were Rosalie - I would gather info from GSC where people reminisce about the physical conditions of ROA or other of those fine little wastest of our lives. Then I would post job descriptions like, must be able to work 18 hour shifts and live in a tent during torrential rain and still have a pressed suit for presentation of critical company material at 6:00 AM the next morning. Must be able to work split shifts (BP - LOLOLOL) and stay up all night standing in one spot with a yellow ball cap and challenge people in the woods in the dark while unarmed. Must be capable of standing in the sun for 14 hours at a time. Must be able to read very fine print. You get the point...
'Course maybe she is too arrogant to bother - but also think of it this way - if you had any kind severe disability would you want to even come close to employment at the Nazi farm? And on GSC we can make the cast that anyone who they DO hire has a disability.....they're supporting Naziism...
Maybe I'm just inspired by RumRunner's antagonistic post...
BUT...
What IF every former staff member who was dismissed during the homo-purge, decided to file a class action?
Wouldn't THAT be interesting?
If course I'm sure TWI has covered their tracks like a cat covering a turd in a litter box, but nonetheless... it's interesting to think about....
HOWEVER ---
Since they are a non-profit, specifically - a church, by tax standards - do they really fall under the same laws for employment as say, Wal-Mart, or anything else in the public sector? <_<
Heh - more years than you want to know about - LOL I walked out of the 1987 clergy meeting and was one of the first M&A even before they had that phrase... CC you can melt down the whole place and I'll buy the beer
Then I would post job descriptions like, must be able to work 18 hour shifts and live in a tent during torrential rain and still have a pressed suit for presentation of critical company material at 6:00 AM the next morning. Must be able to work split shifts (BP - LOLOLOL) and stay up all night standing in one spot with a yellow ball cap and challenge people in the woods in the dark while unarmed. Must be capable of standing in the sun for 14 hours at a time. Must be able to read very fine print. You get the point...
...Hee hee hee.
...Must be able to bend over and grab your ankles upon command and be willing to stop at two beers even though your employer is guzzling drambuie all day long.
What IF every former staff member who was dismissed during the homo-purge, decided to file a class action?
Wouldn't THAT be interesting?
Yes that would be interesting, Chas.
There would definitely be a possible lawsuit waiting. Potentially a very damaging one if there were many staffers laid off for being gay. The question is, were there staff members fired for this reason? I think twi has had their legal arse covered on the personnel end for quite some time.
I remember one year at the WinBiz conference in which we had an open session with Rev. PanOrama. A guy stood up and told his story of telling a job applicant that becasue he was gay, this business owning wayfer didn't think it would work out. He was surprised that he now faced a law suit, lol. The Rev. P told him you have to very careful with how you treat "the gays" in the workplace, yada yada yada.
Do you think they could have avoided firing them for being gay by kicking them out of twi first and then firing them because they were not associated with the ministry anymore?
Can they even discriminate on the basis of someone NOT being involved with TWI? I mean....bear with me here and try to not laugh too hard.....what if someone from NK who has absolutely no interest in TWI applied for a job there? Could they turn them down merely because they aren't Advanced Class grads? What on earth does having taken a class have to do with cleaning toilets?
Definitel sounds like they walk a mighty fine line and sooner or later it's got to come back to bite them in the arse.
Welcome to Grease Spot, Wrinkled. Great first post!!!!!!!!!! Let me see………….hmmmmmmmm…..the reason for your chosen name is because you feel like a million bucks after leaving TWI – all green and wrinkled?
Excathedra – I think you’ve really got something there. A handy-dandy term that might be useful: “My twig coordinator says I’m suffering from Chronic Cult Disorders Syndrome. I frequently show disrespect to orders issued by any TWI leader. He also said if I don’t experience the submission phase soon – it may escalate to the omission phase [Mark and Avoid].”
RumRunner – I love your job descriptions – and especially after what ChasUFarley, LindyHopper and Belle added – we may have stumbled onto a heretofore-secret Tenth Manifestation of the Spirit: Discrimination of Employees. I’m sure TWI’s Human Resource Department has quite a few excellor sessions!
At least any innie lurkers now know how to get around the pressure to go way disciple or to go on staff at HQ and the innie staff members can just start accumulating lots of medical bills and they'll quickly find their way to freedom.
Where WOULD one go about alerting the proper authorities about said discrimination?
Belle - They really can't -- religious organizations are protected under a civil rights act that they can basically use whatever screening methods they wish when hiring, to make sure they have people on-board who are going to further their cause. Since TWI has the same non-profit status as a church, then the discrimination laws don't apply to them the same as it would for a secular company.
