Great News! World Vision Reverses Decision to Hire Same-Sex couples

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Homosexuals:

(UPDATED) President Richard Stearns: 'Certain beliefs are so core to our Trinitarian faith that we must take a strong stand on those beliefs.'

Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber/ March 26, 2014




39080.jpg



[Updated 10:45 a.m. Thursday with additional reactions.]

Only two days after announcing it would hire Christians in same-sex marriages, World Vision U.S. has reversed its ground-breaking decision after weathering intense criticism from evangelical leaders.

"The last couple of days have been painful," president Richard Stearns told reporters this evening. "We feel pain and a broken heart for the confusion we caused for many friends who saw this policy change as a strong reversal of World Vision's commitment to biblical authority, which it was not intended to be."

"Rather than creating more unity [among Christians], we created more division, and that was not the intent," said Stearns. "Our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake … and we believe that [World Vision supporters] helped us to see that with more clarity … and we're asking you to forgive us for that mistake."

"We listened to [our] friends, we listened to their counsel. They tried to point out in loving ways that the conduct policy change was simply not consistent … with the authority of Scripture and how we apply Scripture to our lives," said Stearns. "We did inadequate consultation with our supporters. If I could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders."

"What we are affirming today is there are certain beliefs that are so core to our Trinitarian faith that we must take a strong stand on those beliefs," said Stearns. "We cannot defer to a small minority of churches and denominations that have taken a different position."

"Yes, we will certainly defer on many issues that are not so central to our understanding of the Christian faith," he said. "But on the authority of Scripture in our organization's work [and employee conduct] ... and on marriage as an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman—those are age-old and fundamental Christian beliefs. We cannot defer on things that are that central to the faith."

Stearns expects the board to continue to deal with questions about employment and same-sex relationships. "I think every Christian organization will continue to deal with this sensitive issue," he said. "The board will continue to talk about this issue for many board meetings to come. ... We need to have a process to do further and wider consultation with key Christian leaders around the country, and we will be discussing how that can happen."

Today's letter explaining the reversal (posted in full below) was approved by the entire board, Stearns said. [Editor's note: All references to "World Vision" refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

The initial decision faced heavy backlash from the evangelical community—includingAl Mohler,*Russell Moore,*John Piper, andFranklin Graham—with few voicing open support for the decision. The day after the initial policy change was made, the Assemblies of God, one of America's largest and fastest-growing denominations, urged its members to consider dropping their financial support from World Vision and instead "gradually shifting" it to "Pentecostal and evangelical charities that maintain biblical standards of sexual morality."

"The U.S. branch of World Vision has placed Pentecostal and evangelical churches in a difficult position," said George O. Wood, general superintendent of the 3-million-member AG, before the reversal. "On the one hand, we applaud the work they do among the poor in America and around the world, and many churches have supported that work financially for some time. On the other hand, World Vision's policy change now puts them at odds with our beliefs regarding sexual morality."

On Wednesday night, Wood*encouraged"Pentecostals and evangelicals who hastily canceled their sponsorship of children in World Vision programs to immediately reinstate that support in order to ensure continuity of care for the poor children whom Christ loves."

Stearns acknowledged Wednesday [March 26] that "a number" of child sponsors canceled their sponsorship in the past 48 hours in protest of the change to World Vision's conduct policy.

"That grieves us, because the children we serve will suffer because of that," he told reporters. "But our choice is not about money or income. It's a sincere desire for us to do the right thing. To be consistent with our core values, and to respond to the legitimate feedback and counsel we have received from supporters and friends of World Vision."

World Vision had hoped to take what it described as a neutral position in the gay marriage debate by*deferring it to the local church. The changed policy still required singles to remain abstinent and married couples to maintain fidelity, but no longer limited marriage to heterosexuals.

"They were not taking a position supporting same-sex marriage or homosexuality," said Tim Dearborn, director of Fuller Seminary's Lloyd John Ogilvie Institute of Preaching, who previously oversaw how World Vision's Christian commitments were implemented across its international partners. Instead, he said World Vision, which has a "deep commitment to live and serve in ways that are consistent with Scripture," was attempting to do three things.

"First, to focus on the aspects of the biblical mandate that are non-negotiable: caring for the poor, victims of injustice, and especially children," said Dearborn. "Second, to contribute to the unity of the church around those things, at a time when the church is fractured. And third, to contribute as a result of that to the credibility of the gospel and the church in the eyes of American society."

