The debate about the right of church and similar organisations to discriminate in employment practices is usually framed in terms of exclusion. Have such organisations the right to exclude particular categories of people from their workforce? But a more important question needs to be framed positively. Do they have the moral right to favour applicants from particular religious backgrounds and ethical convictions for some positions?
This question is sometimes answered by appealing to religious freedom, and so to the privilege of the churches that sponsor community organisations. But it is more plausibly and persuasively answered by appealing to the benefits that may accrue to the people whom the organisations exist to serve.
What matters most to good community organisations is a deep respect for the human dignity of the people whom they serve, and the determination that this should characterise all their dealings with them. This respect is grounded in the conviction that each human being is precious and makes a claim on us, independent of their wealth, reputation and religious belief.
Respect is expressed above all in the way in which staff members relate to the people they serve. It extends also to the quality of the services they offer and of their advocacy. If you respect people you will want to offer them the best service available and to make their case publicly in the most effective way. A proper professionalism is calibrated by commitment to people in need, not vice versa.
Respect also characterises the relationships between those who work in the organisation, and so all the human exchanges that form its daily life. This high respect for human dignity, of course, is always an ideal. The reality is always flawed and partial. Respect always needs nurturing.
In organisations where the focus on respect remains strong, the staff will have appropriated an ethical code and translated it into predictable practice. By ethical code I do not mean an abstract philosophy or a set of religious teachings that are taught explicitly but rather a coherence between values and actions from which an observer would infer a consistent ethical framework.
Such codes are learned primarily by imitation and by doing, not theoretically. They are communicated in such phrases