If TWI ever lost their non-profit status, it would hurt them more than just in the pocketbook - it would mean they would have to publicly post job openings and go through the same standards as say, GE or MicroSoft.
In short, they have every right to fire someone because they suspect they are homosexual - the lines of that was crossed at times when LCM and others "bad mouthed" those who were dismissed - I think the other term for that is "character assassination"....
Belle - They really can't -- religious organizations are protected under a civil rights act that they can basically use whatever screening methods they wish when hiring, to make sure they have people on-board who are going to further their cause. Since TWI has the same non-profit status as a church, then the discrimination laws don't apply to them the same as it would for a secular company.
If TWI ever lost their non-profit status, it would hurt them more than just in the pocketbook - it would mean they would have to publicly post job openings and go through the same standards as say, GE or MicroSoft.
In short, they have every right to fire someone because they suspect they are homosexual - the lines of that was crossed at times when LCM and others "bad mouthed" those who were dismissed - I think the other term for that is "character assassination"....
I don't agree Chas and I may be wrong but descrimination, harrassment whether it be sexual or handicapped doesn't apply when the employee (himself/herself)works for a non-exempt organization. Federal taxes are deducted and just because they are considered a religious org does not exempt them from the law. I believe that was proven by the Allens. When a religious sect or non-exempt (hospitals, etc) cross the fine line they are not exempt when it comes to employment laws. I have yet to see a law that is not over-ruled by another. This would be a good research topic with the Federal Government!
A church can most certainly determine who they hire solely based on faith - if that were not so, then churches would have to post openings that anyone could apply for. Churches being able to do this most certainly falls under the First Amendment. I believe the thread was more about hiring practices - not about sexual harassment in the workplace, which is never "a right".
Here's a reference for you, if you wish to read up on it ---
February 3, 2004 | Email to A Friend | Printer-Friendly Version
Ever since the launch of the President’s faith-based initiative, religious organizations’ freedom to hire according to their beliefs has been under fire from some in Congress. The latest target is the "Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act" (H.R. 3030), which the House is set to consider on the floor this Wednesday. The right of private religious groups to freely determine their membership is a cornerstone of our constitutional order. Congress should once again uphold this important freedom.
A Fundamental Right
Congressional insiders expect that several amendments to remove religious "hiring protections" will be offered, as happened in committee earlier. If any of these amendments were to become law, religious organizations that accept federal funding would be barred from considering the religious beliefs and values of potential employees. No right is more fundamental to preserving religious liberty. Given the size and scope of government, the loss of this protection would signal the decline of a genuinely free and independent civil society.
Critics of this protection claim that employment decisions based on religion violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The architects of that historic legislation, however, plainly understood the importance of protecting the independence of religious institutions from government control. While banning acts of discrimination in employment based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin under Title VII, they crafted an exemption for religious organizations - including churches, colleges, and universities.
In a 1972 expansion of the Civil Rights Act, Congress determined that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider applicants' religious faith in the hiring process. This exemption allows Christian and Muslim charities, for example, to hire employees who share their organizations' faith and beliefs. Counter to much misinformation, these "protections" apply only to employees - not to participants; the Community Services Block Grant and other social service programs do not permit religious charities to bar program participants because of their religious beliefs.
Religious freedom in hiring is consistent with constitutional assurances of civil rights, as the Supreme Court unanimously decided in upholding these protections in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos (1987). It is the critics of the exemption who are trying to undo 35 years of civil rights guarantees by attacking the independence of churches, synagogues, mosques and religious organizations of every kind.
Throughout the debates over federal funding of faith-based organizations, both the President and the Congress have consistently reinforced hiring protections. Indeed, President Clinton signed four laws stipulating that faith-based organizations preserve their right to staff on a religious basis when they receive federal funds, including the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1998 version of the Community Services Block Grant Act. In the 108th Congress, the House has restated these clarifications for religious groups using federal funds under Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Most recently, Congress affirmed religious hiring protections for private schools that will participate in the D.C. voucher initiative, enacted as a part of the Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
A Vital Protection
There is no more vital protection for organizations with a religiously-rooted approach to social assistance than the freedom to hire according to their convictions. The leadership and staff of an organization determine its destiny. They alone will carry out its mission, uphold its priorities, and embody its deepest values. If the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty does not protect the employment decisions of faith-based organizations - their right to free association - then it has become a meaningless abstraction.
