Christ Centered Gamer

ArchAngel wrote:...Why the obsession on controlling people's sex life?...

...

It's not even the content of their beliefs, per se. I don't mind that the owners of Chick-Fil-A oppose gay marriage. Their sandwiches are relatively delicious and they kind of just hold their beliefs and vote and spend their money they way they want to. That's it. God forbid I deprive myself of a high-end fastfood chicken sandwich.

The difference, really, is the about mandating morality on others. What constitutes the right to enforce and expect certain moral restrictions on others? Cases like killing and stealing, or whenever one harms or infringes on another, are relatively easy. As my system of ethics go, I usually draw lines at infringed rights. As soon as one's actions damages another in such a capacity, it's reason enough to exert one's power to stop it. Whatever else people do with their own consent and their own affairs is out of my jurisdiction.

Where do you guys draw the line?

The difference between Chick-Fil-A and World Vision is that WV is a religious organization as compared to CFA, which is a for-profit company. CFA doesn't depend mostly on the support from people who agree with them, as long as they agree that their sandwiches taste good. WV's entire income is dependent on support from a group of people that, I would assume, is mostly made up of Christians. Their focus is Christian, their values are Christian, and they are trying to help out underprivileged kids and teach them about Christ. It's awfully hard for non-Christians to participate in that kind of ministry as compared to CFA.

If it's a religious organization, it should probably only hire people of its religion (ie people who have the same values/morals as they do). It's not much of a stretch to say that if they believe and say gay marriage/sex before marriage is wrong, they should avoid hiring people who participate in such things, if only to avoid being hypocritical. It's a little hard to go to other countries and condemn things that you are encouraging/endorsing in America.

I would say that people should be allowed to hire based on religion, from any side. If someone doesn't want me because I'm a Christian, I'll be disappointed, but I won't sue for discrimination. They believe that I won't work well in their work environment, so what's the point of pushing it? I'd rather go somewhere more friendly to my beliefs. The same goes for Christian organizations. Hobby Lobby is a great example of this. I don't believe they hire based on religion, but I know they are fighting Obamacare abortion coverage because they believe it is wrong. Perfectly ok, in my opinion. A society in which people can hire/take pictures for based on any religious beliefs would truly provide freedom of religion - no one is forced by the government to do something either direction.

Their focus is Christian, their values are Christian, and they are trying to help out underprivileged kids and teach them about Christ. It's awfully hard for non-Christians to participate in that kind of ministry as compared to CFA.

Minor point, but proselytizing is against their policy. They're first and foremost a relief organization.

The biggest problem is that some of the churches associated with WV are not against same-sex marriage, so it is becoming hard to be representative of the wishes of many churches on either side of a schism.

ArchAngel wrote:Their interpretations of biblical teachings. Minor point, but it's important to distinguish because otherwise a person can start thinking they talk for god.

Yeah that prettymuch goes without saying in any conversation like this.

ArchAngel wrote: How is it not control? It's literally their rules. Even with the association view of things, they are trying to control who they associate with.
If one of their employees is caught having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend, what would that mean for them?

It's not about control because nobody is putting a gun to people's head and forcing them to work there, nor is that organization going out and trying to impose its values on people. If you go for a job and they require random drug screening, is that about control, or are they just being careful about who works for them? It makes perfect sense. If I run a bank I'm not likely to hire somebody who is a member of an anti-capitalist protest group. If I run a butcher shop I'm not likely to hire a militant vegan protester...

...which brings up a deeper question: Why would someone WANT to work for an organization whose values and policies run counter to their own beliefs or lifestyle? As a Mormon, does it make any sense for me to apply for a job at a brewery? A tobacco shop? Would a Mulsim want to work at a plant where they produce honey glazed hams? Certainly not.

ArchAngel wrote: I'm not sure how you'd feel about an organization required their employees to not be Christian, because they want to control who they associate with, but I'd find it reprehensible and close-minded.

And that's not a good analogy. WV isn't saying they won't hire anyone who believes that gay marriage should be a thing, nor are they refusing to hire anyone who thinks fornication is fine. This is about how people ACT, not what they THINK. To refuse to hire a Christian because of his/her beliefs is reprehensible and closed-minded I agree. It is equally reprehensible to refuse to hire someone at WV if that person is an Atheist. On the other hand, to hire someone who actively lives a lifestyle that is in conflict with the ethics of a job is a mistake.

