"Making decisions in the best interests of the operation is not the same as making decisions based on compassion, empathy, inclusion and introspection..."<quoted text>
Sorry, but the false premise is yours. Making decisions in the best interests of the operation is not the same as making decisions based on compassion, empathy, inclusion and introspection (oh--and good old fashioned science). If their charitable mission is conditionally tied to immoral principles, then their morality is tainted, regardless of whatever other good they may do.
I WILL say "yes", with the disclaimer that I recognize that doing so could hurt their organization.
As I said, solving real morality for one's self is hard. It can put you out of business. It can get you killed, in the wrong environment. Doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous, and make a person (or an organization) into a target.
I recognize that sometimes doing the "right thing" has to be avoided for the sake of survival. Morals have to be compromised occasionally. But once you do, you must be able to recognize and admit that you've done so. You can't continue to claim the moral high ground, if it's obvious that you've slipped.
I'm not saying that no one should ever compromise their morals. Sometimes they must. I'm not saying that WV doesn't do good work. I'm sure they do (though I'd be curious whether the "educational" arm of their charity teaches sound material). I'm not saying that they're utterly, thoroughly immoral because of this one action.
But if we're going to discuss morals (and again, it was a discussion with someone else, off topic), then I will assert that building artificial exclusions and separations between human beings, on the grounds that they're in a supernaturally forbidden (but consensual) relationship, is not a moral action. I will continue to assert that adopting such principles blindly, without consideration for their real-world implications, does not represent the presence of a "moral code".
However, I will go so far as to say that most Christians DO use a moral code. It just happens to be their OWN, and it deviates from what the Bible commands. Few Christians KILL gay people. None that I know of own slaves. I've shared pork and shellfish dinners with Christians. They ARE capable of analyzing biblical commands and rejecting the foolish ones. The problem is that they don't admit to themselves that they used their own judgment to do it. They rationalize, they turn Bible verses into loopholes, they tell themselves that they're "interpreting" the Bible more correctly than our ancestors did. They still think that their decision making process is guided by supernatural hands, and that's a failure, but it's better than the alternative.
That's a little hyperbolic. I've explained my position.
Um, it's a charity. A charity.
"As I said, solving real morality for one's self is hard. It can put you out of business. It can get you killed, in the wrong environment. Doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous, and make a person (or an organization) into a target."
Why don't we all just skip the hard work and instead have you decide what's the moral code for everyone? You certainly seem willing here. Not sure how you presume this singular sense of discernment-it only works if everyone else (or at least the WV folks) operate in complete absence of any self-awareness AND if your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that counts (Pope Edmond?)
Agreed that it seemes "hyperbolic" to me to declare those who are committed to the success fo a very large charity as having "tainted" morality by sole virtue of their non-compliance with your view of same sex marriage.