The Salvation Army - Bunch of unethical, holier-than-thou ASSHOLES

The BBQ Pit
101

Msrobyn, beetlebox, gobear,bricker,

Then don’t ADVERTISE that you’re an equal opportunity employer. And, we’re not talking about the hiring of spiritual leaders. You’re not getting the point. The SA has “officers” and “employees”. The “officer’s” and their spouses are the spiritual leaders, the “employees” are just that, employees. The employees enjoy the rights of equal opportunity. We’re talking about saying that a person from the outside who is applying for the position of secretary needs to be christian. I’m aware of just such an incident where a jewish person applied for an executive secretary’s position (an increase from her standard secretary’s position) where it stated that the applicatant needs to be christian. It was a done deal (she’s unqualified) - until, she started playing the descrimination card and all of a sudden, she gets the job with a nice promotion as “shut-up” money.

Look, granted, they’re very good at riding the line.

102

Since you obviously haven’t READ the LINKS I so thoughtfully provided before, let me quote a snippet from one, bolding mine:

Love Thy Neighbor (as long as he’s not a fag).

103

I did not miss the point.

The Salvation Army is a CHRISTIAN organization. They can hire whoever the hell they want.

I know this is going to be a futile thing, but can we have a link or cite to the “incident” you’ve referred to above, besides your say-so? Because it’s possible that she wasn’t qualified in terms of her job skills (it’s a hop from regular secretary to executive secretary), but chose to play the discrimination card anyway.

Robin

104

As bad as the SA is, I know of another charitable organization that is far worse. I’m a bit too close to it, so I shouldn’t tell you about it, but unlike Omniprescent, I am brave enough to risk life and limb. I will break my vow of silence so that the truth shall be known.

The religous agenda of this particular non-profit (whom I will call the “toy soldiers” for now in the interest of personal security) can not be denied. They operate all year, but their “community actions” (their phrase) ramp up considerably during a Christian religous holiday. In fact, their avowed purpose is that everyone should be able celebrate this holiday. Additionally, this organization goes beyond the pseudo-military trappings of the Salvation Army and instead has direct ties to the American military.

The American military is the same organization that operates the infamous School of the Americas and outfitted the contras! Indeed, with their help these “toy soldiers” have been outfitting the most restless segment of the American population in the name of a Christian Holiday. They are equipping the demographic most prone to rash acts and the population least likely to pay taxes!

I am violating a gag order to bring this truth to you, my friends. I fear they may discover some anonymous guy has talked about them on the internet, but THE TRUTH MUST BE KNOWN! The Toy Soldiers are pure evil!

105

And you REALLY expect that the incident I mentioned is going to be public knowledge?

That’s what I meant when I said that you’ll just have to take my word for it. But, of course, you don’t have to. It’s your choice.

When followers of Jim Jones drank cool-aid, it was their choice too. Not that I’m making any analogy there.

106

Omni, even if it was only eye-witness, you still haven’t even told us what it was. Instead, you hide behind this vague gag-order, even though this is an anonymous forum. You just ask that we believe something happened, without giving us the benefit of telling us what happened. How the Hell else are we supposed to take that?

107

The heck you’re not making an analogy.

Look, it’s one thing to post personal anecdotes; I do it all the time. It’s another to make allegations against a large, well-liked and respected, reasonably powerful organization with no other proof than “trust me”. You’ve been told that over and over, and yet the allegations just grow.

Robin

108

Homebrew - allow me to point out to you, in the snippets that you quoted that they asked for the exemption, however, would not accept the money/would give the money back if the exemption was not given.

So, once again, it is not a question of taking the $$ and not obeying the rules (if the city allows them an exemption, it isn’t against the rules). which is what I said.

109

First of all, you don’t TELL me anything. Secondly, in your opinion, it’s ok to discriminate as long as your Christian. I have a problem with that. Third, I could give you a list of things and all you’d say (with blinders on) is, THAT’S YOUR OPINION, GIVE ME PROOF.

I posted this to vent. Ever hear of it? You don’t have to agree.

