Court Upholds Expulsion of Student Who Opposes Homosexuality

[gunderwood]

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?

Your whole post is nothing but intolerance towards one of the worlds major religions. I put force in quotes for a reason. You are suggesting that it is ok for her to do this because God will forgive her, while you actually have no respect for her God's commandments. It is like a Christian making fun of a Muslim for not eating pork. While the Christian doesn't understand it and may think it is funny, it is not very tolerant for them to harass a Muslim about not eating pork. Serious inquiries are different.

What is ironic is that the very water carrier of tolerance is intolerant of another's religious beliefs to the point they put words in other mouths about going to hell. I've had a bunch of agnostic friends and you aren't agnostic. Real agnostic's are not foaming at the mouth when it comes to religion and particularly Christianity. We call that atheism. A lot of atheists fly under the color of being agnostic because of the social negativity towards being an atheist.

I posted the actual, official position of the ACA (which the school adopted). It clearly says that you can not counsel a homosexual on ways to change their behavior and are required to tell them their lifestyle is ok (I'm paraphrasing). That position leaves no room for a Christian counselor. She should be able to enroll and complete a degree at a public university regardless of her beliefs because it is a public university. Yes, she could have gone to a different school, but this is a public university where they aren't suppose to be able to do this sort of thing. A public university is an extension of the government and is funded as such.

[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).

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".

Please do explain to me what the Christian approach to homosexual counseling is? I'll save you the trouble...

TheGodFather already pointed it out. The Christian view is that it is a choice and a sin against God. God created man and women to be together in a sexual relationship. Christian counseling to homosexuality is just that. Of course, there would be outrage if they said no Christian counseling and it wouldn't stand in court. They choose those words because it describes that type of counseling without coming out and saying it.

Edit: Notice they don't just say there is no evidence (which is debatable), but that they must refuse to offer it.

[chfaunce]

Your whole post is nothing but intolerance towards one of the worlds major religions.

Real agnostic's are not foaming at the mouth when it comes to religion and particularly Christianity. We call that atheism. A lot of atheists fly under the color of being agnostic because of the social negativity towards being an atheist.

I posted the actual, official position of the ACA (which the school adopted). It clearly says that you can not counsel a homosexual on ways to change their behavior and are required to tell them their lifestyle is ok (I'm paraphrasing). That position leaves no room for a Christian counselor. .

Oh noes, you've found me out, I'm a Christian hater. Seriously, that's what you think? Giggity.

Citation needed. I don't recall there being any social negativity towards atheists. Well, except by people of faith. Want to see foaming at the mouth? Visit a Baptist church.

You're interpretation of the excerpt is flawed, and you're simply adding your own little spin. The position the ACA is taking leaves little or no room for any counselor (regardless of their religion) because the reparative approach requested has been found ineffective and further, to be damaging to the requesting individual.

[chfaunce]

Please do explain to me what the Christian approach to homosexual counseling is? I'll save you the trouble...

Pray for God to cure them and if that fails, damn them to Hell? Isn't that how it works?

[gunderwood]

Please do explain to me what the Christian approach to homosexual counseling is? I'll save you the trouble...

Pray for God to cure them and if that fails, damn them to Hell? Isn't that how it works?

No, but your intolerance won't let you see past that.

[chfaunce]

Riiiiiight....

Wait, I know, the Christian approach is to suggest Catholocism, yes? Seems like that 'lifestyle' is pretty well accepted over there!

[gunderwood]

Your whole post is nothing but intolerance towards one of the worlds major religions.

Real agnostic's are not foaming at the mouth when it comes to religion and particularly Christianity. We call that atheism. A lot of atheists fly under the color of being agnostic because of the social negativity towards being an atheist.

I posted the actual, official position of the ACA (which the school adopted). It clearly says that you can not counsel a homosexual on ways to change their behavior and are required to tell them their lifestyle is ok (I'm paraphrasing). That position leaves no room for a Christian counselor. .

