Court Upholds Expulsion of Student Who Opposes Homosexuality

[chfaunce]

My turn!

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

All she did was refuse to counsel clients she didn't want too. Why can anyone force her to provide services to those she doesn't want to? Does a lawyer have to provide their services to a client they don't feel they can adequately represent because of the alleged crime?

The school went to far when it required her to violate her religious beliefs in order to continue in the program. Liberals would be doing a double back-flip if a Muslim religious student was kicked out of the program because the school required they pray to the Christian God and explore Christianity, but refused.

As I mentioned earlier, I would agree that the utlimate outcome was a bit overkill. A better outcome, I think, would have been to offer some reasonable avenue of reconciliation and if that failed, simply not allow her to graduate with a degree in that particular study (student counselling). If she was in private practice, this would be a non-issue, you're right. But a public university is not a private practice. I also don't see her making it too far as a school counselor, at least in a public school.

Objectively speaking (and not subjective to any particular belief or personal faith), I still don't see how her religious beliefs were violated. Nobody was forcing her to accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. I still see this really as a case of discrimination, and I still see that she was offered at least one opportunity to remain within the program. Looking at this from the school's perspective, this was more than likely sheer mitigation of risk. The risk is that a school which is known to tolerate discrimination of any sort is unlikely (perhaps) to attract as many new students, and also opens itself up to civil suit, regardless of legal theory. Your comment regarding the Muslim student is a little off topic - in that example, yes, the freedom of religion is infringed upon, and this is unconstitutional. Also, I think we can all agree that exploring alternative religions in an academic setting (a class, for instance) is a little different than being forced to pray to another deity. I attend church with my wife - not because I believe, but because this is important to her. The pastor leads study groups once a week where yes, other religions are studied. That I am aware, nobody is having Judaism or Islam or Catholicism or any other religion forced upon them. Nobody is being forced to agree with or subscribe to anything which contradicts their faith. Likewise, in this particular story / article, nobody is forcing the Christian student to worship any other God, or practice any other faith. Her freedom to practice any faith is not infringed upon; it is her open discrimination against another set of people which do not share her values that is the issue. To play the what-if game, what if in my religion (if I had one) the belief was held that black people were inferior to white people, or that women were inferior to men, and as such, I openly discriminated against and refused to interact with those people in an open and mixed environment? By your argument, this would be entirely acceptable, would it not? After all, it's simply my belief, right? And this therefore makes the act of discrimination acceptable?

I see your position, but I simply don't see this as a constitutional infringement.

[gunderwood]

My turn!

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

All she did was refuse to counsel clients she didn't want too. Why can anyone force her to provide services to those she doesn't want to? Does a lawyer have to provide their services to a client they don't feel they can adequately represent because of the alleged crime?

The school went to far when it required her to violate her religious beliefs in order to continue in the program. Liberals would be doing a double back-flip if a Muslim religious student was kicked out of the program because the school required they pray to the Christian God and explore Christianity, but refused.

As I mentioned earlier, I would agree that the utlimate outcome was a bit overkill. A better outcome, I think, would have been to offer some reasonable avenue of reconciliation and if that failed, simply not allow her to graduate with a degree in that particular study (student counselling). If she was in private practice, this would be a non-issue, you're right. But a public university is not a private practice. I also don't see her making it too far as a school counselor, at least in a public school.

Objectively speaking (and not subjective to any particular belief or personal faith), I still don't see how her religious beliefs were violated. Nobody was forcing her to accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. I still see this really as a case of discrimination, and I still see that she was offered at least one opportunity to remain within the program. Looking at this from the school's perspective, this was more than likely sheer mitigation of risk. The risk is that a school which is known to tolerate discrimination of any sort is unlikely (perhaps) to attract as many new students, and also opens itself up to civil suit, regardless of legal theory. Your comment regarding the Muslim student is a little off topic - in that example, yes, the freedom of religion is infringed upon, and this is unconstitutional. Also, I think we can all agree that exploring alternative religions in an academic setting (a class, for instance) is a little different than being forced to pray to another deity. I attend church with my wife - not because I believe, but because this is important to her. The pastor leads study groups once a week where yes, other religions are studied. That I am aware, nobody is having Judaism or Islam or Catholicism or any other religion forced upon them. Nobody is being forced to agree with or subscribe to anything which contradicts their faith. Likewise, in this particular story / article, nobody is forcing the Christian student to worship any other God, or practice any other faith. Her freedom to practice any faith is not infringed upon; it is her open discrimination against another set of people which do not share her values that is the issue. To play the what-if game, what if in my religion (if I had one) the belief was held that black people were inferior to white people, or that women were inferior to men, and as such, I openly discriminated against and refused to interact with those people in an open and mixed environment? By your argument, this would be entirely acceptable, would it not? After all, it's simply my belief, right? And this therefore makes the act of discrimination acceptable?