My opinion is that the SA engages in unethincal practices which is contradictory to their mission statement.

Have I been unethical in my life? Absolutely, but it’s never been my mission statement to be rightious and ask for donations based on that rightiousness.

You don’t agree with me. It’s noted.

110

But it’s also relevant that they are foisting the nightmare scenario that they will have to close their shelter if the city doesn’t knuckle under and give them the exemption.

If they want money from the public, then they should serve the public, all of it.

They want the money, but they also want the right to discriminate, while wrapping themselves in the name of Christ. And that is the attitude I despise.

111

Homebrew

The Washington Post article said that while the SA discriminates in hiring and staffing, it does not discriminate in its services. It serves everyone in need, regardless of race, sex, or yes, sexual orientation. Just to set the record straight.

112

—Currently, sexual orientation is not one of those standards. So, if your complaint is that the SA is accepting the $$ w/o accepting the standards, then I believe you are mistaken.—

Don’t be dense. Read the Post article. This isn’t a current problem, but a future one we are discussing. The issue, and the funding stream, is new. At issue is not whether religious charities that run charities can recieve government money. They already do and can.

—So, it’s back to you Apos to demonstrate why you think that private donations would fill the void should governmental support be withdrawn.—

I didn’t say they would. Do you even bother to read posts before responding? Or do you just skim them over to see if they agree with you so that you can post the same cliched responses?

113

—So, once again, it is not a question of taking the $$ and not obeying the rules (if the city allows them an exemption, it isn’t against the rules). which is what I said.—

Which is, however, having it both ways.

114

And the moral difference is … ?

115

Apos - ‘don’t be dense’? perhaps if you’d be more clear in your responses, people wouldn’t misunderstand them. After 3 pages, we finally discover that your issue isn’t what’s being done, nor is it what’s been done, but (cue foreboding music) what may happen in the future.

And, if the SA decides that it will not/cannot accept the regulations, then it will not/cannot accept the funds, that’s exactly ‘not having it both ways’.

It boils down to:

The city in question apparently wants the service.
It also has certain provisions in their laws.

Their choices are:

  1. Change the provisions so that a particular provider will provide the service.

  2. Find another provider who isn’t bothered by the provision

or

  1. Not have the service.

If there is no other provider willing to provide the service w/the conditions, then the city is left with options 1 and 3.
They do not have the option of requiring the SA to both provide the service and adhere to the city’s provisions

As a non profit, I always have the option of refusing the grant. I also have the option of requesting exemptions (for whatever). The contract provider has the option of refusing the exemptions. Should they refuse the exemptions, I again have the option of not accepting the grant w/it’s provisions. (frankly asking for exemptions is not at all uncommon, again in my experience. In one of my major contracts, I have several exemptions. Requested 5 exemptions, got 4. ON the 5th, I had the option of either accepting their decision or refusing the $$, pretty much the position of the SA and the city).

116

HOMEBREW, you don’t have the right to dictate the morality of anyone other than yourself. Not the Boy Scouts, not the Salvation Army, not the KKK, not your neighbors, nobody. That’s one of the things that’s pretty great about living here.

Surely you know there are people – and, yes, people who collect together in actual organizations – who really, truly, deep-down believe that homosexuality is wrong – either the orientation or the activity, or both. You may disagree (if fact, I assume you do) and the fact that they hold these beliefs may gravel your ass (in fact, I assume that it does), but unless you have some knowledge of nefarious pretextual motivation for espousing beliefs they don’t actually hold, I think you must admit that they really, truly believe that. Homosexuality = morally wrong. The End. This belief, by the way, is not an exclusively Christian one, for all that fundie Christians take the heat for it around here. It is also a belief held with equal, if not greater, vociferousness by fundie Jews and fundie Muslims.

So if you are an organization that is morally opposed to homosexuality generally or the commission of homosexual acts specifically, it seems to me that not discriminating in the giving of your services is probably the best that you can do. You can’t hire people you believe are morally compromised, and no one should be able to make you do so (provided you are a private organization). But you should still extend your services to all, without passing judgment on them, because extending your services to all of the public is what you do.

