In STEM Careers, Christians and Conservatives Have Little Freedom. I Know Firsthand

I can't write under my own name, have a ministry under my own name, or give money to causes I care about — all for fear of getting fired from my tech job.

By Wintery Knight Published on August 9, 2017

As you’ve heard, tech giant Google just fired a brilliant software engineer named James Damore. His crime? He wrote a fact-based critique of Google’s politically correct diversity policies.

The left wing media has misrepresented the contents of the memo. Of course. The Atlantic, to its credit, posted an article explaining that “many headlines labeled the document ‘anti-diversity,’ misleading readers about its actual contents.”

So what does the memo actually say? Damore wrote:

Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

“Diversity” Means No Diversity

Now, these claims are either true or false. If true, then Google’s practices are unfair. If false, then the claims should be answered with facts. But, instead of giving a reasoned response, Google fired Damore.

Even the overall tone of the memo was not what the media reported. Investors Business Daily explains:

Be clear on this: Damore was only asking for tolerance of different points of view, including those of conservatives. He described himself as a “classical liberal,” which means he believes in reason, tolerance, freedom of conscience and the right of individuals to their own beliefs.

He didn’t demand acquiescence to his own views. He merely asked for an “honest discussion” of the fact that we are not all mere emblems of different victim groups, but rather individuals, and deserve to be treated as such.

Here’s what’s amazing: Damore thought that he could publish his memo inside Google and keep his job.

Google has strong ties to the Democrat party, so of course Damore would struggle to find friends among Google execs. Danielle Brown, the Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance at Google, worked on the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton. According to the left-leaning 538 blog (Nate Silver), Google employees were mostly (97%) against proposition 8 (natural marriage) based on their donations. And Google and its employees were the second highest donor to the Democratic National Committee in the 2012 election cycle. This is a company that was bound to use the banner of “diversity” as a bludgeon to prevent diversity when it comes to ideas.

My Experience in IT

I spent many years as a senior software engineer at a Fortune 100 company. My employer was a Platinum Partner of the Human Rights Campaign. That’s the largest LGBT organization in the US. During my time in this company, the goals of the Human Rights Campaign were pushed on us through e-mails, mandatory training, propaganda posters, etc. When the gay night club was attacked in Orlando, the company gave out rainbow-colored ribbons. My manager even approached me with a rainbow ribbon, asking me why I wasn’t wearing one like she was.

I always have to think about what I can and cannot say to people at work. I even use an alias when I write online. I’m certain that employers would find out and fire me, or refuse to hire me.

Every year, the company urged us to donate money from our paychecks to the United Way. That organization donates $3 million dollars to Planned Parenthood each year. Support for the United Way came from the leaders in the company. I was asked by HR and my manager to donate.

If, in contrast, I’d sent out a group e-mail asking my co-workers to donate to Alliance Defending Freedom or Life Training Institute, I would have been fired on the spot for breaking the company’s anti-solicitation policy.

What did I do? I kept my beliefs quiet at work, even when asked. My colleagues on the left had complete freedom to loudly discuss their views. They enjoyed needling me with what they had seen on the Comedy Channel or MSNBC the night before. They knew that I could not respond in kind. I once got into trouble for answering a direct question about my views on marriage from a gay co-worker. This happened during an off-site team lunch.

I Don’t Have the Same Freedom

Like all working Americans, I have bills to pay. So I always have to think about what I can and cannot say to people at work. I even use an alias when I write online. I’m certain that employers would find out and fire me, or refuse to hire me. Most of the Christians and conservatives in my office now refuse to talk about their convictions. Especially when they have wives and children to care for.

It’s not just friendly chatting and online writing that could get me into trouble. I can’t have a ministry under my own name. Look at what happened to (Stream Contributor) Frank Turek when Cisco found out about his beliefs on marriage. I can’t give money to causes I care about. I know what happened to Brendan Eich when Mozilla Foundation learned about his pro-marriage donation. And look at what has happened to Christian businesses who refused to celebrate leftist views — they’re being sued for everything they own.