Religious organizations are not alone in this belief. Just as faith-based groups want staff members to share their most deeply held beliefs and values, secular nonprofit organizations want employees who believe fervently in their missions - everything from environmental protection to abortion rights. In this sense, the hiring policies of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay organization, are no different from those of the evangelical Salvation Army. Some say the receipt of federal money changes the rules of the game. But if that's true, then Planned Parenthood - which in 2002 got $240 million in government funds - could be forced to staff its clinics with pro-life Catholics.
Stripping away the First Amendment rights of religious groups would threaten everyone's civil liberties. The right of private religious groups to freely determine their membership is a cornerstone of our constitutional order. Congress should once again uphold this important freedom as it considers the Community Services Block Grant.
Joseph Loconte is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, and Jennifer Marshall is Director of Domestic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
Chas, I'm definitely going to look further into this and see what is exactly entailed. From that article it appears as though only the religion of the employee is exempt from discrimination laws and not all the other stuff.... including medical status.
I know for a fact that someone in my area applied for WC training and it was a very big deal to get her accepted because of her perceived disability. It took a very long time and lots of "meetings" and "discussions" and even special "visitations" by her to determine her worthiness and eligibility for the training program. I seriously suspect that the only reason she was accepted is because she's a very bright girl and would have had grounds for (and means to carry out) a discrimination lawsuit should they have denied her application.
I'm sure that there must be examples where folks HAVE been discriminated against for reasons they shouldn't have been. I also wonder if the requirement of being a WC grad or AC grad is considered discrimination since the religious beliefs are the only thing exempt - not necessarily the degree or depth of religious training - certainly the AC or WC training is not related to how to clean toilets, chauffer the BOD or to chop beets in the kitchen....
Every piece of encrusted fecal matter on a toilet is an open invitation to debil spirits. That is even worse than a cluttered desk. This is why they need at least AC grads to ensure that every bit of pee backsplash is eradicated and that each beet is orthotomeo'ed. You need a corps grad to be a leader and operator of tens, hundreds, even thousands of mechanical operations in a car as a chauffer. Not to mention not turning to the right hand or to the left, but staying right on the road. Please, a mear foundational class grad would never be able to perform these kind of spiritual tasks.
Rum.....that description of living in a tent in a torrential rainstorm and then having to have on a clean pressed suit, nametag and 3x5 card notwithstanding, brings back so many memories. Sure it was unbelievable the things we did in hte name of 'God'..........I remember our twig had 'parking duty' (like it was the Four Seasons or something) for the Sunday night services at HQ. As fate would have it, I had to stand about 5 miles from the EOB(unarmed as Rum said) , which turned out to be quite peaceful, although I never had the pleasure of actually directing traffic, but I did stand in a torrential rainstorm in my Sunday go-to -meeting clothes.....
Every piece of encrusted fecal matter on a toilet is an open invitation to debil spirits. That is even worse than a cluttered desk. This is why they need at least AC grads to ensure that every bit of pee backsplash is eradicated and that each beet is orthotomeo'ed. You need a corps grad to be a leader and operator of tens, hundreds, even thousands of mechanical operations in a car as a chauffer. Not to mention not turning to the right hand or to the left, but staying right on the road. Please, a mear foundational class grad would never be able to perform these kind of spiritual tasks.
When I read the LEAD thread it occurred to me how "over -the- top' upper leadership became with outward appearances. In order to participate in WC, it was required that one participate in LEAD. In order to participate in LEAD one would certainly be at a disadvantage, perhaps even to the point of exclusion, if any physical disability were present. Upper management seeming only wanted participants who would personify perfection. Can you imagine telling a Viet Nam Vet who has sacrifised a limb for their country that they are not worthy to minister to GOD's people because they don't have the physical ability to participate in a program such as LEAD which,although it could be a valuable experience, had no foundation in either scripture or divine revelation that was ever proven. Three piece suits in the mud, obsession with polishing and straightening, and a need for people to appear to be perfect specimens: all for the sake of outward appearance in an organization that supposedly knew so much about what was important in GOD's eyes. GOD looks on the heart.-----Always has and always will. ------
Recommended Posts
GT
Actually, it's not legal. It doesn't matter where you get your information. Discrimination is discrimination.
If someone can prove they were passed over because of their medical situation, they could take them to court and get a tidy sum of money out of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
I suppose you're right. I would be a difficult thing to prove. All staff applicants are required to be Advanced Class Grads and have the endorsement of local leadership. I think the intent would be to steer those people away before they even apply.