And that’s where the argument ends for me, so long as we’re not talking about public money, and it seems like the Salvation Army feels so strongly about the issue that it will forego the public money rather than change its policy. IMO, it has the right to do what it wants under those circumstances – just as the Boy Scouts do, just as the Citadel would have (if it had chosen to give up public funding), just as every private citizen does.

Now, to you as a gay person who can’t get partner-benefits, or to someone else as a Jew who can’t get a job with this Christian organization, those requirements – that you meet their moral standards, that you belong to their faith – may seem unreasonable. To me, they are making choices they have every right to make, and while they may not be the choices I would make, those “bad” decisions do not erase the enormous amount of good work the organization does for the public in need – without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Those two things may be “morally the same” to you, but they’re not to me.

And you may consider this a drive-by posting, since I’m out of town for the next three days and won’t have a chance to respond again.

117

Well, no, what you did was decide not to trust that Degrance was giving a fair and accurate depiction of the Salvation Army’s advertisments, and asked for proof that they said what he alleged. Which is certainly your priveledge. So I’m asking the same thing: can you show a cite that a charity (any charity) was closed down by the government specifically and solely because of the material from which their wastebaskets were manufactured? Or are you, too, mangling facts to provide your own personal spin?

118

—After 3 pages, we finally discover that your issue isn’t what’s being done, nor is it what’s been done, but (cue foreboding music) what may happen in the future.—

The only question I have is: where were you? My first post defended non-profits that have high salaries as not necessarily being corrupt or even misusing their money. Later I got into the double issue of public money vs. private missions and mandatory charity by taxation. You’ve chosen to ignore virtually everything I raised along those two subjects. That’s your right. But I’m not going to waste my time posting on the subject further if the debate is composed entirely around your pretension that trying to use public money while at the same time trying to get around public stipulations on the use of that money, is anything other than having it both ways. I suppose it WOULD seem like that to you, since you seem to think government money is mana from heaven, rather than cash out of the pockets of people with moral opinions of their own: opinions that may be just as strong and just as important as the SA’s opinions.

119

Homebrew wrote:

You should know my view on that. Rights accrue to ownership. There need not be a Salvation Army at all. But since there is, its directors have decided that their mission is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those mired in tragedy. Its charity is not directed to those whom it hires, but to those whom it serves. It does not discriminate in its service.

Miller wrote:

The record is what the record is. After asking what was deceptive about the ad, and reading the response, I wrote: “Maybe you’re being deceptive about what the ad really said. Special rights to perverts? Dubious.” I did not believe that the ad called for “special rights to perverts”.

You’re asking something different. You’re asking for a link to a news story that is several years old now. But I’ll see whether Dopers can help, and if they can, I’ll report back to you.

120

  1. Please demonstrate w/quote where I ‘seem to think government money is mana from heaven’.

  2. you neatly again fail to respond to the situation. The SA will not be taking the money and disobeying the law - since the only way the SA will take the $$ is if the city allows it the exemption requested.

The City has the specific option of saying ‘no, you must adhere to this law’.

what the City may not do is require the SA to **both ** take the grant monies and adhere to the regulations.

Exemption requests are common. As a matter of fact, within one of the grant proceedures that I follow, there’s an entire section for “exemption requests”. And the body controlling the money has the option of either granting the request or not.

And the non-profit has the option of either accepting the restrictions & money or not.

What the fuck is your problem with that? You were outraged that the SA would dare to threaten to close the center (which you acknowledge is needed) w/o the exemptions. But the flip side of that is for the city to demand that a nonprofit accept a contract that they don’t want. The SA is not required to provide that service.

What would be your solution - I’ve offered up the following scenarios:

  1. The SA continues to provide the service, the city grants the exemption request.

  2. The City refuses to grant the exemption - then the city has two options:
    A. Find another provider for the service who won’t object to the conditions.
    B. Go without the service.

What I do not accept as a viable alternative is that the City refuses to grant the exemption and requires the SA to continue providing the service.