I still recommend STEM careers to young Christians and conservatives. If you can keep your beliefs under the radar while you study and work, you can have a prosperous career and create value for others. But it’s getting harder and harder to go that route and also have an influence in the world. More and more, that’s the reality. If you go this path, don’t expect to enjoy the same freedoms as your colleagues on the left.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    It’s The New Fascist Left! Brimming with hypocrisy, and buffered by pride!

    • RKitty01

      Fascism by definition is right wing.

      • Shaquille Harvey

        Fascism is not right wing.

        • RKitty01

          yes it is

          • Shaquille Harvey

            The history of fascism comes right out of the same ideology as Marx and Hegel but was diametrically opposed to Marxist socialism or a Sorelian hybrid incorporating the better parts of capitalism, socialism, and ultra nationalism.
            Italian fascism can be summed up in Giovanni Gentile’s Manifesto of the Fascist Intellectuals. Marxist socialism wasn’t good enough for the fascists because it wasn’t as interventionist or nationalistic enough for their taste, but both were pro-revolution and totalitarian all the same. Mussolini once said, “We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.”
            German fascism also came from socialism, specifically National Socialism (Nazism). Hitler was highly inspired by Italian fascism. What separates Nazism though is their strong belief in racial hierarchy, hence the Holocaust.
            The biggest indicator that fascism was socialist and a leftist ideology is its economics. The fascists hated free market capitalism but understood that some private property ownership was needed to support the state’s goals. While privatizing more companies, the state still controlled the businesses heavily and insured that all business was intended to help the country. They also perpetuated the concept of worker rights, protectionism, social welfare, public works programs, and state financing. They are very much a collectivist leftist ideology.

  • Charles Burge

    I gotta say this concerns me somewhat, as I consider changing jobs in the near future (in the IT field). Will I hurt my chances of getting hired if I say anything that would “out” me as a Christian or a conservative? Maybe that’s where Jesus’ advice to be wise as serpents comes into play. Still, it’s aggravating that we’ve arrived at this point.

    • a.Christian.for.Ron.Paul

      @charlesburge:disqus

      Yes. But, my recommendation is that you find the right company, rather than settling for less. You’ll be a lot happier working in a company that shares the same values or at least isn’t oppressive.

  • Dean Bruckner

    Progressivism poisons everything.

    • Hannah

      Better described as “Regressivism,” for there is nothing “progressive” about how they treat their fellow man.

      • a.Christian.for.Ron.Paul

        Yep, call a spade a spade.

  • So Hobby Lobby should be able to deny employees birth control, and florists and bakers should be free to turn away anyone with whom they have theological disagreements …. but if Google tries to make up for centuries of white Christian male privilege, people get all bent out of shape about it? Puh-LEEZE.

    • Charles Burge

      Straight-up straw man argument. Hobby Lobby didn’t deny anyone anything.

      Also, “tries to make up for centuries of white Christian male privilege” is a very curious argument. It sounds to me like you’re essentially saying that two wrongs make a right. Is that accurate to say?

      • Mensa Member

        >> Straight-up straw man argument. Hobby Lobby didn’t deny anyone anything.

        Hobby Lobby denied their female employees full access to the health benefits they earned.

        • Andrew Mason

          What health benefits? The right to commit murder is not a constitutional right.

          And as for centuries of ‘white Christian male privilege,’ exactly what privilege would that be? The privilege of fighting and dying for your country? Or what about the privilege of suffering the same privations as natives in colonial regions? Perhaps you mean the privilege of dying in an attempt to navigate the globe, or in establishing trade with exotic distant places? Or perhaps you mean dying or being killed whilst attempting to establish civilisation, or introduce Christianity, to deepest darkest Peru. Oh wait that was Paddington’s place of origin, but you get the general idea. If white Christian males are so privileged why is that non-white non-Christian non-males failed to achieve any of this? And what of those nations where non-Whites and non-Christians are the privileged class? What of Saudi Arabia, China, or South Africa? Talking about white Christian male privilege is simply an excuse for being a bigot.

        • Charles Burge

          The health plan offered by Hobby Lobby didn’t include subsidized abortions and certain abortifacient drugs. Nothing prevented the employees from paying for those things on their own dime. There was nothing “earned” by the employees that was later denied or revoked.