More than 2,000 of the 1.2 million children sponsored by World Vision U.S. had been dropped between CT's first reporting of the decision and Tuesday afternoon, according to a tweet by Ryan Reed (he credited his wife, who works at World Vision, with the information; the tweet has since been deleted). But it was not clear whether those numbers were a net loss or had been offset by new donors,*said*former World Vision staffer Ben Irwin.

"Assuming the '2,000' figure is accurate, that amounts to just under two-tenths of one percent of all kids sponsored through World Vision U.S.," Irwin wrote. "But this was never about percentages. This is about real lives. It's about kids in impoverished communities who just became pawns in our culture war."

Approximately $567 million of World Vision's more than $1 billion budget comes from private contributions, according to its 2012 annual report.

Some supporters took on additional sponsorships in support of the decision. Kristen Howerton, a professor of psychology for Vanguard University and popular blogger, organized a fundraiser with the goal of getting 100 children supported to help make up the difference. She accomplished her goal in a day.

She said she made the decision after seeing hundreds of comments on social media from people vowing to drop their support. "I think people's reactions have been pretty swift in condemning World Vision in placing them outside the fold of evangelical Christianity," she said.

Matthew Lee Anderson reflected on*whether and how*evangelicals should stop supporting World Vision financially. Esther Fleece reflected on her experience at Focus on the Family when TOM'S Shoes ended a partnership over Focus's stance on homosexuality.

"We can disagree with each other and still serve people in urgent need. The days of boycotting everything are over, but that doesn't mean Christian convictions are," shewrote for On Faith. "Correct theology is loving people, and no Bible-believing Christian is going to withhold service from a person in need who disagrees with his or her interpretation of Scripture."

John Huffman, who was a World Vision board member for 26 years, is a fervent supporter of the work Stearns has done. He told CT his "high point" on the board was hiring Stearns, and this was the first time the two men had disagreed. But Huffman called the previous decision to change the employment policy "unwise" on every front. "It lacks of wisdom in terms of biblical, theological, moral, cultural, and strategic implications to the organization," he said.

Strategically, it would have alienated many evangelicals, which make up the majority of World Vision supporters. Given that World Vision has kept such a strong evangelical identity, it's unlikely to attract people from the other side of the fence, said Huffman, who is [full disclosure] board chair for Christianity Today as well as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

"I don't think it's going to help the institution," he told CT before today's reversal announcement. "I don't think there are going to be other people on this organization that are going to be attracted." (After today's announcement, Huffman told CT, "I'm very relieved and very grateful for the decision of the board to reverse their position.")

Dearborn said that World Vision U.S.'s relationship with its partner organizations also played a role in today's decision. "There's an effort on the part of World Vision U.S. not only to be subject to the authority of Scripture, but also to be sensitive to being a member of an international partnership," he said. "There are 50-some World Visions in the world. Especially in Africa and Asia, the position World Vision just rescinded would have been troublesome."

Stearns reached out to those partners in World Vision's announcement of the reversal, asking for forgiveness:

We are writing to you our trusted partners and Christian leaders who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the Body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

Some critics were quick to extend it. "World Vision has done the right thing,"*tweetedMoore after the reversal. "Now, let's all work for a holistic gospel presence, addressing both temporal and eternal needs."

"Remember, World Vision may stand to lose more money (in corporate and government sponsorships) by taking this stand,"*tweetedDenny Burk. "It's really remarkable."

To Stanley Carlson-Thies, president of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, World Vision's controversial decision was a good opportunity for similar organizations to consider their own stances.

"I think it's probably good that other organizations have to face that decision, because it's all around us," he told CT before the reversal. "I would hope that organizations use this as an opportunity to think about their own policy, not just follow the leader."

Here is the full text of World Vision's announcement today:





39082.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why did they make their first decision in the first place?
It doesn't take a biblical scholar to know that the original decision was wrong.
Who's guiding the 'stern' of that ship?
 
If they refuse to hire homosexuals, they should also refuse to hire adulterers, prostitutes, people who have sex before marriage, fornicators, peadophiles, rapists, sexual miscreants, masturbaters, those who look lustfully at people who aren't their partner and anyone engaging in anal sex.

It's only fair.

