Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Case Analysis - Chapter 1 - Group 1 1

    Uploaded by

    Cristy Meredores Ambalong
    The board of directors of a large Christian relief organization struggled with whether to allow employees in same-sex marriages. The organization had policies requiring "abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage." When some states legalized same-sex marriage, the board initially decided to allow same-sex married employees but later reversed its decision after losing donors. The board's flip-flopping on the issue created embarrassing publicity for the organization and highlighted tensions between its religious values and broadening appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Analysis - Chapter 1 - Group 1 1

    Uploaded by

    Cristy Meredores Ambalong
    44 views1 page
    The board of directors of a large Christian relief organization struggled with whether to allow employees in same-sex marriages. The organization had policies requiring "abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage." When some states legalized same-sex marriage, the board initially decided to allow same-sex married employees but later reversed its decision after losing donors. The board's flip-flopping on the issue created embarrassing publicity for the organization and highlighted tensions between its religious values and broadening appeal.

    Original Title

    Case-Analysis_Chapter-1_Group-1-1.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The board of directors of a large Christian relief organization struggled with whether to allow employees in same-sex marriages. The organization had policies requiring "abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage." When some states legalized same-sex marriage, the board initially decided to allow same-sex married employees but later reversed its decision after losing donors. The board's flip-flopping on the issue created embarrassing publicity for the organization and highlighted tensions between its religious values and broadening appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views1 page

    Case Analysis - Chapter 1 - Group 1 1

    Uploaded by

    Cristy Meredores Ambalong
    The board of directors of a large Christian relief organization struggled with whether to allow employees in same-sex marriages. The organization had policies requiring "abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage." When some states legalized same-sex marriage, the board initially decided to allow same-sex married employees but later reversed its decision after losing donors. The board's flip-flopping on the issue created embarrassing publicity for the organization and highlighted tensions between its religious values and broadening appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Group 1

    Case Analysis for Chapter 1

    HOW SHOULD AN EMPLOYER WEIGH CONFLICTING VALUES?

    One of the largest relief organizations in the United States recently struggled with HR policy. As a
    religious (Christian)-based organization, it may use religion as the basis for employment standards. This
    organization has developed policies in an employee conduct manual intended to ensure that employees
    demonstrate the beliefs and morals of its founders’ faith. Among those requirements is “abstinence before
    marriage and fidelity in marriage.”
    The problem for the organization’s board of directors was that some states—including Washington,
    where it is headquartered—have made same-sex marriage legal, so the organization could potentially
    receive job applications from people who have married a partner of the same sex. To respect the values of
    employees and donors who hold traditional religious views, the organization had been denying them
    employment.
    The board decided that religious views in the United States had become diverse enough that it
    should begin to allow people in same-sex marriages to work for the organization. However, when the board
    announced the decision, many donors became upset; by some reports, about 2,000 child sponsorships were
    ended. The board quickly reversed its decision. The organization’s president expressed regret for not having
    consulted more with its community of supporters.
    The organization tries to set high ethical standards for its employees. Neither the decision to allow
    hiring of workers in same-sex marriages nor the reversal of that decision violated the law as it applies to a
    religious-based organization. However, it did create embarrassing publicity for an organization that was
    trying to broaden its appeal and keep the focus on charity.

    Guide Questions:

    1. In this situation, whose rights were affected? What basic rights were at stake?
    2. How well do you think the organization applied standards for ethical behavior? Why?

    Sources:
    1. Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “Analysis: World Vision’s Gay Marriage Flip-Flop Reflects Evangelical
    Angst as Culture Shifts,” Salt Lake Tribune, March 28, 2014, http://www.sltrib.com;
    2. Joel Connelly, “World Vision, in Reversal, Won’t Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages,” Seattle
    Post-Intelligencer, March 26, 2014, http://blog.seattlepi.com;
    3. Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “World Vision to Recognize Employees’ Same-Sex Marriages,” Washington
    Post, March 25, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com.

    You might also like