I wonder if just saying what she said counts for anything. It's on a tape somewhere.
Well, until the WayGB reads this maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what about chronic mental disorders. rozie (with your rozie way colored glasses) you should start packing
i probably shouldn't say "mental" because i am and there's nothing shameful about it, but i don't know what to call it.... chronic cult disorder maybe..... chronic MEAN disorder.... chronic hypocrisy disoder.... i'll think of other stuff....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Excie,You are not mental,I like your replies you have alot on the ball.
The way you are snakes,even snakes stick together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Greasy is absolutely right. How you get your information, at least in CA, is immaterial (except that someone else could end up named in a lawsuit against an employer).
The gray area TWI will use is that the phrase "screening candidates" is a normal HR phrase used thousand of times daily. It is also true that to fill one slot you may interview 50 candidates and make a single final selection. Law allows for "best" selection and leaves it gray on purpose (otherwise how would attorneys pay their house notes?). If you acurately post a job description you can even make physical ability judgements, eg position requires being able to enter through a 24 inch by 18 inch hatch to work on widget... as long as you POST it in the job desc and you can prove it is a legit requirement you can ask that and demand proof during an interview.
So...(and make no mistake I am probably one of the more venomous anti TWI users here) if I were Rosalie - I would gather info from GSC where people reminisce about the physical conditions of ROA or other of those fine little wastest of our lives. Then I would post job descriptions like, must be able to work 18 hour shifts and live in a tent during torrential rain and still have a pressed suit for presentation of critical company material at 6:00 AM the next morning. Must be able to work split shifts (BP - LOLOLOL) and stay up all night standing in one spot with a yellow ball cap and challenge people in the woods in the dark while unarmed. Must be capable of standing in the sun for 14 hours at a time. Must be able to read very fine print. You get the point...
'Course maybe she is too arrogant to bother - but also think of it this way - if you had any kind severe disability would you want to even come close to employment at the Nazi farm? And on GSC we can make the cast that anyone who they DO hire has a disability.....they're supporting Naziism...
My my I seem to be antagonistic today...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
rum
nazi farm! you got it again
sounds like you spent some time there
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
NOT that I'm planning to do this...
Maybe I'm just inspired by RumRunner's antagonistic post...
BUT...
What IF every former staff member who was dismissed during the homo-purge, decided to file a class action?
Wouldn't THAT be interesting?
If course I'm sure TWI has covered their tracks like a cat covering a turd in a litter box, but nonetheless... it's interesting to think about....
HOWEVER ---
Since they are a non-profit, specifically - a church, by tax standards - do they really fall under the same laws for employment as say, Wal-Mart, or anything else in the public sector? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Wrinkled -- What a grand entrance!!
Welcome to GreaseSpot! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Heh - more years than you want to know about - LOL I walked out of the 1987 clergy meeting and was one of the first M&A even before they had that phrase... CC you can melt down the whole place and I'll buy the beer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Hee hee hee.
...Must be able to bend over and grab your ankles upon command and be willing to stop at two beers even though your employer is guzzling drambuie all day long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Yes that would be interesting, Chas.
There would definitely be a possible lawsuit waiting. Potentially a very damaging one if there were many staffers laid off for being gay. The question is, were there staff members fired for this reason? I think twi has had their legal arse covered on the personnel end for quite some time.
I remember one year at the WinBiz conference in which we had an open session with Rev. PanOrama. A guy stood up and told his story of telling a job applicant that becasue he was gay, this business owning wayfer didn't think it would work out. He was surprised that he now faced a law suit, lol. The Rev. P told him you have to very careful with how you treat "the gays" in the workplace, yada yada yada.
Do you think they could have avoided firing them for being gay by kicking them out of twi first and then firing them because they were not associated with the ministry anymore?
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Can they even discriminate on the basis of someone NOT being involved with TWI? I mean....bear with me here and try to not laugh too hard.....what if someone from NK who has absolutely no interest in TWI applied for a job there? Could they turn them down merely because they aren't Advanced Class grads? What on earth does having taken a class have to do with cleaning toilets?
Definitel sounds like they walk a mighty fine line and sooner or later it's got to come back to bite them in the arse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevlar2000
From your avatar - "Guess what MY name means", let's see:
A possible reference to your age,
A secret fascination with prunes and raisins,
or you're trying to tell us you're a Shar Pei.
Or all of the above?
In any event, welcome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Welcome to Grease Spot, Wrinkled. Great first post!!!!!!!!!! Let me see………….hmmmmmmmm…..the reason for your chosen name is because you feel like a million bucks after leaving TWI – all green and wrinkled?