I see your position, but I simply don't see this as a constitutional infringement.

Do you know what is in "counseling" programs and text books? I'm guessing not if you think the Muslim comment is off topic. They teach how to handle and deal with particular issues, which includes ways to resolve them. In order to pass such a program as the public school has defined it, she would have to counsel a homosexual student and provide the answers to questions as the textbooks/teachers suggest (just like any other program). However, those setting the "guidelines" for counseling view homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Such counseling requires one to encourage the homosexual lifestyle as "normal" and help find solutions which don't reject that lifestyle.

Clearly she feels that her religion, Christianity in this case, does not permit her to counsel a sin as acceptable and normal behavior. If she does it, she is lying and deceiving. Praying to another god is idolatry (both Christianity and Islam prohibit that), but so is lying prohibited in Christianity. As theGodFather already pointed out, Christianity clearly forbids homosexuality and condemns it as an sin (like a lot of other things). It is a sin like others and can be dealt with and forgiven, but for her to counsel a practising homosexual that what they are doing is not sin should be an obvious contradiction of her religion.

If she counsels them as her religion requires of her to do, she definitely doesn't pass. If she refuses, she doesn't either. She is d*mned if she does and d*mned if she doesn't (pardon the pun). Where is your tolerance? The program as it was defined by a public school required her to violate one or several of the 10 commandments and many other teachings throughout the Bible (which she holds as the word of God). A public school just made it clear that Christians are not welcome in their counseling programs or at least they must leave their religion at the door. A private institution may be able to do that, but a public one can't violate the First Amendment.

Religion studies actually do practice or "experience" various religious ceremonies or "prayers." That isn't hearsay, I've seen it first hand (requiring Buddhist meditation in particular). That wasn't a contrived if, that was a yes, I've seen it first hand and it is part of most religion programs. Just like it is in this counseling program. You made a nice straw-man and knocked him down. Congrats.

I am not surprised one bit that the race card came out from you...

[chfaunce]

Gunderwood, I would have liked to have thought that you were above personal attacks and could see logic for what it was, free from personal subjection, but I'm seeing this is not the case. Ah, well.

The point, I see you've missed it.

And if you think I'm racist, then my wife would probably like a word with you.

[TheGodfather]

Gunderwood, I would have liked to have thought that you were above personal attacks

Look who's talking!!!!!!

[chfaunce]

Ah, yes, another very grown-up response from Ben. I'm a little disappointed that there's no random YouTube clip, though.

[TheGodfather]

grown-up

"You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."








P.S. Sorry to steal your troll Garrett. Back to you!

[gunderwood]

Gunderwood, I would have liked to have thought that you were above personal attacks and could see logic for what it was, free from personal subjection, but I'm seeing this is not the case. Ah, well.

The point, I see you've missed it.

And if you think I'm racist, then my wife would probably like a word with you.

I explained why the public school was violating her rights by requiring her to violate her religious beliefs and conscience in order to obtain a degree.

I did not miss the point, I ignored it because it was not relevant. You created a religion out of thin air that provided you the context to "debunk" my argument, that is a straw-man...it requires no response other than what I gave it.

I did not say you were racist. How did you read that out of "playing the race card?" The race card is commonly used in this country by those who wish to profit from it or have nothing further to argue with so they need a nuke to make it look like they have a point. Usually it is brought out by liberals/democrats, but others are not above it too. Your example focused on race, while mine focused on religion, which if I am not mistaken was the whole point of this thread. You made a massive leap to a mythical religion that hates black people. You played the race card in hopes that some people would jump to your rescue just because you are on the minorities side or people would back down from arguing with you so they don't appear racist.

Playing the race card doesn't make you a racist, nor does it call you names, nor is it a personal attack (nice try though). It is a statement of fact that you brought race into this argument where it has no purpose. I said I wasn't surprise it came from you because you tend to argue very liberal points and liberals tend to interject race into everything these days. I actually have no idea what race or ethnicity you are and to be honest, it doesn't matter. If you make a good point, you make a good point. If you're rambling, you're rambling. Race isn't germane.

