Human rights agency trying to shut down charities

[Argus]

It's seems there's a Christian charity group, Evangelical Christians, at that, who operate homes for the severely disabled. But being Christian wackos, they make their employees sign a morals pledge to not drink, cuss, look at porn, or do any of that nasty sex stuff outside of marriage (whatever). Well, wouldn't ya know it, some lesbian got hired, and promptly announced to everyone she was a lesbian, and began talking about her sexuality to anyone who'd listen. The fundies fired her. Bastards!

Now the good folk at the human rights agencies have spoken. It's all very well and good to look after disabled folk and all, but if you want the right to do that you gotta respect homosexuals. The fundies have been told to eliminate their morals pledge, and introduce training courses teaching everyone to love gays.

Now far, be it for me to suggest a little common sense here. But the fact is that the religious beliefs which cause these people to not feel too welcoming to homosexual activists are the same ones that cause them to work their asses off for charities on behalf of the weak and helpless. And if the choice is between letting them go on looking after the disabled while still having their morals clause, and forcing them to close down, I say we break the lesbian's legs and run her out of town in a wheelchair.

Gay activists attack Christian charity

[BubberMiley]

I say we break the lesbian's legs and run her out of town in a wheelchair.

Are you trying to round up a posse? I'm in, though I didn't know that was allowed under forum rules. Can we lynch her while we're at it?

[nothinarian]

Are you trying to round up a posse? I'm in, though I didn't know that was allowed under forum rules. Can we lynch her while we're at it?

I'm in although as redneck says after bar exchange "I think I might be a lesbian as well"

REAL women probably are tying the noose

Look out hate crimes - funded by yours truly

[sharkman]

This appears like a case where the lesbian hid her sexual preference from the prospective employer, and was possibly hired with false information. Just saying.

[MontyBurns]

I say we break the lesbian's legs and run her out of town in a wheelchair.

Count me in.

[eyeball]

If the whackos would stop shoving their big fat buttons in everyone's faces people might not feel so compelled to push them. This appears to be a case of someone who was asking for it.

The fundies have been told to eliminate their morals pledge, and introduce training courses teaching everyone to love gays.

Yep, and I suspect that's what Jesus would do.

[sharkman]

I agree eyeball, if the Lesbian hadn't been trying to shove her way in, and instead sought out an organization which suited her whacko lifestyle, she wouldn't have been fired for lying in an interview.

[CANADIEN]

Oh my oh my. We cannot let a lesbian care for elderly people, right?

Religious organisations should of course have the right to limit employment to people who subscribe to their philosophy and lifestyle requirements when the job is of a religious nature (ex.: a priest or rabbi) or clearly involves a role in spreading the Word (such as a teacher in a Catholic school or an official spokesperson for a mosque). Otherwise, and as long as a person's private life does not interfere with his/her work, it is none of the employer's business.

As for the "she shouldn't have lied" argument - questions about her private life should not have been asked, period.

And let me say how impressed I am with the "Christian love" expressed in this forum. Leg breaking and lynching indeed

[sharkman]

Oh my oh my. We cannot let a lesbian care for elderly people, right?

Religious organisations should of course have the right to limit employment to people who subscribe to their philosophy and lifestyle requirements when the job is of a religious nature (ex.: a priest or rabbi) or clearly involves a role in spreading the Word (such as a teacher in a Catholic school or an official spokesperson for a mosque). Otherwise, and as long as a person's private life does not interfere with his/her work, it is none of the employer's business.

As for the "she shouldn't have lied" argument - questions about her private life should not have been asked, period.

And let me say how impressed I am with the "Christian love" expressed in this forum. Leg breaking and lynching indeed

I don't think you are aware of the problems that can arise in organizations that care for different groups of people. For instance, you don't want to hire someone who has a record of certain kinds of crimes. Their private must indeed be open to inspection. You wouldn't want a child to be molested.

If a Lesbian, or anyone else for that matter, wants to work in a charitable organization, they need to find one that dovetails with their beliefs. It's not rocket science.

Edited May 11, 2008 by sharkman

[bk59]

The "whackos" with their "whacko lifestyle" should be stopped, eh? What an informed point of view.

If Christian Horizons wants to be funded by the people of this province then they should stop discriminating against the people of this province. If they want to promote their own ideas of what is a moral lifestyle then they can do it on their own dime, not with Ontario tax dollars.