Oh noes, you've found me out, I'm a Christian hater. Seriously, that's what you think? Giggity.

Citation needed. I don't recall there being any social negativity towards atheists. Well, except by people of faith. Want to see foaming at the mouth? Visit a Baptist church.

You're interpretation of the excerpt is flawed, and you're simply adding your own little spin. The position the ACA is taking leaves little or no room for any counselor (regardless of their religion) because the reparative approach requested has been found ineffective and further, to be damaging to the requesting individual.

Well, you do seem to have no room for a Christian view on this subject. I.e. that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. While you may not hate Christians, you clearly are intolerant of their views.

Citation needed. I don't recall there being any social negativity towards atheists.

My personal experience when discussing this with them. They feel as if there is negativity towards their beliefs/lack there of(?) just as many homosexuals may also claim. However, here is a Gallup poll (slightly different question though, but is shows a clear bias when people won't vote for someone because they are an atheist):

Gallup has been asking people about whether they would vote for atheists for president for quite some time. Here are the numbers who have said "no" over the years:

February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigo ... urveys.htm

Same article goes on and asks the actual question:

In 2003, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on "religion and public life" which asked people about their attitudes towards a variety of groups, including atheists. People's opinions of atheists break down:

Very Favorable: 7%
Mostly Favorable: 27%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 33%

I should note that that is an atheist site claiming bias, so I'm projecting anything onto them.



The quote says, you can not offer reparative/conversion counselling to a homosexual as the official ACA policy. No spin on that, that is what it says. The Christian approach is not that type of counselling (generally called Gay Affirmation Therapy). While they may not allow other types of reparative/conversion counselling (I never claimed it was exclusively restricting a Christian approach), it does at the very least exclude a Christian approach as a sub-set. The university adopted a policy that excludes anyone in the other camp. The ACA may do that, just as a different private organization may choose to only support reparative/conversion counselling (they exist). The problem is the university adopted a policy from the ACA which excludes other views on the subject and there are other views.

As I said many times before, the ACA can do as they please, but a public university can not. Adopting an exclusionary policy and forcing students (who are still private citizens despite what you claim) to follow it at the expense of their religious beliefs is wrong.

[gunderwood]

Riiiiiight....

Wait, I know, the Christian approach is to suggest Catholocism, yes? Seems like that 'lifestyle' is pretty well accepted over there!

Again, more intolerance. As a matter of point, I'm not a Catholic and never have been. Even if I was, it still doesn't change the fact that you are very intolerant towards Christianity. So much so you can't even let their opinions have any public discourse. I have conceded extensively that the ACA and such can do as they please despite my disagreeing with them. I haven't called the ACA names, implied they are retards, idiots or anything of the such. However, for Christians you have done all of the above.

I disagree with the ACA, but have no interest in using a public institution to get them kicked out of the debate or silenced. That is anti-American. I disagree 100%, but respect their right to their opinion until they try to use public institutions to push their views on me or other Americans who may disagree with those views.

[chfaunce]

Even if I was, it still doesn't change the fact that you are very intolerant towards Christianity. So much so you can't even let their opinions have any public discourse.

No, actually I'm intolerant of Christian bigotry and hypocracy. Just for the record, so there's no confusion moving forward.

And, while people may not like atheists for whatever reason, it does seem that they're a little smarter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132655.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/li ... index.html

[gunderwood]

Even if I was, it still doesn't change the fact that you are very intolerant towards Christianity. So much so you can't even let their opinions have any public discourse.

No, actually I'm intolerant of Christian bigotry and hypocracy. Just for the record, so there's no confusion moving forward.

And, while people may not like atheists for whatever reason, it does seem that they're a little smarter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132655.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/li ... index.html

Loving the person and hating the action isn't bigotry. You clearly are intolerant of the view that homosexuality is a sin.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything (IQ). Am I to take that as an argument for your poor performance?