Furthermore, what does your wife have to do with any of this? Are we going to have a beer and talk about how you yell profanities at black children whenever you pass the local school? Or are we going to talk about how you have adopted kids from all over the world? I don't know and don't really care because kids, beer, your wife, and race have nothing to do with this thread.

[chfaunce]

Nevermind. I think I'd have an easier time explaining color to a blind man than the logic of my argument, and further, the point of the article. How you find the discrimination aspect is irrelevant, I have absolutely no idea. Ok, I do, it's Christian bias, and the story was spun by right leaning Faux News, but whatever...

The race card was not pulled. What next? The sexist card? My hypothesis followed precisely the same logic as yours, only instead of using Christianity and homosexuality, I used race, gender, and an imaginary religion as examples. Again, you missed the point and created yet another issue that was never primary, perhaps because you're unwilling or unable to discuss this rationally. What's the difference, other than I didn't align the argument with conservative or Christian values?

Relax you two, nobody's coming to steal your Jesus. Hurrr durrrr, derp derp derp.

[gunderwood]

Nevermind. I think I'd have an easier time explaining color to a blind man than the logic of my argument, and further, the point of the article. How you find the discrimination aspect is irrelevant, I have absolutely no idea. Ok, I do, it's Christian bias, and the story was spun by right leaning Faux News, but whatever...

The race card was not pulled. What next? The sexist card? My hypothesis followed precisely the same logic as yours, only instead of using Christianity and homosexuality, I used race, gender, and an imaginary religion as examples. Again, you missed the point and created yet another issue that was never primary, perhaps because you're unwilling or unable to discuss this rationally. What's the difference, other than I didn't align the argument with conservative or Christian values?

Relax you two, nobody's coming to steal your Jesus. Hurrr durrrr, derp derp derp.

You crack me up.

I used a real example that happens (and happened in this case) and you agreed that to force someone to violate their religion at a public university violated the First Amendment as long as they were Muslim. You had to create a mythical religion and base it off of race just trying trying to cover for your "logic." Strawmen and the race card (which is a red herring) are not logic. Sorry, try again.

Hurrr durrrr, derp derp derp.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Did you transfer your personal noises into the computer (voice recognition)? Or are you claiming that theGodFather and I are retards? Generally, society frowns on such low brow "jokes" which imply negative characteristics to our most vulnerable members. Again, no surprise here considering the source.

Those were rhetorical questions, but it does get at the root problem. You don't believe in God and anyone who does is a retard (your implication, not mine). Again, your intolerance is astounding.

Edit: FYI: Tolerance does not require me to agree with homosexuality or Islam or your race politics or anything. It simply means I won't use the force of government and its publicly funded institutions to impose my views on you. Clearly, that was done here and you support it because of your anti-religion views...unless it is Islam of course.

[TheGodfather]

I think I'm going to change his name. Michael just doesn't cut it anymore.

From now on, I will call him "Rosie"!

My little Rosie troll...

[chfaunce]

Edit: FYI: Tolerance does not require me to agree with homosexuality or Islam or your race politics or anything. It simply means I won't use the force of government and its publicly funded institutions to impose my views on you. Clearly, that was done here and you support it because of your anti-religion views...unless it is Islam of course.

No, toleranace does not require you to agree with anything. That goes without saying. And, no, nobody made any attempt to impose their views upon the student which was excused. I'm sorry, was she being forced to be a lesbian? I must have overread that part of the article. And no, I am not anti-religion. I simply do not subscribe to any particular organized faith. I thought that was pretty clear.

Have a good one - I must say, the wharrrgarbl here far exceeds that of the Fark forums, and those are hard to beat!

[gunderwood]

Have a good one - I must say, the wharrrgarbl here far exceeds that of the Fark forums, and those are hard to beat!

Now everything is clear, you read and/or post to fark.

I wouldn't associate with those forums if I were you...you will never get rid of that Rosie nickname.

[gunderwood]

And, no, nobody made any attempt to impose their views upon the student which was excused. I'm sorry, was she being forced to be a lesbian?

You either didn't read my post or need better reading comprehension. Like any exam or test you have to give the "right" answer. In this case, the right answer is that homosexuality is ok, a normal lifestyle choice, etc. She clearly disagrees with that position and so does her religion. It would require her to sin in order to give the "right" answer.