Excathedra – I think you’ve really got something there. A handy-dandy term that might be useful: “My twig coordinator says I’m suffering from Chronic Cult Disorders Syndrome. I frequently show disrespect to orders issued by any TWI leader. He also said if I don’t experience the submission phase soon – it may escalate to the omission phase [Mark and Avoid].”
RumRunner – I love your job descriptions – and especially after what ChasUFarley, LindyHopper and Belle added – we may have stumbled onto a heretofore-secret Tenth Manifestation of the Spirit: Discrimination of Employees. I’m sure TWI’s Human Resource Department has quite a few excellor sessions!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
At least any innie lurkers now know how to get around the pressure to go way disciple or to go on staff at HQ and the innie staff members can just start accumulating lots of medical bills and they'll quickly find their way to freedom.
Where WOULD one go about alerting the proper authorities about said discrimination?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Belle - They really can't -- religious organizations are protected under a civil rights act that they can basically use whatever screening methods they wish when hiring, to make sure they have people on-board who are going to further their cause. Since TWI has the same non-profit status as a church, then the discrimination laws don't apply to them the same as it would for a secular company.
If TWI ever lost their non-profit status, it would hurt them more than just in the pocketbook - it would mean they would have to publicly post job openings and go through the same standards as say, GE or MicroSoft.
In short, they have every right to fire someone because they suspect they are homosexual - the lines of that was crossed at times when LCM and others "bad mouthed" those who were dismissed - I think the other term for that is "character assassination"....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skipC
I don't agree Chas and I may be wrong but descrimination, harrassment whether it be sexual or handicapped doesn't apply when the employee (himself/herself)works for a non-exempt organization. Federal taxes are deducted and just because they are considered a religious org does not exempt them from the law. I believe that was proven by the Allens. When a religious sect or non-exempt (hospitals, etc) cross the fine line they are not exempt when it comes to employment laws. I have yet to see a law that is not over-ruled by another. This would be a good research topic with the Federal Government!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Skip -
Greetings - I don't believe we've met... welcome!
A church can most certainly determine who they hire solely based on faith - if that were not so, then churches would have to post openings that anyone could apply for. Churches being able to do this most certainly falls under the First Amendment. I believe the thread was more about hiring practices - not about sexual harassment in the workplace, which is never "a right".
Here's a reference for you, if you wish to read up on it ---
Religious Hiring Protection Under Assault
by Joseph Loconte and Jennifer Marshall
WebMemo #413
February 3, 2004 | Email to A Friend | Printer-Friendly Version
Ever since the launch of the President’s faith-based initiative, religious organizations’ freedom to hire according to their beliefs has been under fire from some in Congress. The latest target is the "Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act" (H.R. 3030), which the House is set to consider on the floor this Wednesday. The right of private religious groups to freely determine their membership is a cornerstone of our constitutional order. Congress should once again uphold this important freedom.
A Fundamental Right
Congressional insiders expect that several amendments to remove religious "hiring protections" will be offered, as happened in committee earlier. If any of these amendments were to become law, religious organizations that accept federal funding would be barred from considering the religious beliefs and values of potential employees. No right is more fundamental to preserving religious liberty. Given the size and scope of government, the loss of this protection would signal the decline of a genuinely free and independent civil society.
Critics of this protection claim that employment decisions based on religion violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The architects of that historic legislation, however, plainly understood the importance of protecting the independence of religious institutions from government control. While banning acts of discrimination in employment based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin under Title VII, they crafted an exemption for religious organizations - including churches, colleges, and universities.
In a 1972 expansion of the Civil Rights Act, Congress determined that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider applicants' religious faith in the hiring process. This exemption allows Christian and Muslim charities, for example, to hire employees who share their organizations' faith and beliefs. Counter to much misinformation, these "protections" apply only to employees - not to participants; the Community Services Block Grant and other social service programs do not permit religious charities to bar program participants because of their religious beliefs.
Religious freedom in hiring is consistent with constitutional assurances of civil rights, as the Supreme Court unanimously decided in upholding these protections in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos (1987). It is the critics of the exemption who are trying to undo 35 years of civil rights guarantees by attacking the independence of churches, synagogues, mosques and religious organizations of every kind.
