Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Corporations are dealing with the same problem. How many employees does UPS have? How many does Microsoft have? Enron? If any of them do something that hurts another person while acting in their capacity as an employee, they will incur liability for their company.
|
I think the corporation-church comparisons are poor analogies (the "shareholder" comment was a bit of sarcastic joking).
We're getting to a point in our society where no one can do anything nice for anyone for fear of a lawsuit. Everyone is carrying silly liabilities around with them such that if they breath wrong, they're gonna owe somebody millions. I remember someone commenting a while back about being unwilling to help lift a kid in a public restroom up to the sink (to wash his hands) for fear of some accusation of sexual harassment.
When I go visit someone in their home because the EQ president (or bishop) has asked me too, or because I feel a spiritual obligation as a MP holder, I am not acting in any official capacity for the church. I'm just being a nice guy. The law may not see it that way, but it ought to. There is no way, even if there weren't all the
other extenuating factors (what we're calling "scope"), that the church should be held liable for this on the basis of "agency."