Now that we understand tolerance, shouldn't she be commended? She refused to impose her religious beliefs on homosexual students/volunteers for the sake of gaining a degree. She was tolerant enough to not go ahead with the assignment and push her religious views on others. The school was intolerant of her religious beliefs because they wouldn't work with her to find a different way to get her experience. She either had to commit a sin in her religion or be intolerant (which would have failed her anyways).

[chfaunce]

The school was intolerant of her religious beliefs because they wouldn't work with her to find a different way to get her experience. She either had to commit a sin in her religion or be intolerant (which would have failed her anyways).

No, a public university was intolerant of discrimination. That's the point. If she is grounded that strongly in her faith, perhaps she should have enrolled in a Christian university which would have been better aligned with her beliefs - there are several. The school offered a remediation plan, which she did not accept and was within her right not to accept. Besides, I'm sure that if she'd asked, Christ would have forgiven her sin.

So, are you saying that disrimination is something which should be tolerated?

[gunderwood]

The school was intolerant of her religious beliefs because they wouldn't work with her to find a different way to get her experience. She either had to commit a sin in her religion or be intolerant (which would have failed her anyways).

No, a public university was intolerant of discrimination. That's the point. If she is grounded that strongly in her faith, perhaps she should have enrolled in a Christian university which would have been better aligned with her beliefs - there are several. The school offered a remediation plan, which she did not accept and was within her right not to accept. Besides, I'm sure that if she'd asked, Christ would have forgiven her sin.

So, are you saying that disrimination is something which should be tolerated?

Once again you have twisted what actually happened to meet your personal opinion. Let me quote it for you:

“Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values,” he wrote in a portion of his ruling posted by The Detroit News. “In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

What do you not understand about them offering her no choice but to change her ways, to see her errors? The remediation plan wasn't a compromise, it was the university saying if you do what we told you to the first time we will let this all go away. If you change your beliefs we will let it slide. Disgusting.

Discrmination in of itself is not wrong. Individuals discriminate all the time and in many ways. You choose who your friends are. You choose what company to work for or not to at all. You choose all kinds of things and discriminate between them. Your choices might make you an awful person, but noone has the right to force you to do otherwise unless you are in a public position. You could take the stance that she is the most bigoted person ever, but it wouldn't matter. That is her choice. As long as she isn't requiring you to do as she does, think what you want, argue against that being a proper or good choice, but never are you allowed to use the power of the government to change her because you don't like it. That is what "social policy" is all about for you liberals. You don't like how someone behaves so you use the government to change their minds. How civilized of you.

Illegal discrimination is different. Government and their officials can not discriminate in the fulfilment of their official duties. A homosexual should not be turned away for unemployment benefits because they are a homosexual. A Muslim should not be turn down for citizenship because they are Muslim. Etc. She is not an agent of the state. She is a private citizen and should be able to choose whom she wishes to provide services too and how, even if you don't like it. That is the issue at hand and the judge points that out:

Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values

The court case and this thread are all discussing if a public university has the rational to require, not suggest, but require a student to do things which may go against their personal beliefs. That isn't discrimination on her part. She is being required to counsel homosexuals in a manner in which her religion does not support. She is being required through her couseling to support their choices. Clearly, she is not free to counsel them and show them the error of their ways (like the school is doing to her). I thought you liberals liked diversity? I thought you claimed different view points (homosexuality as a sin vs a lifestyle) made for a better world. Oh wait, I forgot it only applies when you agree with it.

Finally, you sir have shown that you are unqualified to be providing insight into Christian theology. Claiming Christ would forgive her if she asked is insulting and intolerant of you. Once again you are "forcing" your view of Christianity on her by arguing that it isn't a big deal because you have no respect for her God and His commands. Clearly she fears the Lord more than men.

[gunderwood]

Besides, why should a person of faith have to enroll in a different, non-public school? If they aren't setting religious standards, why isn't she welcome to practice her counseling profession in a manner consistent with her religious beliefs? Couldn't she counsel them as to why homosexuality is a sin and how God will forgive them for it? Wait a minute, that goes against the counseling standards the university put in place (ACA's I believe).

[gunderwood]

Here is the official position the university has implemented through the ACA:

During the third session of counseling, a client reports that he is gay and states, "I want to change my way of life and not be gay anymore. It's not just that I don't want to act on my sexual attraction to men. I don't want to be attracted to them at all except for as friends. I want to change my life so I can get married to a woman and have children with her." At the suggestion of a friend, the client has read about reparative/conversion therapy and has researched this approach on the Internet. He is convinced this is the route he wants to take.

