I don't know that I'll be able to word my question right or if this is even the right place to put this question/discussion...but here goes. (it definitely won't be eloquent--or even spelled correctly!

)
When considering leadership and choices made for you by leadership, what is the proper boundary for leadership authority (as the employer) vs. leadership abuse? So if those in leadership over you push ("request") you to do something against your convictions (such as placing children in boarding school) or something against your better judgement or knowledge of the situation (such as moving into a new ministry role)--that, in hind sight, sounds like leadership abuse. Especially if it is done without consulting and discussing it with you. And I realize we are all free to keep ourselves under that leadership or to go our own way...but that's another discussion.
So what about the things that are negotiable? The decisions aren't sin, they aren't hurting your family, they don't even have long lasting effects, but the leadership decisions were hurtful to you and you disagree with them. You confront them, but they don't agree that their decision was wrong. They are sorry you were hurt, but they don't think any wrong was done. Do you just agree to disagree? I mean you can't make people agree with your point of view.
So my question or point is this: When placing yourself under someone's leadership, you have to realize that you won't always agree. You will have to make some choices, or live by some choices made for you, that you don't agree with. That's just part of being in a role of follower/employee, right? You can confront wrong and not let that go, but when it's just a difference of opinion, however strongly held, you choose to do one of two things: live with the decision or leave the job.
So what do you do with that hurt....?