Maybe we should apply some common sense here. Sexual orientation has absolutely no impact at all on caring for people with developmental disabilities. The woman who was fired is a Christian; she grew up as a Christian and even has a degree in Religious Education. She had also been working for Christian Horizons for five years before she was fired. She began employment in 1995 and was fired in 2000. It wasn't until 1999 that she began to see herself as a lesbian. She did confide this to two co-workers in the summer of 1999.

As for the statement that she "got hired, and promptly announced to everyone she was a lesbian, and began talking about her sexuality to anyone who'd listen", from the facts this isn't even remotely true. She had worked there for four years before any mention of her homosexuality was made. And it was other co-workers and the complainant's supervisor who confronted her about her sexuality in 2000, not the other way around. She did not lie in her interview. She was not asking for people to push her buttons.

Isn't it interesting how actually looking at the facts of a situation makes all the difference?

This is a Christian woman who wanted to care for the same people that Christian Horizons wanted to care for. To characterize this as a godless, whacko lesbian wanting to destroy a pure and innocent Christian charity is ridiculous. While there is disagreement between different sects of Christianity on homosexuality, the goals of this person and Christian Horizons were almost identical. It's a shame that Christian Horizons couldn't find room for another Christian in their organization.

[bk59]

For instance, you don't want to hire someone who has a record of certain kinds of crimes. Their private must indeed be open to inspection. You wouldn't want a child to be molested.

And what does that have to do with her sexuality? (Hint: nothing)

If a Lesbian, or anyone else for that matter, wants to work in a charitable organization, they need to find one that dovetails with their beliefs. It's not rocket science.

It certainly isn't rocket science. That's why maybe looking at the facts is important. Because both parties had Christian beliefs. Both parties wanted to care for people with developmental disabilities. The woman was not forcing her beliefs about homosexuality on anyone. In fact, aside from one conversation in 1999, it looks like she kept this part of her life private. It was Christian Horizons that made this an issue.

[eyeball]

She was not asking for people to push her buttons.

Isn't it interesting how actually looking at the facts of a situation makes all the difference?

This is a Christian woman who wanted to care for the same people that Christian Horizons wanted to care for. To characterize this as a godless, whacko lesbian wanting to destroy a pure and innocent Christian charity is ridiculous. While there is disagreement between different sects of Christianity on homosexuality, the goals of this person and Christian Horizons were almost identical. It's a shame that Christian Horizons couldn't find room for another Christian in their organization.

I was implying that it was Christian Horizons who asked for what they got. Thank you for enlightening us with regards to the deeper and broader spectrum of nuances to this story. It does make a difference.

[CANADIEN]

I don't think you are aware of the problems that can arise in organizations that care for different groups of people. For instance, you don't want to hire someone who has a record of certain kinds of crimes. Their private must indeed be open to inspection. You wouldn't want a child to be molested.

If a Lesbian, or anyone else for that matter, wants to work in a charitable organization, they need to find one that dovetails with their beliefs. It's not rocket science.

Nice try sharkman. I fully understand the way you try to justify something that can not be justified.

A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his/her capacity to provide compassionate and competent care. This is not rocket science.

And this is not rocket science to figure out that I am NOT talking about necessary and justifiable checks to ensure the safety of an organization's clients. I am talking about aspects of a person's private life that have nothing to do with how they can perform their duties or the need to protect an organization's clients.

And it is not rocket science to know that, no matter how bizarre a person's choice of where they want to work may be, unjustifiable discrimination is still unjustifiable discrimination.

[bk59]

I was implying that it was Christian Horizons who asked for what they got. Thank you for enlightening us with regards to the deeper and broader spectrum of nuances to this story. It does make a difference.

My apologies, I misinterpreted your post.

Actually, you did raise a good point (now that I re-read your post with your original intention in mind). What would Jesus do? This woman was a Christian with a four year history of service with Christian Horizons. The only difference appears to be their respective views on sexuality. Surely there is room in a Christian organization like this (i.e. whose mission is to serve others, not promote a particular brand of Christianity) for some differences of opinion. The core beliefs were shared: that Jesus died for the sins of humanity and rose again. The actions taken by Christian Horizons seem almost un-Christian.

[sharkman]

A person's sexual orientation does have weight in religious organizations whether you agree with it or not. Religious universities have students and staff agree to a statement of beliefs and personal behaviour and our courts are fine with this. People who aren't comfortable with this, such as yourself, can choose organizations that dovetail with their beliefs. Live and let live.

This particular situation is different, I should have looked into the situation more, but I'm pretty sure all of the facts are not yet known.

