When Christian Horizons Behaves Un-Christianly
I’m sure you’ve seen Joanne’s take on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruling against Christian Horizons, a residential home operator, for firing an outed employee. (Here’s the link to the Kitchener-Waterloo record story, and here is the text of the official decision.)
A few comments:
- This is not a case of a gay-rights group making mischief with a Christian organization, as was what happened with the Knights of Columbus wedding hall. The complainant apparently realized her orientation after her employment by Christian Horizons, which is not that uncommon.
- It would be overly facile, and naive, to suggest that the complainant should simply have quit the job upon realizing her orientation. The complainant was too integrated into the community, too committed to her work, for that to be an option.
- Which brings up a point about the line between professional and personal behaviour. While I realize that Christian Horizons wants to ensure that its employees behave like Christians, I think that code is too much of an intrusion into personal lives. I would not want my employer trying to take me to task for the way I behave after hours; that’s my business and maybe God’s business, but it’s not theirs.
You need to read the full text of the decision to understand my sympathies. It’s a record of actual suffering from an individual at the hands of a community — in this case, CH. One thing I always understood about Christianity is that it’s meant to accept flawed people, both to minister to and to do the administering. CH may have licence to run a mission, but our current labour laws don’t give them licence to operate like a monastic order.
![](http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1462/1818/320/262511/btweek.gif")
April 24th, 2008 at 10:25
The part I have a problem with is the injunction to prevent a private company from operating with a code of conduct. Yes, things change while you are employed, and I agree that the company should pursue other options first when they have taken it upon themselves to require certain moral standards from their employees.
However, an employee has the right to refuse employment. It is a voluntary association. Employees choose where they will work. If they don’t like their work, or they find that they change to the point where they no longer want to work there, then they are free to quit. Yes, the particular aspect of the code that she broke had nothing to do with her actual job description, but at the same time, there are more than enough non-religious service organizations serving precisely the same clientele, that she could have simply quit and found work elsewhere. If she was a good employee, she would have had no problem getting a reference, and especially if it is simply where she has come to a place where she no longer agrees with the terms of employment, it would seem to me that a reasonable boss would give her a glowing reference and send her on her way with blessing.
Having read the ruling, there were a couple of irregularities with respect to the dismissal, but in my opinion, this is like a gay man working at a club for gay men, becoming a Christian, realizing that they feel homosexuality is wrong, and then continuing to work there. Then, some employees find out he is a Christian and begin to “feel uncomfortable” around him, followed by a claim a month after the fact by a patron that the employee said he’s “going to hell”, culminating in the employee quitting.
In my opinion, the whole thing should never have gotten to where it did. If you make a lifechanging decision that brings you into conflict with your place of work, you should be consistent with your new beliefs and quit. Lingering causes problems for everyone.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:09
I’m sure you’ve seen Joanne’s take on…
- which is what exactly?
April 24th, 2008 at 11:15
Christianity is that it’s meant to accept flawed people, both to minister to and to do the administering
There is a fundamental difference between acceptance and modifying one’s existence to adapt to someone else’s flaws.
There is an increasing chasm between the original aguments that gay activists made to be “accepted as normal” and the ones that they are exercising. Utilizing the coercive powers of the state via the HRC into forced acquiescence is intrusion into private group space. Christian Horizons is not a public or semi-public institution.
You cannot mandate or ask the state to demand that gays change to suit the purposes of a closet Christian anymore than the opposite.
There will continue to be activists within HRC systems using those systems for the advantage of one group over the other.
Nonacquiescence, where groups will continue to do what they do despite HRC intrusions will ultimately become commonplace if rulings like these continue.
Given its track record (Marc Hall Story), Canadians can expect Telefilm to use their tax dollars to fund a movie about it.
Christian Horizons will be villainized and a campaign will be started to have their tax status revoked no doubt likely by a state funded activist organization.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:25
A few things:
1) You said: “but our current labour laws don’t give them licence to operate like a monastic order” What if they ARE a monastic order? Many organizations like this are actually organized under the law as monastic orders to allow them to claim certain tax benefits (the chief one being the Clergy Housing Reduction).