          Even for a leftist such as yourself, I think it’s a rather extreme position to assert that any American should ever be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion. If that’s the position you actually hold, I think you need to really consider the wider ramifications of such a position.

    • James

      Did you actually read the Hobby Lobby decision?

      The government mandated that companies cover contraceptives. They had an exemption for non-profit corporations, but not for for-profit corporations. In the exemption, the cost would be covered by the insurer. Hobby Lobby wanted the same exemption that the non-profit corporations had.

      Because they created the non-profit exemption, the government had unwittingly conceded their case that the policy could be a violation of religious freedom and that there was a less-intrusive way of achieving the policy objectives. Had they not created the non-profit exemption, this would be a different case.

      Therefore, the government was arguing that for-profit corporations had no religious freedom rights. The Court disagreed, stating that the owners of a closely-held private corporation, like Hobby Lobby, did not lose their free exercise rights by incorporating their business, and that the non-profit exemption was a way of accomplishing the government’s objectives while avoiding the violation of religious freedom. The Court had no opinion as whether a publicly-held corporation has free-exercise rights, because this was not at issue in the case.

      • Nobody Specific

        You are correct on the legal issue. The more basic issue is freedom should mean freedom. The government should not tell people how to use their property or their labor. If you don’t want to work for a company that does not provide you with birth control as part of your compensation package, than “quit!”

        If you own a company and you want to hire people based on skin color, gender, age, etc, not talent, well frankly you ought to be allowed to do that too. I suspect you company will perform poorly compared to its peers in the market place but that is your problem.

        The civil rights and anti-employer discrimination acts simply are not Constitutional, under any sane reading of the First Amendment. Freedom of association has to mean freedom from association or can have no meaning at all, because it enables a hecklers veto every time. Any organization holding a minority opinion can basically be wiped out by a mob of people who disagree packing their ranks.

        There were major problems in this country and those laws were useful to advance changes in attitude, I think their net effect was positive, but that does not mean they were really legal than or now, and it does not mean they should go unchallenged or be allowed to remain on the books today. Freedom is important to protect as well.

    • Andy6M

      >>”So Hobby Lobby should be able to deny employees birth control, and
      florists and bakers should be free to turn away anyone with whom they
      have theological disagreements…<<

      My understanding is that Hobby Lobby was not against providing birth control per se, but more specifically they were against providing birth control that was abortion inducing. In each of the baker and florist cases, it was not a case of denying service to homosexuals outright – both had happily served homosexuals for years. They had a problem providing service for specific events that they felt they could not support.

      I think you've mischaracterized each of your examples.

  • Stephen D

    As I’ve written before, these giant Tech companies are not founded on principles of liberty. They are fundamentally autocratic structures. Their employees almost inevitably accept the need to ‘toe the line’ or be fired. The fact that they exist in a democratic society does not alter their inner autocratic structure. This means necessarily that their pronouncements on ‘diversity’ and ‘rights’ are a most blatant form of hypocrisy. What rights does an employee have who can be fired for differing in opinion from the boss?

    My contention is that the employee life experience of those who work in these powerful autocratic structures make the employees acquiescent in an ethos of autocracy, and they carry the same mindset to the wider political arena, including the polling booth. America today is dominated by vast commercial social structures that did not exist and could not have been imagined when the nation was founded. A new approach is needed to preserve liberty.

  • Many Sparrows

    I understand; I am in the same boat. Keep fighting the good fight!

    • Mensa Member

      Really? Your company tracks your religious activity? I’m finding this so hard to believe.

      • Chris C.

        Did you read the article? A PC-minded employer doesn’t need to “track” anyone’s religious activity. All it needs is for someone, even when responding to questions, to answer “incorrectly” to place an employee at risk. Try speaking in support of marriage (one man + one woman) and refusing to wear a “rainbow” pin when asked by a supervisor and see what happens to you.

        • Many Sparrows

          Thank you, @disqus_nuEMXbSzCG:disqus That’s exactly right.

          (I was clearly not speaking of “tracking” in the same sense as the straw-man argument put forth by the notorious troll, @MensaMemberAAA:disqus.)

  • Mensa Member

    This article is a little hard to believe. Conservative Christianity has a serious persecution complex.