[CANADIEN]

A person's sexual orientation does have weight in religious organizations whether you agree with it or not. Religious universities have students and staff agree to a statement of beliefs and personal behaviour and our courts are fine with this. People who aren't comfortable with this, such as yourself, can choose organizations that dovetail with their beliefs. Live and let live.

This particular situation is different, I should have looked into the situation more, but I'm pretty sure all of the facts are not yet known.

A religious university serves the purpose of propagating the faith and it is normal to expect students as well as teaching and teaching-related staff to adhere to a certain code of conduct. The purpose of a health-care agency is to provide health-care, not to propagate the faith.

As you pointed out, there are things that are known about that case. If the employee in question engaged in activities detrimental to the health-care mission of that agency, then dismissal was justified. Not hiding one's sexual orientation does not meet that text.

And it is not a matter of whether or not that person made a wise choice of where she wanted to work, but or whether or not she had a right not to be discriminated against. She has that right, and if the only thing they have against her was that she is a lesbian, did not mention it before being hired and did not hide it afterward, then that right was violated.

[sharkman]

If her employment was dependent on a code of conduct form that she signed, then she is in conflict based on her own free will. I don't know if she signed anything, however. If not, it's a grey area to me.

[CANADIEN]

If her employment was dependent on a code of conduct form that she signed, then she is in conflict based on her own free will. I don't know if she signed anything, however. If not, it's a grey area to me.

As discrimination is against the law, a contract that includes discriminatory clauses is legally invalid. The argument that the person signed it willingly (if there was a contract) is meaningless, as the contract is still invalid and signing was compulsory as a condition of employment.

[bk59]

If her employment was dependent on a code of conduct form that she signed, then she is in conflict based on her own free will. I don't know if she signed anything, however. If not, it's a grey area to me.

So if that code of conduct required everyone to shave their heads that would be justifiable to fire people over? What is the organization really trying to accomplish here? Are they caring for people or not?

Sexual orientation does have weight in religious organizations. And if Christian Horizons was a Christian college then maybe they can require heterosexual teachers. But that is not their mission in this case. It is to care for developmentally disabled people. What is the more important Christian principle here? Helping and serving others, or judging and firing their own employees?

[Kitchener]

I don't think you are aware of the problems that can arise in organizations that care for different groups of people. For instance, you don't want to hire someone who has a record of certain kinds of crimes. Their private must indeed be open to inspection. You wouldn't want a child to be molested.

Sorry, which crime is homosexuality? Please explain in full.

[Kitchener]

Even if sort-of in jest -- which is far from clear -- the violent hatred voiced towards the woman in question on this thread is disgusting. It is utterly beyond the pale for people who consider themselves on the moral high ground, or indeed for people aiming to be basically decent.

[sharkman]

Sorry, which crime is homosexuality? Please explain in full.

That is not the point, I was simply giving a reason why some organizations needs to do a background check, which the poster whom I was discussing this with was against.

Get a grip, there is no violent hatred expressed. Some off color locker room humor. Or do you freak out in locker rooms with off color humor?

[Kitchener]

Get a grip

Get a clue.

there is no violent hatred expressed.

"I say we break the lesbian's legs and run her out of town in a wheelchair"

"I'm in ... REAL women probably are tying the noose"

"Count me in."

Some off color locker room humor.

Off colour? Okay, get half a clue. Even you don't believe for an instant that this is "off-colour".

Or do you freak out in locker rooms with off color humor?

Don't be dumber than you absolutely must. I'm usually the source of the off-colour humor in the locker room. And yet it somehow never seems to involve knee-slapping, gut-busting material like, "Let's go break a lesbian's legs and send her home in a wheelchair!"

Like I said: Disgusting. And your incandescently stupid defense of it is more disgusting still -- not having the excuse of thoughtlessness.

[sharkman]

Wow, you really can whine with the best of them. I'll bet you're the ninny who puts a stop to any off color banter, regardless of your chest thumping. If you can't handle it, maybe you should stay out of the locker.

[Kitchener]

Wow, you really can whine with the best of them. I'll bet you're the ninny who puts a stop to any off color banter, regardless of your chest thumping. If you can't handle it, maybe you should stay out of the locker.

In English, "whine" does not mean "clearly point out sharkman's slimy defense of violent rhetoric about a woman". If you can't handle having your creepy behaviour spotlit, I suggest you exercise some judgement before you act -- rather than falling back on the dumbest of the dumb evasions and prevarications afterward.

This really does deserve a replay:

"I say we break the lesbian's legs and run her out of town in a wheelchair"

"I'm in ... REAL women probably are tying the noose"

"Count me in."

there is no violent hatred expressed.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Kitchener