2) Code of Conducts for behaviour outside of work are indeed legal, and even common. Most professional associations have such code of conducts to prevent the name of their association being brought low. The matter here is the content of that code, not the existence.
3) I think your characterization of the organizations behaviour as ‘un-christian’ is not very charitable. When her orientation became known, they asked about whether she had violated the agreement. Being a lesbian wasn’t a violation, being in a lesbian relationship was. It is a question of behaviour, not orientation. Homosexuality or heterosexuality was not the issue, it was acting on it that was, indeed their code also excluded many heterosexual behaviours as well, viz. adultery, pornography, etc… They didn’t fire her on the spot, they tried to work with her on it, tried to help her find other employment, tried to encourage her to seek counsel which in their opinion would help. They went a lot further than many others would have.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:29
I’m also a little confused about the ‘suffering’ you refer to. She broke the agreement with her employers. They asked her about it, she admitted she broke it. They sought to reconcile that breach by offering counsel or by her bringing herself into compliance, and offered to help find other employment. There’s no one bashing her, calling her names, saying she’s evil, none of the decision references any actual allegations that I would classify as suffering, other than them being of the opinion that she should no longer be in their employ. Where is the suffering you refer to?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:05
Where is the suffering? Let me quote from the judgement:
[78] Ms. Heintz testified that Ms. Girling had offered her “counselling” which she understood to be Christian counselling aimed at trying to get her to change her sexual orientation. Although Christian Horizons suggested that there was no evidence that Ms. Girling was offering Christian counselling, in cross-examination Ms. Girling admitted this is what she meant. Mr. Alemu also testified the purpose of the suggested counselling was to effect “restoration” to a state of being in compliance with the Lifestyle and Morality Statement and the articles of faith of the organization.
[207] Mr. Alemu testified that the purpose of the spiritual counselling offered to Ms. Heintz was to effect “restoration.” He explained the goal of restoration was to have the individual return to the state of being in compliance with the articles of faith of the organization.
[208] The suggestion of spiritual counselling of the kind offered by Christian Horizons upset Ms. Heintz. She indicated to Ms. Girling she was not interested. She was undergoing a crisis of faith and was attempting to understand who she was, within the context of her Christian faith. She explained:
“What I was going through was a complete dichotomy shift from what I was taught for 30 some years and what I truly believed, and at that point I had to reintegrate this new understanding of who I am. It was a complete struggle to come to this point and at that time I was experiencing a crisis of faith where I was trying to reintegrate this new belief which resulted from pretty much taking my whole core being and shaking it. ”
[209] I have no doubt that Christian Horizons’ intention in providing spiritual counselling to employees generally, is to support individuals it considers members of its religious community. In this context, counselling is offered in a caring and compassionate way. But the attempt of “restoration” for persons who are gay or lesbian is profoundly disrespectful and oppressive. Notwithstanding that Christian Horizons sincerely believes that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, homosexuality is neither a crime nor an illness. Gays and lesbians are entitled to be treated by their employers, even where those employers may be religious organizations, with respect and dignity, and not be offered counselling to cure them of their sexuality.
[216] Mr. Alemu interviewed Ms. Heintz on June 26, 2000. Mr. Alemu did not tell her about Ms. Odhiambo’s allegations. After her interview, Ms. Heintz had a discussion with a fellow worker, Karri Girling, who said Mr. Alemu had asked her how she felt about Ms. Heintz being gay and about the abuse allegations. Ms. Heintz testified that she was extremely upset and, as a result, set up another meeting with Mr. Alemu.
[217] At that meeting Ms. Heintz expressed her upset and a concern about the manner in which Mr. Alemu was inquiring into the allegations against her. She told Mr. Alemu she felt it was unfair that she was not told of the allegations and was finding out from other staff. She felt that certain staff were being deceitful and that the organization would “prefer for me not to be working here.” She told Mr. Alemu she thought the organization was “biased and hypocritical”. Mr. Alemu took offence and indicated that her behaviour was grounds for termination.