    But, if it’s true, then I probably side with author. Nobody should be punished at work for their religion, even if intolerant.

    (I say ‘probably’ because it matters what position this author holds in the company. If he is just a regular worker, the his outside life doesn’t affect the company. But if he represents the company publicly, then his public life does affect the company.)

    • Andrew Mason

      Actually what an employee says or does in their private capacity may be considered grounds for sacking or other disciplinary measures. And if Christians have a persecution complex, it’s probably because of too many accounts about folk having trouble for saying or doing the right thing.

      • Wayne Cook

        True..happened to me.

    • tether

      I have personally been reprimanded on the job for a discussion in which I recited scripture in response to a question from someone who asked what the Bible says about a topic. I answered by providing book, chapter, and verses and with the text of the scripture from the Bible.

      I was told that my response was inappropriate. I replied in turn by asking if it was inappropriate because it was scripture or because of the content. To which they said it was just inappropriate. A few months later I was laid off. Having been with the company for 10+ years and was a member of top management.
      However the Bible tells us we will be persecuted and that we should count it as joy because there was enough evidence in your walk that others could tell you were a Christian.

      • Wayne Cook

        Don’t give the chapter and verse…It wasn’t in the original..Just say the quote and move on..

  • Macmia

    It may be time to find another job. A person can’t have two masters; by staying and accepting the tyranny of the workplace, the choice has already been made.

  • Amy

    Shame on companies who silence conservatives and Christians in this way! But I am troubled by the author’s statement at the end of the article: “If you can keep your beliefs under the radar while you study and work, you can have a prosperous career and create value for others.” Keeping silent is EXACTLY what the forces of darkness want Christians to do! Imagine the apostles Peter, James, John, Paul, John the Baptist giving such advice. What about Luther, or Tyndale, or Wycliffe or Hus? The list of followers of Christ who faced persecution and death down through the centuries goes on and on. If you truly follow Christ, there is no “silent” option.

    • Wayne Cook

      Amy if you haven’t suffered you can’t know. Easy to spout off here. I spoke out and got run out of a town. Thanks.

  • RKitty01

    “Christian” businesses are being sued because they’re not following the laws that are in place. There is no constitutional right to have a business. If you don’t want to follow the laws in place, then don’t open a business. Seems pretty simple to me.

    • Andrew Mason

      There is a right to practice Christianity, or has the First Amendment been repealed? Note too that Christian employees have been sacked too so the issue is not merely about owning a business. I have heard that one of the punishments the Soviet Union used against Christians was to strip them of their assets, their right to earn money, then leave them to starve on the streets. How is the US any different if you are prohibited from being a Christian businessmen or a Christian employee? Sure I’m talking about ‘isolated’ incidents but it’s the cumulative affect that matters and the pace of incidents seems to be increasing.

      First they came for the bakers and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a baker.
      Then they came for the wedding photographers and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a wedding photographer
      Then they came for the apple growers and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an apple grower
      Then they came for me and nobody spoke up because there wasn’t anyone left.

      Feel free to add additional lines, but you get the general idea.

      • RKitty01

        unless I’m missing something, no one is infringing on anyone’s right to worship unless you want to include some towns and their refusal to okay construction of mosques in areas that already include churches

        comparing the US to the Soviet Union is disingenuous; over 70% of all Americans profess to being Christian and every one of our presidents have been Christians or at least deists. Not a professed atheist among the lot.

        The “incidents” are nothing more than gays and lesbians being afforded the same rights as everyone else. Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn’t okay anymore. Whether you “approve” or not doesn’t matter because once you open your doors to the public, your private beliefs take a backseat to the law just like your private beliefs don’t really matter when you accept a job offer from a company.

        • Shaquille Harvey

          Christians have every right both under the system of the free market and under religious liberty and expression there of.

          • RKitty01

            every right to do what?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Every right to refuse service or not take part in business transactions or participate in certain ceremonies that they don’t wish to or go against their worldview convictions.

          • RKitty01

            When you open a business, you must follow the laws in place. You don’t have the right to pick and choose which ones you follow. There is no constitutional right to having your own business. If you don’t want to follow the laws in place, then don’t open a business. Courts have upheld anti-discrimination laws for decades now.