[chfaunce]

You clearly are intolerant of the view that homosexuality is a sin.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything (IQ). Am I to take that as an argument for your poor performance?

No, I'm simply suggesting that the conviction that homosexuality is a sin is bigoted. If you love the person, you love them for who they are, and what they are. Homosexuality is no more an 'act' than heterosexuality. I'm seeing that this is something you're having a difficult time grasping.

You're free to take anything however you'd like, dude. Whatever makes it easier to sleep at night. The passive agressive jabs just show your desperation.

[gunderwood]

You clearly are intolerant of the view that homosexuality is a sin.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything (IQ). Am I to take that as an argument for your poor performance?

No, I'm simply suggesting that the conviction that homosexuality is a sin is bigoted. If you love the person, you love them for who they are, and what they are. Homosexuality is no more an 'act' than heterosexuality. I'm seeing that this is something you're having a difficult time grasping.

You're free to take anything however you'd like, dude. Whatever makes it easier to sleep at night. The passive agressive jabs just show your desperation.

The concept is easy to grasp, but the validity of it is questionable. You are doing far more than suggesting it, you have gone so far as to support the use of government and pubic institutions to restrict the rights of private citizens when ever they fail your bigotry test. I.e. Does a public institution have the ability to choose a side (implement one sides ethics code which excludes other parties, in this case the ACA's) and silence the other? If the ACA required her to counsel that adultery was also morally acceptable and not a sin before God, I suspect we would be right back here as well. Of course, once again you would claim bigotry. In essence, anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and should be silenced.

That is the difference between you and me. I don't think it is right to use the force of government to silence my opponents, you do.

Passive aggressive jabs? Hardly. I simply pointed out and had a little fun at your expense when you were being a first class a$$. Interjecting retard onomatopoeia into a thread after posting a derogatory religious comment is not respectable and deserves to be ridiculed. That is just one example of many times you reverted to such childish rants.

I can only presume the reason you linked to potentially questionable IQ surveys was in some way to suggest you are better than thegodfather and I simply because of your lack of religion. I suspect that if your IQ really was higher than average you would have realized the foolishness of doing so before hitting the submit button. Generally, only those members of a group who are at the bottom of such a pool resort to pointing out the superiority of their group and its accomplishments. A true genius has no use for pointing out a groups accomplishments or supposed superiority, but rather stands on their own demonstrable superiority. Those who focus on group associations tend to do so in an attempt to appear better than they actually are by pretending they are what makes that group special. Furthermore, the supposed superiority of one group over another has been the basis for most bigotry and consequently great evils. Most of man's greatest atrocities have been based on assumptions of a groups superiority. Congratulations.

[zephyp]

Somebody way back up the line asked where Jesus condemned homosexuality in his teachings...

He did not condemn it directly but he did give us some clues...[recall that God in the OT condemned homosexuality many times]

To paraphrase some of Jesus' teachings...

I did not come to do away with the law [OT]. I came to fulfill the law which still stands. All the commandments rest upon these two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor...

Now, my interpretation after much thought over a couple of years...

Jesus cares not for the sin but He loves the sinner. He told the woman at the well - Go and sin no more...Let's examine the first of His "2" commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart...what does this truly mean? For me as a Christian to truly understand this and apply it to my life I need to get myself before God and ask Him...God show me what this means...How do I truly love You with all my heart...

So, I ask you to do the same. If you place yourself before God and truly seek his wisdom for you regarding how to love Him and He puts in on your heart to accept homosexuality and that its Ok, then you go for it.

We cannot merely quote the Bible or Jesus and let it stand at that. If we accept Him as the son of God [those of you professing not to believe in Him yet quoting Him do indeed obviously believe, else you would not quote] then we are forced to examine the context of different situations and place ourselves before God for wisdom.

To merely say that homosexuality is accepted by Jesus because he never spoke against it is folly. If you said that fine, if not, then my apologies.