I reiterate here: Nobody is being FORCED to go work for WV.

ArchAngel wrote: The thinking can be extended to any national level, and I have heard similar things said. I recall someone telling atheists to that if they don't like that it's a christian nation, we should leave. If the majority vote the a required religion for the country, is it not about association with ______ principles and people who don't like it don't have to stay?

I'm not sure I understand your analogy here, because I don't see anything in there where people are being forced to do anything.

ArchAngel wrote: I understand my edit of the last post came after you made your post, but where would you draw the line in this sort of thing?

Good question.

As some of you guys may know, entry into an LDS Temple is restricted to only those who are in good standing with the Church and live their lives to a certain standard. Yet, there are personnel who work there as their job. There's security people, maintenance people, etc. Somebody's gotta change the light bulbs when they burn out, amirite? So what does this mean? It means that in order to work at the Temple, you have to meet the SAME standards as any other person to enter. That means your employment is contingent upon your living your life to that standard. Want to go out and fornicate? Do drugs? Fine. But you lose your Temple Recommend and with it, your job. Note that it doesn't matter what you THINK. What matters is what you DO. And when someone goes to work at the Temple they make an agreement that they will live according to the standards of a Temple-going member of the Church as a condition of employment there.

So to me, I think that as long as the labor market is free and nobody is forced to work for anyone else, then a private employer is free to set whatever standards of personal conduct they want for their employees. If their standards are unreasonable and they can't get anyone to work there, then they have some hard decisions to make. I see no problem here.

Now if you REALLY want to talk about sticky situations, maybe we should talk about whether or not it's ok for an employer to CHANGE the rules on people who already work for them...

There's something I said before, but I feel I should stress all the more, lest I lead you in paths of Strawmanness.
This is not an argument on rights, this is one of ethics. I do believe an organization has to right to set criteria on who they want to hire, but whether that criteria is good or not is a different question.
The point I brought up that started the debate was whether it was ethical for an organization to do that, and my particular dilemma is whether I should continue to support an organization like that. No where was legality mentioned.
If I did not make this clear in my point before, I'll take responsibility for that, but not anymore from this point on, since I felt I made myself clear. If not, I will further clarify for you but anything else would be a Strawman fallacy.

ArcticFox wrote:It's not about control because nobody is putting a gun to people's head and forcing them to work there, nor is that organization going out and trying to impose its values on people. If you go for a job and they require random drug screening, is that about control, or are they just being careful about who works for them? It makes perfect sense. If I run a bank I'm not likely to hire somebody who is a member of an anti-capitalist protest group. If I run a butcher shop I'm not likely to hire a militant vegan protester...

Those are all still control. The question is what warrants this use of control. The examples you gave have generally pretty good rationale behind them, with the potential exception of drug screening, but that's for another day. The controls you mentioned are for the very protection of the company against possible and probably malicious acts. Someone isn't going to tear down the evil juggernaut that is WorldVision (aka The Man) because they got laid.

So why care?

ArcticFox wrote:And that's not a good analogy. WV isn't saying they won't hire anyone who believes that gay marriage should be a thing, nor are they refusing to hire anyone who thinks fornication is fine. This is about how people ACT, not what they THINK. To refuse to hire a Christian because of his/her beliefs is reprehensible and closed-minded I agree. It is equally reprehensible to refuse to hire someone at WV if that person is an Atheist. On the other hand, to hire someone who actively lives a lifestyle that is in conflict with the ethics of a job is a mistake.

Fair enough point on the analogy, so allow me to modify it.
I still think it's unethical for some organization (let's make up an example: AtheistHoles, Ltd) that would not allow their employees to pray or attend a religious service because it is in direct conflict with their views of atheism and how people should live.
And I'm not asking you if you think they have to right to make that sort of rule, or that why would someone who prays or attends church even want to work there, but is it morally justified?

ArcticFox wrote:Now if you REALLY want to talk about sticky situations, maybe we should talk about whether or not it's ok for an employer to CHANGE the rules on people who already work for them...

Interesting point. Probably depends if it's a breach of contract or not.

ArchAngel wrote: The point I brought up that started the debate was whether it was ethical for an organization to do that, and my particular dilemma is whether I should continue to support an organization like that. No where was legality mentioned.

Was that for me or someone else? I don't think I said anything about legality in my post but I may have been unclear somewhere.