Their mission statement is to work with the poor and oppressed, yet they refuse to work with one of the most oppressed demographics in the US - for what sounds like funding.

Makes sense.
 
Why did they make their first decision in the first place?
It doesn't take a biblical scholar to know that the original decision was wrong.
Who's guiding the 'stern' of that ship?

It never should have been considered in the first place! They only reversed the decision because they were afraid they would lose supporters...at least the ones with some kind of Biblical values. They lost mine as of yesterday for even considering the whole thing.
 
It never should have been considered in the first place! They only reversed the decision because they were afraid they would lose supporters...at least the ones with some kind of Biblical values. They lost mine as of yesterday for even considering the whole thing.

Replace 'biblical' with 'bigoted', 'ignorant' 'contradictory' 'hypocritical' 'oppressive' 'suppressive' 'bias' 'unwarranted' 'ugly' 'separatist' 'prejudiced' 'antipathetic' 'apartheid' 'partial' 'prejudgmental' 'discriminatory' 'intolerant' 'inequitous' 'dogmatic' or 'fanatic'.

Any of those words will do.

You should rue the day you ever commit a sexual offense like looking lustfully at a woman or masturbating! Because then you're liable, by your own rules, to be denied employment!
 
World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Homosexuals:

(UPDATED) President Richard Stearns: 'Certain beliefs are so core to our Trinitarian faith that we must take a strong stand on those beliefs.'

Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber/ March 26, 2014




39080.jpg



[Updated 10:45 a.m. Thursday with additional reactions.]

Only two days after announcing it would hire Christians in same-sex marriages, World Vision U.S. has reversed its ground-breaking decision after weathering intense criticism from evangelical leaders.

"The last couple of days have been painful," president Richard Stearns told reporters this evening. "We feel pain and a broken heart for the confusion we caused for many friends who saw this policy change as a strong reversal of World Vision's commitment to biblical authority, which it was not intended to be."

"Rather than creating more unity [among Christians], we created more division, and that was not the intent," said Stearns. "Our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake … and we believe that [World Vision supporters] helped us to see that with more clarity … and we're asking you to forgive us for that mistake."

"We listened to [our] friends, we listened to their counsel. They tried to point out in loving ways that the conduct policy change was simply not consistent … with the authority of Scripture and how we apply Scripture to our lives," said Stearns. "We did inadequate consultation with our supporters. If I could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders."

"What we are affirming today is there are certain beliefs that are so core to our Trinitarian faith that we must take a strong stand on those beliefs," said Stearns. "We cannot defer to a small minority of churches and denominations that have taken a different position."

"Yes, we will certainly defer on many issues that are not so central to our understanding of the Christian faith," he said. "But on the authority of Scripture in our organization's work [and employee conduct] ... and on marriage as an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman—those are age-old and fundamental Christian beliefs. We cannot defer on things that are that central to the faith."

Stearns expects the board to continue to deal with questions about employment and same-sex relationships. "I think every Christian organization will continue to deal with this sensitive issue," he said. "The board will continue to talk about this issue for many board meetings to come. ... We need to have a process to do further and wider consultation with key Christian leaders around the country, and we will be discussing how that can happen."

Today's letter explaining the reversal (posted in full below) was approved by the entire board, Stearns said. [Editor's note: All references to "World Vision" refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

The initial decision faced heavy backlash from the evangelical community—includingAl Mohler,*Russell Moore,*John Piper, andFranklin Graham—with few voicing open support for the decision. The day after the initial policy change was made, the Assemblies of God, one of America's largest and fastest-growing denominations, urged its members to consider dropping their financial support from World Vision and instead "gradually shifting" it to "Pentecostal and evangelical charities that maintain biblical standards of sexual morality."

"The U.S. branch of World Vision has placed Pentecostal and evangelical churches in a difficult position," said George O. Wood, general superintendent of the 3-million-member AG, before the reversal. "On the one hand, we applaud the work they do among the poor in America and around the world, and many churches have supported that work financially for some time. On the other hand, World Vision's policy change now puts them at odds with our beliefs regarding sexual morality."

On Wednesday night, Wood*encouraged"Pentecostals and evangelicals who hastily canceled their sponsorship of children in World Vision programs to immediately reinstate that support in order to ensure continuity of care for the poor children whom Christ loves."

Stearns acknowledged Wednesday [March 26] that "a number" of child sponsors canceled their sponsorship in the past 48 hours in protest of the change to World Vision's conduct policy.