That line of thinking is OT law. Things changed a little when Jesus stepped up...

Now another point, our job as believers is to live the will of God in our lives. One of those things is to spread the Gospel.

Ask yourself this -- who needs to hear God's word? The sinner. How will they possibly listen if you beat them senseless with a Bible? They won't.

We must use wisdom when "quoting" the Bible. And, we must be accepting of those who we feel are sinners [BTW, that would be all of us]...and just because we accept the "sinner" does not mean we accept the sin.

How can a doctor possibly help the sick unless he brings them into his office or goes to where they are...

[KaosDad]

DK - 'twas I who asked. You typed something brilliant; "So, I ask you to do the same. If you place yourself before God and truly seek his wisdom for you regarding how to love Him and He puts in on your heart to accept homosexuality and that its Ok, then you go for it."

Why do I think this is brilliant? For a few years I worked with a gent who was (presumably still is) gay. One day I got up the nerve to ask him if it was a choice. HIs response was along the lines of; "Why in the world whould I choose to become a pariah?" Indeed, why? This is my basis of having problems with the whole idea that homosexuality in itself is a sin. Man chooses to sin. I seriously do not think our sexual orientation is a choice any more than our gender at birth or skin color is.

I appreciate the fact that in Leviticus it speaks directly to the issue and this is the basis for many folks to say that homosexuality is a sin - I get that. But how many of those folks also enjoy a good pork BBQ? An oyster roast? Lobster tail? (I know - narrow example but you see my thinking) As was explained by my teacher, the DR. Reverand Marlin, Leviticus was probably written as a survival guide to the wandering tribes, not neccessarily the Word of God. The Word is contained in ten simple phrases.

This is why I asked and, again, I truly appreciate the responses.

[gunderwood]

Now another point, our job as believers is to live the will of God in our lives. One of those things is to spread the Gospel.

Ask yourself this -- who needs to hear God's word? The sinner. How will they possibly listen if you beat them senseless with a Bible? They won't.

We must use wisdom when "quoting" the Bible. And, we must be accepting of those who we feel are sinners [BTW, that would be all of us]...and just because we accept the "sinner" does not mean we accept the sin.

How can a doctor possibly help the sick unless he brings them into his office or goes to where they are...

Agreed, but you missed a key point.

The university adopted the ACA's policy which specifically forbids her using her religious beliefs to reach out to homosexuals. She clearly believes that homosexuality is a sin (Christianity is spit on this), but is being forced by the ACA policy/university to follow their solution which is gay affirmation therapy. If GAT was taught along side other alternatives and she was free to practice as she pleased, then there wouldn't be an issue. She isn't refusing to work with homosexuals, but rather to work with them in the way that the ACA/university deems acceptable. Their policy clearly restricts her ability to exercise alternative treatments. The ACA goes so far as to require it of their members (and I presume the university does too as they adopted and defended the policy) to refuse any alternative to GAT even if it is requested by the client.

From what I can find on the subject, she isn't rejecting the person, but the policy which requires her to treat sin as something else (even to encourage it). We don't have to agree with her beliefs to understand that forcing someone to do this is wrong. That is what I've spent the last two pages arguing. She shouldn't be forced by the university to contradict her beliefs.

Alternatives which she seems to agree with do exist and the ACA/university explicitly forbid them, which is something a public university should not be doing.

[gunderwood]

DK - 'twas I who asked. You typed something brilliant; "So, I ask you to do the same. If you place yourself before God and truly seek his wisdom for you regarding how to love Him and He puts in on your heart to accept homosexuality and that its Ok, then you go for it."

Why do I think this is brilliant? For a few years I worked with a gent who was (presumably still is) gay. One day I got up the nerve to ask him if it was a choice. HIs response was along the lines of; "Why in the world whould I choose to become a pariah?" Indeed, why? This is my basis of having problems with the whole idea that homosexuality in itself is a sin. Man chooses to sin. I seriously do not think our sexual orientation is a choice any more than our gender at birth or skin color is.