ArchAngel wrote: Those are all still control. The question is what warrants this use of control. The examples you gave have generally pretty good rationale behind them, with the potential exception of drug screening, but that's for another day. The controls you mentioned are for the very protection of the company against possible and probably malicious acts. Someone isn't going to tear down the evil juggernaut that is WorldVision (aka The Man) because they got laid.

So why care?

It's only control in a very limited sense though, to the point where I just don't think it's useful to express it in that way. By using your approach, my employer is "controlling" me if I get in trouble when my conduct creates trouble in the workplace.... Which either we'd agree is not truly controlling, or that it's acceptable for various reasons. In either case, it wouldn't be useful to criticize it on the basis that they're controlling me or my life.

As for why care... Well some employers feel that the conduct of their employees, even when not on the clock, reflects upon them as an organization. This is pretty common. I'm fairly certain that if I were to get arrested for some crime that might cause embarrassment to the University, I'd be in danger of losing my job. So if WV is particular about the conduct of its employees because of how that conduct may reflect on the organization, I'd say that's a reason to care.

"Hey, those snobby Worldvision people act all moral and stuff but you should see the kind of parties the mail room staff goes to... Hooo boy! Pretty sure that stuff is illegal in like 37 states..."

ArchAngel wrote:Fair enough point on the analogy, so allow me to modify it.
I still think it's unethical for some organization (let's make up an example: AtheistHoles, Ltd) that would not allow their employees to pray or attend a religious service because it is in direct conflict with their views of atheism and how people should live.
And I'm not asking you if you think they have to right to make that sort of rule, or that why would someone who prays or attends church even want to work there, but is it morally justified?

To be honest, maybe. It's a private organization so as far as I'm concerned it's up to them to decide whether that restriction is morally justified. As a Mormon I'm not eligible to join a Masonic Lodge (to my knowledge) because they require certain beliefs and commitments that conflict with LDS teaching. It's their club so clearly that's logical and moral to them even if not to me.

ArchAngel wrote:Interesting point. Probably depends if it's a breach of contract or not.

Yeah that's probably a topic for another thread because I really don't know what I think of that question. It's one thing to say "Well I don't choose to apply for that job because they won't let their workers play Dungeons & Dragons. It's their right to have their own rules, after all..." It's something else entirely if I get a memo from HR saying the new Code of Conduct states that employees of the University may no longer engage in fantasy roleplaying games and the penalty for doing so is to be terminated.

...which brings up a deeper question: Why would someone WANT to work for an organization whose values and policies run counter to their own beliefs or lifestyle? As a Mormon, does it make any sense for me to apply for a job at a brewery? A tobacco shop? Would a Mulsim want to work at a plant where they produce honey glazed hams? Certainly not.

Because there are a large number of people who do not think that being gay and being Christian / wanting to serve the poor in Christ are mutually exclusive...?

ChickenSoup wrote: Because there are a large number of people who do not think that being gay and being Christian / wanting to serve the poor in Christ are mutually exclusive...?

Except that Christianity is a tapestry of different views and beliefs, so my question still stands. Just saying they're Christian doesn't mean it's the exact same views as the prospective employer who also calls itself Christian.

Except World Vision's goal is serving the poor, and one would think gayitude is a variable independent of poor-serving ability?

Sure, but by the same token there are other organizations out there with the same mission who don't have the same views as WV. It's not like there aren't options.

WV wants to adhere to a particular view in keeping with its own morals and values. They are one of many who do the same thing but from different points of view. Theirs just happens to be a political button issue right now.

Arch, I know you and I (mostly egged on by myself admittedly) generally don't see eye to eye and so I'm trying to remain civil when I ask this question-and maybe this is for a different topic: how can people with varying beliefs (or lack thereof) agree on what is morally justifiable? Sure there are big picture items but when it comes down to the small stuff there are disagreements all over the place.

Where I struggle with this political posturing is that there seems to be a fluid level of morality. "What's right for you is fine but not right for me and so on." If this is the social norm now how can we as a nation, who are so opposed to forcing our beliefs on others, determine what is morally justifiable? (I feel like I'm not making sense on this post).

ArcticFox wrote:Was that for me or someone else? I don't think I said anything about legality in my post but I may have been unclear somewhere.

