There is a human rights (employment) ruling that was passed down in Ontario that is getting a bit of  reaction. I think I can appreciate it’s emotional to different people for different reasons.

Heinz and Christian Horizons

I don’t see any reason this is a negative ruling at all,  if anything I would think religious organizations working in the public social service sector would be breathing easier.  
The case was brought against Christian Horizons, an Ontario residential program for special needs individuals, which was started in the 1960’s.

As government run institutions for developmentally disabled people were phased out, this organization stepped in to fill the gap, as did others, and they are to be commended.

The individual case is a difficult one, and the ruling acknowledges that. 
The case was filed in 2001, failed in mediation and went into hearing in 2006.
It took 40 days. Christian Horizons was arguing that because it was an evangelical parachurch organization it’s employment practices feel under a special exemption section.

A Mennonite woman who identifies as evangelical willing signed the organization Lifestyle and Morality Statement when she went to work for this organization in Waterloo Ontario in 1995. She told the tribunal she was questioning her sexuality by 1999.

Her faith did not change, and this is where the conflict comes in.  
When a co-worker confronted her about being a lesbian, it was recommended by her supervisor she go into reparative therapy counselling. It’s difficult to believe  a care giving organization would recommend this in 2000, when medical and psychological associations had long acknowledged lesbianism was not a disorder.
 
Her workplace became uncomfortable, she went on medical leave and quit shortly after.

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.

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. 

In the ruling the right to hold religious belief is well laid out, carefully heard and understood, the ruling is clear no right is absolute.  And this is where Christian Horizons founders are having difficulty. How they started, where they are now and what they hold too, is balanced out with the rights of their former employee.

53]    Christian Horizons is one of approximately 370 community living organizations in Ontario that provide residential and other support programs for individuals who have developmental disabilities. These organizations, funded through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, provide service to 60,000 individuals. The Ministry’s annual budget for developmental services in Ontario is approximately $1.35 billion. 

[54] Christian Horizons is the largest single community living service provider in the province, though it is not the largest in any one area of the province.  It receives approximately $75 million annually, and provides services and support to approximately 1400 individuals with developmental disabilities.

 The founders never dreamed their growth, and no where in the ruling is their right to believe disrespected or diminished. 
The tribunal has a narrow mandate, particularly in employment cases and the finding is not sitting well with the founders of Christian Horizons. (A 1992 employment ruling didn’t either)

They have been ordered to pay Ms. Heinz 23 thousand dollars for lost employment time, a poisoned work environment (read the ruling!) and for applying a discriminatory employment policy.

I have worked for  a couple of evangelical organizations.
I have never been required to sign a statement of faith, nor was I required to attend bible study and prayer. (I did attend, but it was not a requirement of employment. If attendance had been held out as a requirement, I’d have quit on the spot)
I have never considered off the job time my employers business.
I didn’t consider myself more Christian because I worked for a Christian organization.

I think this ruling is educational and states what the founders of Christian Horizons have not come to terms with. 
Evangelicalism is not monolithic and Christian Horizons is not a denomination.
There are other none religious organizations fulfilling the same needs in the community just as ethically and professionally.
Would this organization have done it’s job effectively and served the public good without accepting government money and clients who are not evangelical? 
It is more difficult for founders to accept that all evangelicals do not believe lesbianism is a sin, or a disorder that needs to be ‘fixed.’ 
Ms. Heinz was treated badly, there is nothing Christian about what she experienced.
I cringe reading her trust in her co-workers and the breaking of that trust. She had worked with fellow care givers for 5 years.

They have been ordered to stop using  the Lifestyle and Morality Statement as a condition of employment. They have been ordered to  put an anti-discrimination and an anti-harassment policy in place. Management and staff have been ordered to undergo  human rights training.

This also hits home because our family has started what will essentially be a 10 year process, applying for residential living for one of our special family members. Qualified care will matter and is not either/or.

In defence of the code-of-conduct contract at the time, Christian Horizons said it recognizes society’s laws but it also must obey God’s laws.

“We recognized that everything that Christian Horizons did needed to conform to, first of all, the laws of God, and secondly, as much as possible, the laws of man,” founder James Reese said when questioned about the code during the earlier human-rights case.

On its website, Christian Horizons lists “a commitment to personal conduct and lifestyle consistent with the values and principles of Christian Horizons” as the top criteria for selecting staff.

After that comes education, experience and a clean criminal record.

Kitchener-Waterloo Record – Christian Horizons rebuked
Christian Horizons