I appreciate the fact that in Leviticus it speaks directly to the issue and this is the basis for many folks to say that homosexuality is a sin - I get that. But how many of those folks also enjoy a good pork BBQ? An oyster roast? Lobster tail? (I know - narrow example but you see my thinking) As was explained by my teacher, the DR. Reverand Marlin, Leviticus was probably written as a survival guide to the wandering tribes, not neccessarily the Word of God. The Word is contained in ten simple phrases.

This is why I asked and, again, I truly appreciate the responses.

Even ignoring Leviticus (as you requested), theGodFather already addressed this.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I Corinthians 6:9 - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I Timothy 1:8-11 - "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

Jude 1:6-7 - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

There are other references too. The problem is translations. In English we loose the meaning of complex Hebrew or Greek words. Just like how thou shall not murder (literally translated and is consistent with Jewish law then and now. I.e. self defense and war were exceptions) has become thou shall not kill in some translations. Strictly speaking, the second translation is wrong. There was plenty of lawful bloodshed in the OT and even in the NT the apostles carried weapons (how else did Peter draw his sword and cut the servants ear off?) and even were commanded to sell stuff to acquire weapons for their journeys. Clearly that would not be acceptable if the correct translation and application was thou shall not kill. Same thing is going on with homosexuality. With a strict translation (which is hard to read or comprehend due to the structural differences) it clearly means homosexuality, but it flows better or sounds better translated as strange flesh or something else. Thus, it is easy to miss.

[TheGodfather]

How will they possibly listen if you beat them senseless with a Bible?

I don't think anyone here intends to bear anybody senseless with the Bible. When a troll runs onto the forum, it's just a natural reaction to beat them senseless with whatever happens to be in our hands at the time.

[zephyp]

Now another point, our job as believers is to live the will of God in our lives. One of those things is to spread the Gospel.

Ask yourself this -- who needs to hear God's word? The sinner. How will they possibly listen if you beat them senseless with a Bible? They won't.

We must use wisdom when "quoting" the Bible. And, we must be accepting of those who we feel are sinners [BTW, that would be all of us]...and just because we accept the "sinner" does not mean we accept the sin.

How can a doctor possibly help the sick unless he brings them into his office or goes to where they are...

Agreed, but you missed a key point.

The university adopted the ACA's policy which specifically forbids her using her religious beliefs to reach out to homosexuals. She clearly believes that homosexuality is a sin (Christianity is spit on this), but is being forced by the ACA policy/university to follow their solution which is gay affirmation therapy. If GAT was taught along side other alternatives and she was free to practice as she pleased, then there wouldn't be an issue. She isn't refusing to work with homosexuals, but rather to work with them in the way that the ACA/university deems acceptable. Their policy clearly restricts her ability to exercise alternative treatments. The ACA goes so far as to require it of their members (and I presume the university does too as they adopted and defended the policy) to refuse any alternative to GAT even if it is requested by the client.

From what I can find on the subject, she isn't rejecting the person, but the policy which requires her to treat sin as something else (even to encourage it). We don't have to agree with her beliefs to understand that forcing someone to do this is wrong. That is what I've spent the last two pages arguing. She shouldn't be forced by the university to contradict her beliefs.

Alternatives which she seems to agree with do exist and the ACA/university explicitly forbid them, which is something a public university should not be doing.

Ok, I missed something. If she must as part of her counseling duties hold their hand and tell them explicitly that its ok to be gay and that God wont hold it against them then she should shake the dust from her feet and leave it behind without a backwards glance.

I truly believe there are more ways than one to get the Gospel spread but I dont see anyway around this one...and we should never compromise our beliefs as Christians.

And, I agree. A public university has no business taking this position. But it has and no matter how loudly we protest they will persevere...the good news is not for long...

[zephyp]

How will they possibly listen if you beat them senseless with a Bible?