Mostly everybody. It was made more general, since I've been reading a lot of responses saying that an organization has "the right" to do that, to which I replied, "well yes, and nobody disputed that here." My question is about whether it is ethical.

ArcticFox wrote:It's only control in a very limited sense though, to the point where I just don't think it's useful to express it in that way. By using your approach, my employer is "controlling" me if I get in trouble when my conduct creates trouble in the workplace.... Which either we'd agree is not truly controlling, or that it's acceptable for various reasons. In either case, it wouldn't be useful to criticize it on the basis that they're controlling me or my life.

As for why care... Well some employers feel that the conduct of their employees, even when not on the clock, reflects upon them as an organization. This is pretty common. I'm fairly certain that if I were to get arrested for some crime that might cause embarrassment to the University, I'd be in danger of losing my job. So if WV is particular about the conduct of its employees because of how that conduct may reflect on the organization, I'd say that's a reason to care.

Right, they are varying degrees of control, but for every instance and degree that control is invoked, I feel it needs to be justifiable. I will straight up kill someone if they were trying to greatly harm of kill a loved one, but if they made a coarse remark, I find that level of coercion to be excessive. Likewise, if I found out they spend most of their time playing Candy Crush, I might find that inherently wrong, but as they are not harming others, maybe it's best for me to not involve myself.

So, that's really what I'm talking about here. I'll grant WorldVision the right, and I'll let the leadership believe whatever they want, but in the case of their employee's sex lives, does it warrant enough action on their part to make pre-marital abstinence and homosexual relationships to be a no-go.
And I'm very disappointed in the organization that their answer is yes.

ArcticFox wrote:To be honest, maybe. It's a private organization so as far as I'm concerned it's up to them to decide whether that restriction is morally justified. As a Mormon I'm not eligible to join a Masonic Lodge (to my knowledge) because they require certain beliefs and commitments that conflict with LDS teaching. It's their club so clearly that's logical and moral to them even if not to me.

A club is a little different as it's group built around views or interests and is focuses exactly on what makes them different.

N1ghtBreak3r wrote:how can people with varying beliefs (or lack thereof) agree on what is morally justifiable?

That's a good question, and I feel lit's a very important question regarding morality.
Morality is more than just a code on conduct, it's a cohesive element of society. It's how we get a long, and in a multi-cultural and multi-belief society. You look at the world through the lens of the Bible and I don't. The foundation of my ethical system is a system of human rights, empathy, and reducing harm on people while increasing happiness. Much of the Christian perspective is an appeal to the Authority that is God, generally through the Bible.
Can these be compatible?
Well, I think that's enough for now. To be continued in another thread?

ArcticFox wrote:Sure, but by the same token there are other organizations out there with the same mission who don't have the same views as WV. It's not like there aren't options.

WV wants to adhere to a particular view in keeping with its own morals and values. They are one of many who do the same thing but from different points of view. Theirs just happens to be a political button issue right now.

Let's flip this around for a moment to illustrate why Arch and I take the position that it's exclusionary.

(I phrase this as a hypothetical because it does appear that WV was primarily covering their butts rather than attempting to "unify Christians," but...) how about this: what if WV had a differing opinion on what constitutes Biblical marriage? They're free to accept whomever they see fit just as much as gays are free to "choose another employer." Yet, half the evangelical population metaphorically (and/or literally) crapped themselves at the idea that THE GAYS ARE BARGING INTO OUR LIVES AND SHOVING THEIR BELIEFS DOWN OUR THROATS... AGAIN.

I'm... I'm sorry some Christians had a different opinion? Who was doing the shoving, again?

ArchAngel wrote:Right, they are varying degrees of control, but for every instance and degree that control is invoked, I feel it needs to be justifiable. I will straight up kill someone if they were trying to greatly harm of kill a loved one, but if they made a coarse remark, I find that level of coercion to be excessive. Likewise, if I found out they spend most of their time playing Candy Crush, I might find that inherently wrong, but as they are not harming others, maybe it's best for me to not involve myself.

So, that's really what I'm talking about here. I'll grant WorldVision the right, and I'll let the leadership believe whatever they want, but in the case of their employee's sex lives, does it warrant enough action on their part to make pre-marital abstinence and homosexual relationships to be a no-go.
And I'm very disappointed in the organization that their answer is yes.