"That grieves us, because the children we serve will suffer because of that," he told reporters. "But our choice is not about money or income. It's a sincere desire for us to do the right thing. To be consistent with our core values, and to respond to the legitimate feedback and counsel we have received from supporters and friends of World Vision."

World Vision had hoped to take what it described as a neutral position in the gay marriage debate by*deferring it to the local church. The changed policy still required singles to remain abstinent and married couples to maintain fidelity, but no longer limited marriage to heterosexuals.

"They were not taking a position supporting same-sex marriage or homosexuality," said Tim Dearborn, director of Fuller Seminary's Lloyd John Ogilvie Institute of Preaching, who previously oversaw how World Vision's Christian commitments were implemented across its international partners. Instead, he said World Vision, which has a "deep commitment to live and serve in ways that are consistent with Scripture," was attempting to do three things.

"First, to focus on the aspects of the biblical mandate that are non-negotiable: caring for the poor, victims of injustice, and especially children," said Dearborn. "Second, to contribute to the unity of the church around those things, at a time when the church is fractured. And third, to contribute as a result of that to the credibility of the gospel and the church in the eyes of American society."

More than 2,000 of the 1.2 million children sponsored by World Vision U.S. had been dropped between CT's first reporting of the decision and Tuesday afternoon, according to a tweet by Ryan Reed (he credited his wife, who works at World Vision, with the information; the tweet has since been deleted). But it was not clear whether those numbers were a net loss or had been offset by new donors,*said*former World Vision staffer Ben Irwin.

"Assuming the '2,000' figure is accurate, that amounts to just under two-tenths of one percent of all kids sponsored through World Vision U.S.," Irwin wrote. "But this was never about percentages. This is about real lives. It's about kids in impoverished communities who just became pawns in our culture war."

Approximately $567 million of World Vision's more than $1 billion budget comes from private contributions, according to its 2012 annual report.

Some supporters took on additional sponsorships in support of the decision. Kristen Howerton, a professor of psychology for Vanguard University and popular blogger, organized a fundraiser with the goal of getting 100 children supported to help make up the difference. She accomplished her goal in a day.

She said she made the decision after seeing hundreds of comments on social media from people vowing to drop their support. "I think people's reactions have been pretty swift in condemning World Vision in placing them outside the fold of evangelical Christianity," she said.

Matthew Lee Anderson reflected on*whether and how*evangelicals should stop supporting World Vision financially. Esther Fleece reflected on her experience at Focus on the Family when TOM'S Shoes ended a partnership over Focus's stance on homosexuality.

"We can disagree with each other and still serve people in urgent need. The days of boycotting everything are over, but that doesn't mean Christian convictions are," shewrote for On Faith. "Correct theology is loving people, and no Bible-believing Christian is going to withhold service from a person in need who disagrees with his or her interpretation of Scripture."

John Huffman, who was a World Vision board member for 26 years, is a fervent supporter of the work Stearns has done. He told CT his "high point" on the board was hiring Stearns, and this was the first time the two men had disagreed. But Huffman called the previous decision to change the employment policy "unwise" on every front. "It lacks of wisdom in terms of biblical, theological, moral, cultural, and strategic implications to the organization," he said.

Strategically, it would have alienated many evangelicals, which make up the majority of World Vision supporters. Given that World Vision has kept such a strong evangelical identity, it's unlikely to attract people from the other side of the fence, said Huffman, who is [full disclosure] board chair for Christianity Today as well as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

"I don't think it's going to help the institution," he told CT before today's reversal announcement. "I don't think there are going to be other people on this organization that are going to be attracted." (After today's announcement, Huffman told CT, "I'm very relieved and very grateful for the decision of the board to reverse their position.")

Dearborn said that World Vision U.S.'s relationship with its partner organizations also played a role in today's decision. "There's an effort on the part of World Vision U.S. not only to be subject to the authority of Scripture, but also to be sensitive to being a member of an international partnership," he said. "There are 50-some World Visions in the world. Especially in Africa and Asia, the position World Vision just rescinded would have been troublesome."

Stearns reached out to those partners in World Vision's announcement of the reversal, asking for forgiveness:

We are writing to you our trusted partners and Christian leaders who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the Body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

Some critics were quick to extend it. "World Vision has done the right thing,"*tweetedMoore after the reversal. "Now, let's all work for a holistic gospel presence, addressing both temporal and eternal needs."