I don't think anyone here intends to bear anybody senseless with the Bible. When a troll runs onto the forum, it's just a natural reaction to beat them senseless with whatever happens to be in our hands at the time.

Indeed. I guess from the substance of your posts that a Bible usually rests in one hand?

But, you get my point...we cant win souls for Christ that way...we must woo those who will be wooed and be mindful of casting pearls before swine...lest they be trampled.

[gunderwood]

Now another point, our job as believers is to live the will of God in our lives. One of those things is to spread the Gospel.

Ask yourself this -- who needs to hear God's word? The sinner. How will they possibly listen if you beat them senseless with a Bible? They won't.

We must use wisdom when "quoting" the Bible. And, we must be accepting of those who we feel are sinners [BTW, that would be all of us]...and just because we accept the "sinner" does not mean we accept the sin.

How can a doctor possibly help the sick unless he brings them into his office or goes to where they are...

Agreed, but you missed a key point.

The university adopted the ACA's policy which specifically forbids her using her religious beliefs to reach out to homosexuals. She clearly believes that homosexuality is a sin (Christianity is spit on this), but is being forced by the ACA policy/university to follow their solution which is gay affirmation therapy. If GAT was taught along side other alternatives and she was free to practice as she pleased, then there wouldn't be an issue. She isn't refusing to work with homosexuals, but rather to work with them in the way that the ACA/university deems acceptable. Their policy clearly restricts her ability to exercise alternative treatments. The ACA goes so far as to require it of their members (and I presume the university does too as they adopted and defended the policy) to refuse any alternative to GAT even if it is requested by the client.

From what I can find on the subject, she isn't rejecting the person, but the policy which requires her to treat sin as something else (even to encourage it). We don't have to agree with her beliefs to understand that forcing someone to do this is wrong. That is what I've spent the last two pages arguing. She shouldn't be forced by the university to contradict her beliefs.

Alternatives which she seems to agree with do exist and the ACA/university explicitly forbid them, which is something a public university should not be doing.

Ok, I missed something. If she must as part of her counseling duties hold their hand and tell them explicitly that its ok to be gay and that God wont hold it against them then she should shake the dust from her feet and leave it behind without a backwards glance.

I truly believe there are more ways than one to get the Gospel spread but I dont see anyway around this one...and we should never compromise our beliefs as Christians.

And, I agree. A public university has no business taking this position. But it has and no matter how loudly we protest they will persevere...the good news is not for long...

That was what the lawsuit was about. Yes, she could leave, but she already invested a bunch of money here. Also, and IMHO more importantly, is if public institutions can do this. From what I can gather about the judges ruling his logic went something like this:

1. The university has a clear need to adopt policies that guide their education programs, even counseling. Ok, no issue here.
2. The university in question whole sale adopted the ACA's (a private organization) policy as they are a leader in their field. Generally ok, but the university is responsible to make sure that any policy they adopt is legal.
3. Thus, since the university adopted a policy which requires students to offer only GAT and to wholesale reject other alternatives as a matter of the course curriculum. Thus, requiring this girl to do so it ok and/or to remove her from the program if she follows the course curriculum as prescribed.

A directly comparable example is the gun safety class VA is allowing schools to teach, but requiring them to teach the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. The State and schools who wish to teach that program must make sure it only teaches gun safety and does not condemn or condone gun ownership. It must be neutral as a public institution. If the NRA changes their program to be non-neutral (even though I'd likely agree with it politically), it shouldn't be taught in schools. In fact, that was the whole reason that the NRA's program was chosen. It was reviewed and determined to be focused on gun safety, not gun politics. The state of VA made the decisions for the schools in an attempt to head off lawsuits from either side depending on what a particular school district decided to teach. We would be up in arms over a "gun safety" class created by VPC, Handgun Inc. or Sarah Brady. The university in question here, as a public institution, did not do that and thus, is requiring all its students to only promote GAT and refuse to offer any alternative therapy's.