            Your worldview doesn’t matter if you open your doors to the public.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Not if the business is privately owned. Not under the free market, where the individual has the right to choose whom they wish to or not to make business transactions with. As well as not forcing individuals to go against their worldview convictions especially in the case of religion where the constitution protects the citizens right and freedom of religion and the right and free exercise and expression there of.

            That’s why we have SCOTUS to strike down unconsitutional laws
            Forcing shop owners to participate in ceremonies has NOT been tried yet.

          • RKitty01

            You’re wrong. For the past 70 years or so, private businesses have not have the right to discriminate in hiring practices or providing services and goods to the public.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            There’s a vast difference between selling people a product and creating art for them. There is also a vast difference between selling a product and participating in a ceremony. Any law that compels the creation of art or participation in a ceremony is unconstitutional.
            Forcing a person to go against thier convictions and especially their right to freedom of religion and the free exercise and expression there of, to deny it or that person is unconstitutional. Under the free market people have always been able to refuse and declined in cases certain type customers and business transactions that including ceremonies as well as part of the business owners right.

          • RKitty01

            Under the unregulated free market, people have been able to discriminate. Thank goodness that has changed.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            True in a certain sense then yes however people now have a guise to discriminate against they owners religious worldview ? Also by forcing someone to against thier will and business rights you are sort of becoming totalitarian.

          • RKitty01

            When you open a business to the public, you made a decision to follow the laws in place. If you don’t like the laws, then don’t open a business. It’s your choice. No one is forcing anyone to open a business.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Businesses owners, especially in terms of privately owned, too have legal rights when also regarding towards the business. They have every right to do dealings and business transactions with ever the wish to or not wether it be internal or external customers. Following laws in place means for all including the customers as well, also you state “No one is forcing anyone to open a business.” true but no one should force business owners to go against thier will or deny their rights either.

          • georgeor

            You love to say this, but it isn’t a principle. Do employees not have to follow laws? What about those who’ve run businesses before a law was put in place; are they exempt since their business is older than the law? Everyone knows the answer to those questions. The truth is that the essence of legislation is force. Nobody gets to wash their hands of it by implying consent from unrelated actions or anything else.

          • RKitty01

            If you don’t like newer laws, then try and get them changed. If you fail at that, you need to think hard if your conscience will allow you to follow the laws in place. If you don’t think it will, then you need to do something else with your life.

          • Andrew Mason

            See that’s the problem. The US’ First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …” By saying that a baker must support SSM – not a constitutionally protected right, courts have infringed on the Constitution. In effect a political elite have decree that some law need not be followed, and that other laws must be.

            The great irony of your position is that where discrimination on the basis of religious orientation occurs it is frequently supported by those who scream about ‘discrimination’ against those choosing a homosexual lifestyle. Your private lifestyle choices have no right to impose on others.

          • RKitty01

            baking a cake or making a flower arrangement is not participating in a ceremony; using your logic, a gun dealer would be a participant in a murder if he sold the weapon

          • Andrew Mason

            Indeed the gun dealer is complicit in murder, but only if he has reason to think that his sale is supporting illegal activity. Likewise a seller is complicit in SSM if he (or she) has reason to think his product, or service, will be used for the purposes of SSM. By contrast if a murderer or a homosexual walks into a business and simply wants an ‘off the shelf’ product – a loaf of bread, a pistol, a passport photo etc, there is no grounds for refusing what is a standard serviceproduct.

          • RKitty01

            if they feel so strongly about it, then maybe they shouldn’t be in business where they could possibly be forced to deal with a situation like that

          • Andrew Mason

            That’s the logic of the Soviet Union. If Christians (and any other like minded souls) shouldn’t be in business where they must deal with SSM, and government determines that SSM affects all businesses, then Christians etc cannot own any business. Don’t think this makes sense? Then why was the USDA curtailing religious freedom rather than doing their job? And if Christians cannot run businesses, why do you think they can retain jobs as employees? Sure some Muslims in Britain wage economic jihad – breeding as many children as they can whilst insisting the British taxpayer support them all, but is that the sort of model you want for the US?

          • Many Sparrows

            Well said @disqus_1TqslviEiv:disqus.

