Posted on 08/11/2025 6:39:31 PM PDT by Morgana
In late 2020, Aubry McMahon applied for a remote customer service job with World Vision, a large evangelical humanitarian organization. Affirming she was aligned with World Vision’s Standards of Conduct, which prohibit, among other things, “sexual conduct outside the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman,” she did well in her interview and was extended a job offer.
Before she accepted, however, she had a quick question for them:
‘Hey there, I just have a quick question! My wife and I are expecting our first baby in March and I wanted to see if I would qualify for any time off since I’ll be a new employee? I will be the one having the baby so I just wanted to check to see if any time would be allowed off. If not, no worries, thanks so much!
Upon hearing she was involved in a lesbian relationship, (later revealed they conceived via sperm donor) World Vision withdrew the job offer and she in turn sued for discrimination.
While a federal judge initially ruled that they unlawfully discriminated against her, saying that their actions violated Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the three-panel judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, with the summary explaining:
The panel held that the district court erred by rejecting World Vision’s ministerial exception defense. The ministerial exception bars McMahon’s employment discrimination claims because the record shows that CSRs perform key religious functions central to World Vision’s mission.
CSRs are responsible for effectively communicating World Vision’s worldwide ministries and projects to donors and supporters. CSRs engage with donors in prayer and give them the opportunity to join World Vision’s religious mission through financial contributions.
Because each of these “vital religious duties” lies at the core of World Vision’s religious mission of “working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God,” the ministerial exception applies to CSRs and bars McMahon’s claims.
Churchwest explains that the Ministerial Exception is a “legal doctrine that exempts religious organizations from certain employment laws, allowing them to select and govern their own ministers without government interference. This exception is based on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, and it recognizes that government intervention in ministerial employment decisions could be a violation of this right.”
Under the Ministerial Exception, anti-discrimination laws don’t necessarily apply to ministers or other employees who perform religious functions, which the court ruled McMahon would have been performing.
This has been going on for over five long years.
She said she was ‘aligned with’ the core beliefs of this organization. Meaning she lied. They should have countersued her for wasting their time and training materials.
Now, they really want nothing to do with her. Dishonest and vindictive.
It is quite possible that she applied for the job, knowing she would be rejected, for the express purpose of the lawsuit.
It’s a worldwide ministry that helps children and poor communities. We’ve sponsored a number of children since 1996.
It is quite possible that she applied for the job, knowing she would be rejected, for the express purpose of the lawsuit.
That’s why she asked for time off in the manner that she did. It was practically a confession that led her prospective employer to say NO. She tried to set them up and she’s an attention whore.
“My wife and I?”
That is a statement from a person who, if a woman, has been influenced by the Devil!
I avoid Lesbians like the plague!
Very possible. She has nothing else worthwhile going on in her life. This here is her actual job, collective ‘Nice Settlements’ from companies that will throw money just to make her finally go away.
I have heard of people in wheelchairs going from restaurant to restaurant, threatening them with lawsuits because they were ‘refused access’ someplace. Fake Urgencies.
Nevermind, that to bring the eatery into full compliance, the costs might bankrupt the business. “ I will go away, for a certain price”.
A probing attack. Looking for gaps.
The church not calling out unbiblical doctrines, and rejecting certain denominations as unrepentant, will be its downfall.
Next up, she was going to ask her religious employer to bake her and the Mrs. a wedding cake (or else).
Yep. My father-in-law got sued by a guy in a wheelchair who went from business to business to make certain they were ADA compliant. While the business had a ramp leading to the main entrance, it was too short. He ended up paying the guy, paying a bunch of fines, and spending tens of thousands on an ADA compliant ramp.
Years later I asked if the new ramp had ever been used.
Not once.
Great ruling but it is time to restore the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act to be whether a person is male or female, and not to questions of a persons sexual orientation, preferences, or sexual practices. Better yet, remove it from the act altogether. Men and women are different and the government should not be getting involved in the social standards of how they treat one another.
Totally worthwhile--52 years of outstanding stewardship by World Vision International.
She applied for the job in bad faith, looking for a lawsuit. She was hostile and should be made to pay.
Queers in general. They are violent with severe moody emotional issues.
Should be shot on sight.
Right, she could have just said that she was pregnant and was requesting maternity leave.
There’s nothing in the Bible approving conceiving children with a turkey baster.
(A probing attack. Looking for gaps)
YEP - and YEP 👍👍👍
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.