Posted on 05/17/2012 12:32:51 PM PDT by QT3.14
Last October, news broke that Shorter University, a Christian college in Rome, Georgia, had decided to ask its employees to sign a controversial pledge that affirms that they are not engaging in homosexuality, among other forbidden activities. Now, after scores of employees refused to sign the document, the college, which is affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Convention, has reportedly received a massive number of resignations
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
The difference is there is no massive cultural push to make theft (for example) acceptable.
“The pledge I read does not prohibit a beer with dinner ...”
It does if the dinner is in a public place, like a restaurant.
So true!
They are so brave that they waited eight months (end of the school year) to actually resign.
Admittedly I didn’t read the article, but while on its face this action seems pretty cool, if you are a solid Christian who simply resents being bullied on the job about something you do not do in the first place there’s a problem.
Why doesn’t the college have a simple morals clause that new hires have to sign off on to be hired, one that addresses the college’s behavior Christian requirements?
This in your face signature stuff, after the fact, is quite an invasion of privacy good people resent.
They can all get jobs at LGBTU.
It's a theological point of view; surely you've heard about Baptists and other denominations who either don't believe in drinking or strongly discourage it?
It's not a view I hold but it's not polite to mock it and not really the place to debate the theology.
“When was the last time you marches and parades and demonstrations in support of gossips, liars, thieves, people with critical attitudes?”
Actually, if anyone has it, just post the picture of Pelosi walking around with her sinful entourage and gavel. That’s EXACTLY the picture that came to mind the second I read your post.
<><><><><><><
Apparently you did not read the whole thing.
4. I will not use alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, and I will abstain from serving, from using, and from advocating the use of alcoholic beverages in public (e.g. in locations that are open to use by the general public, including as some examples restaurants, concert venues, stadiums, and sports facilities) and in settings in which students are present or are likely to be present. I will not attend any University sponsored event in which I have consumed alcohol within the last six hours. Neither will I promote or encourage the use of alcohol.
“and depriving the workman of his just wages”
...In other words, an Income tax.
I think the "public" thing is done to keep "a brother from falling" as St. Paul said in Corinthians.
Let's think about something a second: all Christians are sinners saved by grace.
There are Christians who are sinners in every respect:
liars, cheaters, drunkards, thiefs, prostitutes, homosexuals, murderers, you name it....NONE of us are perfect....but we repent and follow Him and turn from our wicked ways.
What a wonderful God we have!
“It is no one’s business what I do in my off time.”
There are scores of court cases that suggest you are incorrect. There is no blanket Constitutional protection for an employee’s activities “off the clock” to which an employer objects, especially in “employment-at-will” states.
Here, this is taken directly from Paragraph #4 which I posted previously:
"I will abstain from serving, from using, and from advocating the use of alcoholic beverages in public (e.g. in locations that are open to use by the general public, including as some examples restaurants, concert venues, stadiums, and sports facilities)"
I hope that makes it clearer now......As far as I know, beer is still considered an alcoholic beverage, is it not?
.
“Nothing wrong with a university making a set of rules its administration thinks is appropriate.”
There is nothing illegal about such rules, as long as they don’t violate a Constitutional right. Of course, not everything that is “legal” is “right” from an HR perspective.
It’s not a view I hold but it’s not polite to mock it and not really the place to debate the theology.
<><><><
I disagree. The poster to whom I responded (pinging NELSON!!!) suggested that they were being held to Biblical standards. NELSON111’s words “They basically asked their staff to adhere to the Bible”.
Had the poster suggested that it was the Baptist’s rules I would not have commented. But that was not the claim made.
And you’ll have to let me know where I mocked the Baptist theology. It is not mocking anybody to note the specifics of Jesus’ first miracle.
Of course not but the issue according to the The Blaze is the homosexuality clause.
Which as I stated previously, was a red herring when it was likely the employees disagreed with and couldn't comply with the fourth paragraph........
The blaze was negligent in their reporting in order to promote the article......that's all I'm saying
I would assume that thieves and liars are dealt with appropriately already. Gossips and critical attitudes are probably also dealt with through progressive discipline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.