Throughout the debates over federal funding of faith-based organizations, both the President and the Congress have consistently reinforced hiring protections. Indeed, President Clinton signed four laws stipulating that faith-based organizations preserve their right to staff on a religious basis when they receive federal funds, including the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1998 version of the Community Services Block Grant Act. In the 108th Congress, the House has restated these clarifications for religious groups using federal funds under Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Most recently, Congress affirmed religious hiring protections for private schools that will participate in the D.C. voucher initiative, enacted as a part of the Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
A Vital Protection
There is no more vital protection for organizations with a religiously-rooted approach to social assistance than the freedom to hire according to their convictions. The leadership and staff of an organization determine its destiny. They alone will carry out its mission, uphold its priorities, and embody its deepest values. If the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty does not protect the employment decisions of faith-based organizations - their right to free association - then it has become a meaningless abstraction.
Religious organizations are not alone in this belief. Just as faith-based groups want staff members to share their most deeply held beliefs and values, secular nonprofit organizations want employees who believe fervently in their missions - everything from environmental protection to abortion rights. In this sense, the hiring policies of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay organization, are no different from those of the evangelical Salvation Army. Some say the receipt of federal money changes the rules of the game. But if that's true, then Planned Parenthood - which in 2002 got $240 million in government funds - could be forced to staff its clinics with pro-life Catholics.
Stripping away the First Amendment rights of religious groups would threaten everyone's civil liberties. The right of private religious groups to freely determine their membership is a cornerstone of our constitutional order. Congress should once again uphold this important freedom as it considers the Community Services Block Grant.
Joseph Loconte is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, and Jennifer Marshall is Director of Domestic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, Chas & Skip. :)
Chas, I'm definitely going to look further into this and see what is exactly entailed. From that article it appears as though only the religion of the employee is exempt from discrimination laws and not all the other stuff.... including medical status.
I know for a fact that someone in my area applied for WC training and it was a very big deal to get her accepted because of her perceived disability. It took a very long time and lots of "meetings" and "discussions" and even special "visitations" by her to determine her worthiness and eligibility for the training program. I seriously suspect that the only reason she was accepted is because she's a very bright girl and would have had grounds for (and means to carry out) a discrimination lawsuit should they have denied her application.
I'm sure that there must be examples where folks HAVE been discriminated against for reasons they shouldn't have been. I also wonder if the requirement of being a WC grad or AC grad is considered discrimination since the religious beliefs are the only thing exempt - not necessarily the degree or depth of religious training - certainly the AC or WC training is not related to how to clean toilets, chauffer the BOD or to chop beets in the kitchen....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Belle, Belle, Belle, Belle.
Have you forgotten everything you learned?
Every piece of encrusted fecal matter on a toilet is an open invitation to debil spirits. That is even worse than a cluttered desk. This is why they need at least AC grads to ensure that every bit of pee backsplash is eradicated and that each beet is orthotomeo'ed. You need a corps grad to be a leader and operator of tens, hundreds, even thousands of mechanical operations in a car as a chauffer. Not to mention not turning to the right hand or to the left, but staying right on the road. Please, a mear foundational class grad would never be able to perform these kind of spiritual tasks.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
recruit me
Rum.....that description of living in a tent in a torrential rainstorm and then having to have on a clean pressed suit, nametag and 3x5 card notwithstanding, brings back so many memories. Sure it was unbelievable the things we did in hte name of 'God'..........I remember our twig had 'parking duty' (like it was the Four Seasons or something) for the Sunday night services at HQ. As fate would have it, I had to stand about 5 miles from the EOB(unarmed as Rum said)
, which turned out to be quite peaceful, although I never had the pleasure of actually directing traffic, but I did stand in a torrential rainstorm in my Sunday go-to -meeting clothes.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I read the LEAD thread it occurred to me how "over -the- top' upper leadership became with outward appearances. In order to participate in WC, it was required that one participate in LEAD. In order to participate in LEAD one would certainly be at a disadvantage, perhaps even to the point of exclusion, if any physical disability were present. Upper management seeming only wanted participants who would personify perfection. Can you imagine telling a Viet Nam Vet who has sacrifised a limb for their country that they are not worthy to minister to GOD's people because they don't have the physical ability to participate in a program such as LEAD which,although it could be a valuable experience, had no foundation in either scripture or divine revelation that was ever proven. Three piece suits in the mud, obsession with polishing and straightening, and a need for people to appear to be perfect specimens: all for the sake of outward appearance in an organization that supposedly knew so much about what was important in GOD's eyes. GOD looks on the heart.-----Always has and always will. ------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
to be fair, you could be in the corps and not go LEAD. i hurt my back my first year in residence, and was subsequently excused my second year.
ya-freakin'-hoo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.