"Remember, World Vision may stand to lose more money (in corporate and government sponsorships) by taking this stand,"*tweetedDenny Burk. "It's really remarkable."

To Stanley Carlson-Thies, president of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, World Vision's controversial decision was a good opportunity for similar organizations to consider their own stances.

"I think it's probably good that other organizations have to face that decision, because it's all around us," he told CT before the reversal. "I would hope that organizations use this as an opportunity to think about their own policy, not just follow the leader."

Here is the full text of World Vision's announcement today:





39082.jpg



I'm skeptical. The boy scouts also promised to stay faithful to Scripture, and they caved.

Also, why can't people understand, that the issue is ACCEPTING sinful behavior. The guy that listed all the sins that should exclude people, can't seem to comprehend that those sins are NOT accepted. People engage in those sins for sure, but nobody is saying that those sins are ok.
 
I'm skeptical. The boy scouts also promised to stay faithful to Scripture, and they caved.

Also, why can't people understand, that the issue is ACCEPTING sinful behavior. The guy that listed all the sins that should exclude people, can't seem to comprehend that those sins are NOT accepted. People engage in those sins for sure, but nobody is saying that those sins are ok.

nobody is being denied employment over them either. I don't have to agree with anyone's personal lifestyles to employ them. Employing someone isn't accepting their behavior in their private life, it's accepting that it's flat out none of my business what they do in their own time.

Anyone can help poor people.
 
Last edited:
Replace 'biblical' with 'bigoted', 'ignorant' 'contradictory' 'hypocritical' 'oppressive' 'suppressive' 'bias' 'unwarranted' 'ugly' 'separatist' 'prejudiced' 'antipathetic' 'apartheid' 'partial' 'prejudgmental' 'discriminatory' 'intolerant' 'inequitous' 'dogmatic' or 'fanatic'.

Any of those words will do.

You should rue the day you ever commit a sexual offense like looking lustfully at a woman or masturbating! Because then you're liable, by your own rules, to be denied employment!
Whether you want to admit it or not, there are moral standards a group calling itself 'christian' should have...apparently even WV agreed they were wrong. Are you disagreeing with their retraction?
 
Whether you want to admit it or not, there are moral standards a group calling itself 'christian' should have...apparently even WV agreed they were wrong. Are you disagreeing with their retraction?

I'm disagreeing with the idea that homsexual people should be denied employment, under the premise that all sinful action is equally as sinful as any other sinful action. There's no difference in a homosexual whose achilles is homosexuality than a woman who in her private time looks at porn or a man who cheats on his wife or a teen who masturbates day in day out.

What someone does in their private time is none of my business, as an employer. What is my business as an organization 'giving to the poor' and 'working with the most oppressed' is to work with the poor and the most oppressed. Homosexual people fall in that second category and they certainly have the capacity to help the first.
 
Last edited:
nobody is being denied employment over them either. I don't have to agree with anyone's personal lifestyles to employ them. Employing someone isn't accepting their behavior in their private life, it's accepting that it's flat out none of my business what they do in their own time.

Anyone can help poor people.


Wrong. There have been MANY instances of people either getting fired or being denied getting hired over actively engaging in the listed sins. If someone has a "personal lifestyle" how come I know about it, or the organization knows about it? If they engaged in homosexual acts on their own time, and didn't advertise them, then they would have been hired because no one would know about it.
 
Kinda would like to think christian organizations would not hire adulterers and all those other sinners if they walked into the door and said...look I am an adulterer give me a job....

like the ''christian'' homosexual couple did.

By the way, what the heck is a christian homosexual couple?
 
Disapointed my post was removed, it was accurate. Difference here is the law in Europe and USA. In Europe we can not refuse people employment based on thier race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. If it has been proved that a company has refused someone employment simply because they are homosexual, they will be prosecuted.

Anti-christians will jump and down with joy pointing how evil and primitive and of course how bigoted this so called CHristian organisation is, more ammo for the homosexual supporters.
 
...and here in the states we do not have state run religions. Religious freedom means the government cannot force itself upon religious practices or beliefs.

Christians standing against homosexuality IS christian. To force them to hire practicing, and proclaiming sinners would be an afront to the beliefs of any christian and that should be protected in a FREE society.