At the end of the day that's all subjective though. You might not see why those lifestyles mean anything to their professional life, but to them those things are VERY important elements in what it means to live a life consistent with Biblical teaching as understood by WV. It gets back to the fact that the conduct of an employee reflects, right or wrong, on those whom they work for. By the same token, the hiring choices made by any organization reflects upon them. WV wants to work with people who represent their same beliefs and views. I don't find that to be particularly morally troubling.

ArchAngel wrote:A club is a little different as it's group built around views or interests and is focuses exactly on what makes them different.

Well maybe, and maybe that's what WV is doing. Isn't that the point of having a religious organization be the mechanism by which people rally to a cause?

ArcticFox wrote:At the end of the day that's all subjective though. You might not see why those lifestyles mean anything to their professional life, but to them those things are VERY important elements in what it means to live a life consistent with Biblical teaching as understood by WV. It gets back to the fact that the conduct of an employee reflects, right or wrong, on those whom they work for. By the same token, the hiring choices made by any organization reflects upon them. WV wants to work with people who represent their same beliefs and views. I don't find that to be particularly morally troubling.

Should ones the conduct reflect on their employers? Are people guilty by association or are the employers somehow responsible for their employees?
Also, is there a limit to the extent the controls they wish to place? Unless I missed it, you never mentioned any sort of justification needed for rules made about an employee's personal life. Is none needed, and any organization can set whatever criteria they wish without crossing any ethical lines?

ArcticFox wrote:Well maybe, and maybe that's what WV is doing. Isn't that the point of having a religious organization be the mechanism by which people rally to a cause?

Odd choice to rally people together by excluding large swaths of them. World Vision isn't a club for the "sexually pure."

ChickenSoup wrote: Let's flip this around for a moment to illustrate why Arch and I take the position that it's exclusionary.

(I phrase this as a hypothetical because it does appear that WV was primarily covering their butts rather than attempting to "unify Christians," but...) how about this: what if WV had a differing opinion on what constitutes Biblical marriage? They're free to accept whomever they see fit just as much as gays are free to "choose another employer." Yet, half the evangelical population metaphorically (and/or literally) crapped themselves at the idea that THE GAYS ARE BARGING INTO OUR LIVES AND SHOVING THEIR BELIEFS DOWN OUR THROATS... AGAIN.

I'm... I'm sorry some Christians had a different opinion? Who was doing the shoving, again?

Not sure I understand what you mean here... As I see it, these people have been conducting their affairs in this way for years and years and nobody said "boo" about it. Now suddenly there's this hot button political cause and it's WV who's doing the shoving? That doesn't make sense to me.

ArchAngel wrote:Should ones the conduct reflect on their employers? Are people guilty by association or are the employers somehow responsible for their employees?

I don't know whether it should or not, but the reality is that it does. Maybe it's not fair, but there it is.

ArchAngel wrote: Also, is there a limit to the extent the controls they wish to place? Unless I missed it, you never mentioned any sort of justification needed for rules made about an employee's personal life. Is none needed, and any organization can set whatever criteria they wish without crossing any ethical lines?

Well, we already agree that they can when rights were mentioned earlier, so I'm not sure what you're asking here.

ArchAngel wrote: Odd choice to rally people together by excluding large swaths of them. World Vision isn't a club for the "sexually pure."

See, this is where I think you guys' focus is all wrong. Bear with me a sec. When an organization like WV says "We want our members to live their personal lives in accordance with Biblical teaching, and so we'll only hire those who are willing to make that commitment." The focus is on what type of people they want to associate with and work with. That's the focus. It isn't about homosexual activity and it isn't about fornication. Those are just two examples of lifestyles out of many.

This comes across to me as another opportunity to politicize and amplify the incompatibility between modern lifestyles and traditional Christian mores, and to vilify the Christians being discussed. (I'm not accusing you guys of doing this, I'm talking about the talking heads in the media.) It isn't like WV went out and started picking fights with people who don't live their way. It's not like they were using the media to attack and shame people who don't live according to Biblical teachings. They were just doing their thing, forcing nobody, hurting nobody, until they made the mistake of drawing attention to themselves by coming out with the initial statement that they were relaxing their hiring criteria. When they reversed it, all they were doing was going back to business as usual only now people are ready to burn them at the stake, and you guys are in here judging them for it.

At least, that's the way it comes across. I don't mean any offense, just telling you how it looks from here.

(I still <3 you guys. )