• you're self-employed/run your own company
• your business offers relatively generic services/consultancy that enable other organisations to do whatever it is they do
• most business activity involves on-going relationships, not just one-off projects
• the business is not sector/market specific, charitable, or in any way 'special'; it's just a business offering business services
• most clients are secular organisations across a range of sectors, a handful are faith-based groups/charities just because of circles you move in

Question
At what point would you refuse to work with a client/potential client based purely on issues around theology, given that theology is essentially irrelevant to the nature of your services[1] and relationship?

Expansion/Personal Comments/Clarification
I work with lots of different people, across lots of walks of life, different places on the political spectrum and the social ladder holding various religious views and none. Work is work, people are people, and it's my place to be professional, do the job, and not act as Lord High Morality Judge.

From a practical, if not financial, position, I can choose whether or not we work with someone who wants to engage our services.

We have one sporadic client that organisationally hold Profoundly Different Views to myself on certain Dead Horse issues. Further, part of (but not the only) their reason for being is to prosecute those views in the public arena.

For clearly secular clients we don't operate any kind of "approved morality" policy[2]. And yet if I were approached by an organisation I found particularly vile (BNP, NF, EDL, Britain First, UKIP even) I would politely decline to be available.

So I periodically find myself flirting with the "Should we, shouldn't we?" question. Which leads me to be intrigued as to what lines in the sand others would draw. And also to wonder whether my issue is that I don't agree with one or two of their theological positions, or that they just piss me off in other ways

After all, if you take the line "I think you're deeply wrong about X and I refuse to enable you in promoting that view" then what level of moral/ethical/theological compliance should one seek to bring to bear on secular clients? Or does the fact that in one instance it's a primary feature rather than a tangential one add weight? Or ... ?

Your thoughts on an e-card please!


[1]Allowing for the fact that arguably theology is directly relevant to all things You know what I mean here, I hope.

[2]In general. We have refused to work with people in the past on the (private) grounds that they were simply horrible/unreasonable people to work with, and generally speaking one tends to develop relationships with people with broadly similar ethics and approaches to life, but there's no checklist of Correct Thinking applied
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I would think a) if you have good reason to believe they are breaking, or are about to break, the law and b) and when you can reasonably argue that what they are asking you to do will be actively supporting a cause of which you strongly disapprove. For example, I wouldn't expect a socially conservative printer to make gay pride banners, I would expect them to be prepared to print a set of management consultancy agendas requested by the same person.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
My first reaction is to ask whether you might be able to convert one heart or mind in the course of doing business with this vile organization.

My second comment is to wonder whether you should rebuke yourself for drawing a false distinction between the "BNP, NF, EDL, Britain First, UKIP" and and an advocacy group which has "Profoundly Different Views." Why are the first outside the realm of civilized discourse while the second has to do with an issue about which gentlemen of good will can agree to disagree?

[ 02. June 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I've been bashed for this before, and doubtless will again, but I think if you are a private individual operating your own business and there are other options out there, you should be able to choose not to do business with someone on ethical/theological grounds without the law forcing you. At the moment I'm a freelance writer and editor, and I do work for loads of people I don't agree with. But there are some lines over which I will not step, and that's because what I'm selling (or not) is my own effort in the cause--my own editing/writing/rewriting, which is often of a persuasive nature. I'm not going to twist my conscience into a pretzel to do work for (say) Monsanto. I know good people of my own church who do, and I'm not going to undermine them--but I can't do it. I won't take such a gig.

If I did, then what? Would my client be getting my best service? Not likely. It would be different if I were doing something like typesetting, where a crappy job is pretty evident. But in writing/text massage, it's way too easy to offer your second- or third-rate effort instead of your best because your gut was churning at the content or intended result of the project--and then to tell yourself, and your client, that it's the best you can do. More honest for me to say "no" politely and send them somewhere else.

It probably also makes a difference: a) just what level of loathsomeness we're talking about, and b) whether the gig is in direct support of the loathsome-icity, or whether it's an unrelated service (e.g. washing windows at the company headquarters). I could wash windows, I will not write.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Obviously a fraught decision.

On the one hand, it is (perhaps intentionally) reminiscent of a slew of "religious freedom" cases here in the US from vendors who refused (photographers, bakers, etc) to make their services available for gay weddings. In this case, their actions (besides being arguably on the wrong side of the issue) simply come across as hateful and hypocritical (straight couples not subjected to the same moral scrutiny).

otoh, I think of John Woolman, 18th c. Quaker, whose refusal to provide legal services to a slaveowner (who wished to draw up a will leaving his slave to his progeny) really began in many ways the American abolitionist movement.

In many ways it mirrors discussions clergy have about speaking out politically from the pulpit. Whether or not one appreciates their pastor's political involvement seems to be entirely a function of whether or not you agree with the political stance being taken-- if you do, it is courageous and prophetic. If not, it is divisive.

And I guess that really is where I'd draw the line. The default for me is to serve one's neighbors. To attempt to serve others (in this case by providing good, honest labor at a reasonable price) w/o judgment or condemnation. For me to cross that line, there needs to be a sense of the prophetic, in the most literal sense of the word. A sense that God is calling me to action in a way that I can be sure that my principled stance is not just my own political posturing, but rather, like Woolman, an outworking of the Spirit's leading and a reflection of God's intention.

Not always as easy a line to draw as we might think, of course.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
(Note this isn't a request for advice, just kicking around the issues and probably framing it badly)

(Note also that the client organisation should not be considered to be "vile" in this context - they're engaged in legitimate activity, a portion of which is close to diametrically opposed to the hypothetical 'your' views).

