Ok, so the organization can look but not discriminate. I will take your word for it, but it sounds murky…like so much else, I guess.
Here is a different take on this whole thing. This could be talked about both from the candidate perspective as well as the accepted member. Let’s say that I am that candidate, and that I let loose a lot on my social network platform. That means that I freely express my opinions, or I pass on by reposting, others’ opinions that might be politically incorrect or something. And then I could get into a bit of name-calling.
I am wondering if there is any place or strategy for a mission to monitor or develop policies to prevent such a candidate from saying things that will embarrass the mission? There are so many potential problems. A statement could be kind of indirect, like making a reference to beer in a post, when the organization requires members to abstain. Or it could include exclusive or bigoted statements of a particular (and incendiary) persuasion. If this were on a “facespace” website, it could appear right next to the person’s “like” of the mission organization.
Could you comment on that? In a way I can “like?”
Disclaimer: not official legal or psychological advice or opinion
- Happy Holiday Pay? Part 1, Unwrapping the Requirements
- Status Update or Solicitation? When Non-Solicitation Contracts and Social Media Collide
- Guest Post: Why Churches Need an Executive Pastor, Part 3
- The Future of the FLSA Overtime Rule
- Employee or Independent Contractor? Answering the Question in the Internet Age