The counselor listens carefully to what the client has to say, asks appropriate questions and engages in a clinically appropriate discussion. The counselor informs the client that, although she is happy to continue working with him, she does not believe reparative/conversion therapy is effective and no empirical support exists for the approach. She further states that this form of therapy can actually be harmful to clients, so she will not offer this as a treatment. The client says he is disappointed that the counselor will not honor his wishes. He then asks for a referral to another counselor or therapist who will work with him to "change his sexual orientation."

The university and the ACA have determined that a Christian approach to counseling a homosexual is not allowed and can not be tolerated. So yes, the university is being intolerant of her religious views (so is the ACA, but they are a private organization so while I disagree, I will defend their ability to do so).

[chfaunce]

I'm forcing my view of Christianity upon her? You're right, I'm using one of my powerful Liberal jedi mind tricks. I think it's working. Christ.... (pun intended)

I'm not sure if you really believe everything you're saygin, or just playing devil's advocate. I know, I'm one of those pesky liberals (or something), so I'm clearly the devil.

"She is not an agent of the state. She is a private citizen and should be able to choose whom she wishes to provide services too even if you don't like it. That is the issue at hand and the judge points that out:"

She's a student. She's enrolled in a public school where not everyone may share her beliefs. She's not a counselor in private practice. Don't like it? Change schools (like a Christian one - might even be free of homosexuals!), or consider another career path. Nobody forced her to go to this school.

"She is being required through her couseling to support their choices."

Oh, really? She's being required to support their choices? Perhaps that's your interpretation. It's not necessarily reality. Understanding and supporting are separate things.

"You don't like how someone behaves so you use the government to change their minds. How civilized of you." Sooo, this is something that I'm doing personally? It's been my experience that when Christians don't like how someone behaves, they spew Bible verses and tell the person "believe what I believe, or you're going to hell." Very civilized indeed! Irony, it just happens...

"I thought you claimed different view points (homosexuality as a sin vs a lifestyle) made for a better world." They do. Publicly discounting one set of people because their beliefs contradict yours? Not so great. I've noticed lately that we're pretty divided as a nation. The whole left versus right thing isn't helping. That's another topic of debate, though.

"you have no respect for her God and His commands." Well, I suppose you're close - I simply don't acknowledge the existence of God, hers, yours, or anyone's for that matter. And, God's commands existed long before the birth of Christ, just for the record.

"Claiming Christ would forgive her if she asked is insulting and intolerant of you." Not even sure how to respond to that one. So, Christ does not forgive you then if you commit a sin and ask for forgiveness?

[chfaunce]

Here is the official position the university has implemented through the ACA:

During the third session of counseling, a client reports that he is gay and states, "I want to change my way of life and not be gay anymore. It's not just that I don't want to act on my sexual attraction to men. I don't want to be attracted to them at all except for as friends. I want to change my life so I can get married to a woman and have children with her." At the suggestion of a friend, the client has read about reparative/conversion therapy and has researched this approach on the Internet. He is convinced this is the route he wants to take.

The counselor listens carefully to what the client has to say, asks appropriate questions and engages in a clinically appropriate discussion. The counselor informs the client that, although she is happy to continue working with him, she does not believe reparative/conversion therapy is effective and no empirical support exists for the approach. She further states that this form of therapy can actually be harmful to clients, so she will not offer this as a treatment. The client says he is disappointed that the counselor will not honor his wishes. He then asks for a referral to another counselor or therapist who will work with him to "change his sexual orientation."

The university and the ACA have determined that a Christian approach to counseling a homosexual is not allowed and can not be tolerated. So yes, the university is being intolerant of her religious views (so is the ACA, but they are a private organization so while I disagree, I will defend their ability to do so).

That just crossed another line. This assumes that homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is a choice. Again, another topic, and not a political one. The reparative / conversion therapy finding has nothing to do with Christianity; there is simply no evidence to support its effectiveness.

Edit: your interpretation of the finding suggests that a Christian approach to counselling is ineffective. Though, I see nothing stating that in the finding excerpt - that is, I see "reparative / conversion therapy", not "Christian therapy".

[chfaunce]

I wouldn't associate with those forums if I were you...you will never get rid of that Rosie nickname.

Oh, I don't know, the "Florida" tagged articles are pretty entertaining.