This is not about hiring practices. This is a promotion of homosexuality, and that couple KNOW it and did this to prove their point, which is NOT christian and to call themselves christians is an abomination.

It would be like an orthodox jewish family hiring a cook and that cook only serving pork. They fire the cook and get sued for wrongful discharge.
 
...and here in the states we do not have state run religions. Religious freedom means the government cannot force itself upon religious practices or beliefs.

Christians standing against homosexuality IS christian. To force them to hire practicing, and proclaiming sinners would be an afront to the beliefs of any christian and that should be protected in a FREE society.

This is not about hiring practices. This is a promotion of homosexuality, and that couple KNOW it and did this to prove their point, which is NOT christian and to call themselves christians is an abomination.

It would be like an orthodox jewish family hiring a cook and that cook only serving pork. They fire the cook and get sued for wrongful discharge.


poor comparison to make. If the cook did do that, then they would be right to sack the cook, however if the cook is producing the best food going, but then is found to be homosexual and sacked for being homosexual, then the cook in this country can sue the family for discrimination and wrongful dismissal.

It is same with a Christian charity, lets say such a charity needs an administrator, they hire an administrator, best administrator they had, but then they find out the administrator is a homosexual, you telling me its right for them to sack that person?

Alternatively they interview someone for a job, say they are best qualified with proven track record, however because they are homosexual they are not going to employ them?

If a homosexual was to start acting provocatively, then yes they could be removed for those reasons, if those reasons happen to be homosexual acts, then so be it, but they would still be removed for inappropriate behaviour and not because they were gay.


If I ran a business I would have no problems hiring homosexuals to work for me.
 
The point is that it is wrong to deprive both orthodox Christians and their religious organizations their freedom of religion and moral conscience.

Homosexuals don't believe in liberty. They only believe in grasping the handles of government to severely persecute everyone who doesn't accept their homosexual acts. Most liberals concur.

This is why tyranny is now a rapidly increasing problem for moral people in the West by those who call themselves liberals.

People like you, for example.

poor comparison to make. If the cook did do that, then they would be right to sack the cook, however if the cook is producing the best food going, but then is found to be homosexual and sacked for being homosexual, then the cook in this country can sue the family for discrimination and wrongful dismissal.

It is same with a Christian charity, lets say such a charity needs an administrator, they hire an administrator, best administrator they had, but then they find out the administrator is a homosexual, you telling me its right for them to sack that person?

Alternatively they interview someone for a job, say they are best qualified with proven track record, however because they are homosexual they are not going to employ them?

If a homosexual was to start acting provocatively, then yes they could be removed for those reasons, if those reasons happen to be homosexual acts, then so be it, but they would still be removed for inappropriate behaviour and not because they were gay.


If I ran a business I would have no problems hiring homosexuals to work for me.
 
Yes lets turn back the clock and throw all homosexuals in prison and burn them on the stake.
 
The point is that it is wrong to deprive both orthodox Christians and their religious organizations their freedom of religion and moral conscience.

Homosexuals don't believe in liberty. They only believe in grasping the handles of government to severely persecute everyone who doesn't accept their homosexual acts. Most liberals concur.

This is why tyranny is now a rapidly increasing problem for moral people in the West by those who call themselves liberals.

People like you, for example.


But where do you balance out moral conviction to where it becomes uncaring to hatred for them? Where do you draw the line? Does that mean you would deny them food,water,clothing,shelter or the means to provide for them? If you do that how does that show that you love your NEIGHBOR as yourself? My Bible says that MERCY triumphs over judgement

James 2

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”[b] also said, “You shall not murder.”[c]If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
[h=3]Faith and Deeds[/h]14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
 
But where do you balance out moral conviction to where it becomes uncaring to hatred for them? Where do you draw the line? Does that mean you would deny them food,water,clothing,shelter or the means to provide for them? If you do that how does that show that you love your NEIGHBOR as yourself? My Bible says that MERCY triumphs over judgement

James 2

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”[b] also said, “You shall not murder.”[c]If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Faith and Deeds

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

This post is flat out silly. Telling UNREPENTANT homosexuals that they need to find employment elsewhere, away from a Christian organization, in a world gushing over itself to give homosexuals special rights and jobs, is somehow not showing them love is ridiculous. Next, you'll have people demanding that Christians give up their homes and beds so that their lusts can lovingly be met.