          • RKitty01

            There are plenty of Christians who own businesses and who are fine with not discriminating against people. There are plenty of Christians who are employed by businesses and are fine with not discriminating against people.

          • Andrew Mason

            Except we’re not talking about discriminating against people, we’re talking about whether businesses, or employees, are forced to violate their conscience etc. Furthermore the difficulty is that there are branches of Christianity. Consider the recent Yancey article. Progressive Christians worry about politics not what the Bible claims, whilst Bible Believing Christian care about what the Bible says.

          • RKitty01

            we are talking about people being discriminated against; they’re not being treated in the same manner as others. if your beliefs lead you to discriminating against others, then maybe you shouldn’t be in a business that caters to the general public

          • Andrew Mason

            Certainly Christians are being discriminated against, that they are not being treated the same as others. The problem is at least one Colorado court has ruled that beliefs are grounds for businesses discriminating against Christians. Google and other corporations certainly seem to believe they have a right to limit the freedoms granted to Christians, and yet they’re much slower, or completely oblivious, to offensive content.

          • RKitty01

            You’re confused but I guess that’s normal for you. The Colorado court ruled that the business owners needed to follow the law. They didn’t.

          • RKitty01

            Using the phrase “lifestyle choice” immediately invalidates any argument. Religion is a lifestyle choice.

          • Andrew Mason

            And that’s the problem, it really isn’t. Have you never heard of religious orientation? You choose whether or not to practice homosexuality, or to espouse homosexual values. By contrast Truth is. The moment you insist that a baker, or a wedding photographer or an employee or … in some way support your lifestyle choice you’re imposing on their religious orientation.

          • RKitty01

            So when did you choose to be straight?

          • Andrew Mason

            Why assume that I have? Why assume that I am any particular age, or practicing any particular lifestyle?

          • RKitty01

            Being straight is a lifestyle?

          • Andrew Mason

            Straight is a homosexual concept.

          • RKitty01

            no

  • cestusdei

    It won’t end there. They are beginning to demand that you think and believe as they do. Silence will not work forever. In the end you must affirm, toss that pinch of incense on the altar, or it’s to the lions with you.

  • Joshua Oreskovich

    Even being autistic matters not to the lib-fascist regime, first they feel sorry for you then fire you anyways because you are too much trouble.

  • Hildabeast

    Not only do I not hide my Christian beliefs from my employer, I advertise them personally on my website. Anyone who’s ever googled my name will hit my website and know exactly what I represent. This way, I don’t have to tell any coworkers that I am a disciple of Christ, therefore I don’t proselytize at work which is against company policy, however I heavily rely on people’s nosiness to enter every coworker’s name into a search engine at least once just to see who they’re working with. Sooner or later, they all find out I am a rabid disciple of Jesus Christ and interestingly enough I notice their changes in attitude over time – likely based on the fact that some are drawn to the light and others fear they will be exposed or “feel uncomfortable” around people who love God… I don’t even talk to some, and they shun me, it’s amazing what the name of Jesus does to people – cuts right through their soul.

    God has put me in a company for the last year and a half where there’s a very high number of Christians starting from top management and down to a number of employees that work in my group. The guy who initially spoke to me on the phone, bless his heart, is a rabid Jesus Christ disciple too, and his office is heavily decorated in a Christian theme.. I get in a meditative trance every time I see all the things in his office :).. It’s good to know he too carries his heart for God on his sleeve… eventually I found out there’s a number of Christians in the company and they more or less all know who they are. Those that are will come up around me and in my vicinity even talk about God, church, prayer, etc. I also have employees who are profane – they also know that I’m good at accepting all kinds of trash talk without making anyone feel guilty… They too know I am a Christian and are never bothered by that fact, in fact, most of the ones who aren’t are very friendly with me and others who know they are Christian. The reason for this accepting attitude is because TOP management and leadership are solid Christian folk in their personal lives…

    The company thrives, there’s a good balance of life and work, employees feel valued and appreciated and turnover is almost non-existent. There’s a retirement of someone who’s been 20+ years with the company almost every month.

    I thank God every day for putting me where I am.

Inspiration
Covetous? Who, Me?
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us