The case originated from a suit from three former employees of World Vision, the largest Christian charitable organization in the world, because they renounced the company's Christian statement of faith.  My wife and I are supporters of World Vision and strongly recommend it to anyone looking to make long term differences in the lives of individuals, families, and communities.  

This is an important court case - as is the one I brought up last week.  As I've noted in other blog entries, educational institutions are making it increasingly difficult if not impossible for faith-based student organizations to make actual adherence to the faith in question a requirement for leadership.  This is done under the guise of non-discrimination, but it's actually a form of reverse discrimination that potentially prevents faith-based organizations from maintaining the tenets of their faith as part and parcel of their organizational identity.  The World Vision case seems to be an example of that in the business world, and the case involving the congregation in Michigan is an example of this in the arena of churches themselves.  

I found this other article from a year ago that clearly seems to be trying to show the negative side of this sort of decision.  The article repeatedly emphasizes the risk religious organizations that make faith part of their hiring criteria will face in terms of lining up certain donors.  The author repeatedly talks about how many funding entities require non-discrimination policies to consider an organization for a grant.  The author is insistent on playing up the downsides of a religious organization requiring faith as a hiring criteria, despite the fact that there has been essentially no outcry over the practice from current donors and supporters of World Vision.  

This won't be the end of the issue by a long shot.  But it's heartening to know that at least for now, Christian organizations can make actual Christian faith and practice part of their hiring requirements.