DT: you can safely assume that there is nothing illegal going on, definitely. Simply legitimate advocacy/'business'.

TSA point 1: possibly, but unlikely; there is no direct link between the nature of the work undertaken and the promulgation of the views concerned. Think of it as infrastructure - you maintain the roads, they can drive what they want on them.

TSA point 2: well, indeed, and that's sort of where the query originates. On a personal level I know that I wouldn't do anything to support X, I have no problem supporting Z, but I'm ambivalent on Y.

LC: well, indeed, that's sort of the nub of the query; where does one draw the line? And again, I wouldn't want to say that either the hypothetical or the reality involve "loathsomeness" more "profound difference of opinion". And in the same context, at worst one is talking about an indirect enabling, not an active promotion.


I suppose to some extent it's the difference between working with/for individuals with whom you disagree (we all do at some point, on something), and working with/for an organisation who's abstract goals are OK, removed from the specifics, but where the practical outcome is perhaps more problematic.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
"Is someone I know and care for - or ought to care for - going to be damaged by what I do for this company?"

That would be my operating ethic. It would preclude freelance work for arms companies as much as it would anti-gay advocacy groups.
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I doubt if I'd make any business decision purely on theological grounds. But on ethical grounds I would.

I'd be interested in the legal position, since refusal to print Gay Pride posters if you are a printer could be against the law.

As the OP points out, contracts lead to relationships, and if I believed that the relationship would not be possible, ethically, I would refuse.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
No rejection on theological grounds, or religious grounds. I have rejected business based on how a business or organization treats people, or how they prioritize the wrong things to excess. Like doing things that are legal but not ethical. I also object to some companies' business model and the actual business they are in. -- the following example is far beyond what I have to deal with, but I am aware that drug companies turn down business with governments which want to use their drugs for executions. Entirely justifiable in my view.
 

---

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :
 
People are still people, even while at work. With the same moral qualities.

(It's perhaps a Western thing - seeing the person we are during work hours, as something very distant to the person we are during our free time?)

Every businessperson should of course operate within the limitations of the law. But if the law allows you to refuse service to someone, and a customer is offering you an assignment which will enable a hate-message, then I'd suggest refusing the offer. You are not a different person from 9 to 5, than the rest of the day.

I worry a bit that a culture that allows for -too- great a separation between the "work-self" and the "leisure-self", is one that allows some major corporations to commit morally bankrupt acts, without getting a reaction from their own employees. Employees who might be quite moral people - but who leave all that far behind when they go on the clock in the morning.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I doubt if I'd make any business decision purely on theological grounds. But on ethical grounds I would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I doubt if I'd make any business decision purely on theological grounds. But on ethical grounds I would.

---

For any Christians milling about in the on-looking crowd: This statement makes no sense at all.

For Christians there must be an identity in the application of theology and of ethics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Candide:
People are still people, even while at work. With the same moral qualities.

(It's perhaps a Western thing - seeing the person we are during work hours, as something very distant to the person we are during our free time?)

Every businessperson should of course operate within the limitations ofc the law. But if the law allows you to refuse service to someone, and a customer is offering you an assignment which will enable a hate-message, then I'd suggest refusing the offer. You are not a different person from 9 to 5, than the rest of the day.

I worry a bit that a culture that allows for -too- great a separation between the "work-self" and the "leisure-self", is one that allows some major corporations to commit morally bankrupt acts, without getting a reaction from their own employees. Employees who might be quite moral people - but who leave all that far behind when they go on the clock in the morning.

---

This.

 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I doubt if I'd make any business decision purely on theological grounds. But on ethical grounds I would.

---

For any Christians milling about in the on-looking crowd: This statement makes no sense at all.

For Christians there must be an identity in the application of theology and of ethics.

---

No, it makes perfect sense in the business world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I doubt that I am genuinely consistent. I make a decision each time. I probably change over time as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yet, Christians remain Christians wherever in the cosmos they find themselves, including the business world. So, to engage in a calculus of ethics not anchored in and dominated by Christian moral theology make a mockery of the baptismal vows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yet, Christians remain Christians wherever in the cosmos they find themselves, including the business world. So, to engage in a calculus of ethics not anchored in and dominated by Christian moral theology make a mockery of the baptismal vows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
You would encourage me to ask the religious beliefs of those I am contracted to and contracting?

---

quote:

---

There is nothing to prevent me from applying my Christian ethics to my business practices…

---

quote:

---

…but no possibility to quiz…

---

quote:

---

… [to] hold others to my specific beliefs

---

quote:

---

Shall I tell my Roman Catholic business partner we're done?

---

quote:

---

Shall I tell the Hindu man we contract to convert or we're done?

---

quote:

---

your ideas seem completely out of this world to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yet, Christians remain Christians wherever in the cosmos they find themselves, including the business world. So, to engage in a calculus of ethics not anchored in and dominated by Christian moral theology make a mockery of the baptismal vows.

---

You would encourage me to ask the religious beliefs of those I am contracted to and contracting? Notwithstanding this is illegal here. There is nothing to prevent me from applying my Christian ethics to my business practices but no possibility to quiz and hold others to my specific beliefs (or heresy). Shall I tell my Roman Catholic business partner we're done? Shall I tell the Hindu man we contract to convert or we're done? -- your ideas seem completely out of this world to me.

[Code fix -Gwai]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
For example, my belief in the innate value of all human souls and the value of hospitality should lead me to greater inclusion/ conversation/ interaction with my Catholic partner or my Hindu contractor, not less.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0