[218] Mr. Alemu testified there was another encounter with Ms. Heintz during which she was loud and abusive, and he felt quite uncomfortable. Ms. Heintz denied this follow up encounter ever took place. Mr. Alemu did not have notes of this meeting.
[230] In my view, the course of events described above demonstrates a complete failure of Christian Horizons to deal with Ms. Heintz in a way that is consistent with an employer’s obligation under the Code. First, it is apparent that the investigation and inquiry into allegations of abuse and harassment by Ms. Heintz were biased and tainted by discrimination. Mr. Alemu testified that Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation was not relevant to his investigation and he did not ask staff about Ms. Heintz being gay during the interviews. He indicated that it never occurred to him that Ms. Odhiambo’s allegations might have been related to Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation, or that Ms. Odhiambo was homophobic. Rather, he said he thought that Ms. Odhiambo’s fears were well-founded. During his testimony, he did not accept any shortcomings on his, or the organization’s, part in how the matter was handled. He laid all the blame on Ms. Heintz and on her “hostile” attitude during the investigation process and her negativity toward Christian Horizons. As he put it, just because Ms. Heintz’s lifestyle had changed, did not mean that “all of a sudden the organization, the management is all of a sudden, is a rotten one.”
[231] I have difficulty accepting Mr. Alemu’s contentions. The contents of his notes do not bear out his assertions that he did not consider Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation relevant and did not raise it with staff during the interviews. Ms. Odhiambo’s June 23, 2000 occurrence report should have, at a minimum, caused Mr. Alemu to question whether it was motivated by a fear or dislike of homosexuals. Beyond this, it is inconceivable that, in an organization where one of the core beliefs is that homosexuality is immoral, and fundamentally incompatible with “Christian ministry”, Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation played no role in Mr. Alemu’s consideration of a “breakdown in the team dynamics.”
I could try quoting the report further, but I think you get the picture. Employees about to be terminated are entitled to some positive support. Counselling designed to make you not what you are is not positive support.
This is why I keep saying to people: read the originals. More information equals more informed.
April 24th, 2008 at 13:23
“The part I have a problem with is the injunction to prevent a private company from operating with a code of conduct.”
ignoring, for the moment, the glaring misperceptions, this passage is a grammatical abortion.
KEvron
April 24th, 2008 at 13:27
i left this comment for joanne to moderate into oblivion:
“The real victims will be the disabled in the community who will not have help if a CH office folds and closes due to this decision”
“their payroll, alone, is $60 mil plus (much of that at the expense of the taxpayer), so i rather doubt the award will have the impact you imagine.”
i suspect my comment won’t pass muster….
hi, jojo!
KEvron
April 24th, 2008 at 13:28
From the link to the K-W Record:
*ahem*…
“The agency, which was started by a local couple in 1965, is now the largest of its kind in Ontario. It’s funded almost entirely by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and has a payroll in excess of $63 million, according to Revenue Canada.”
Carry on!
April 25th, 2008 at 03:40
“I would not want my employer trying to take me to task for the way I behave after hours; that’s my business and maybe God’s business, but it’s not theirs.”
Try working for the Federal Government, or any Government for that matter, the police, or anyone in the public view. Your after hours “behaviour” can not only get you into trouble, but it can get you fired whether said behaviour is legal or illegal. It can also ruin your entire life should it become a matter of public record.
So, I ask, when is it fair and when is it not?
April 25th, 2008 at 07:05
???? The complainant apparently realized her orientation after her employment by Christian Horizons.
Give us a break. I realized I was drinking beer and getting drunk after my 12th bottle, makes as much sense.
April 25th, 2008 at 09:49
[...] There is no homosexual ‘agenda’ in this case, no covert ‘activism’, no circumventing of a Christian worldview, no eroding of church/government boundaries and there is no religious persecution; contrary to what I’m seeing on on blogs or in blog comments. [...]