Judge Allows Expulsion For Religious Beliefs

[cyrenius]

Practicly she was kicked out for not doing her job not for her religious beliefs.
If the job describtion(conceling homosexual students) changed after she was hired than she should''v won the case. If she knew what she has to do befor she took the job she made a mistake
This is a fucked up world, I pay atantion not to take any jobs that contravenes with my religious beliefs

[ViperOverLord]

Viper, this is rather embarrassing, I hate to let you know in public like this...you're not very bright. I mean, you'd think from what you're saying that you don't realize that. Maybe you're just slamming your head into your keyboard at random.

Oh you've called me out with your useless opinion. Oh I'm so hurt. I speak quite intelligably and even my honorable foes would not say otherwise.

I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense?

Another fallacy of logic; they are quite common in this thread. Likeability is not a correlative of intelligence.

It was a direct response to your claim that "even your honorable foes would not say otherwise" about your intelligent posting. I'm not speaking about "likeability", I'm speaking about your precise statement...so stop trying to build up those strawmen before you need them (you seem quite concerned).

No, no, no: Don't deflect - I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense? - I directly responded to your statement in no uncertain terms. I have let you know exactly how meaningless your tactic was and you cannot accept it and now you're trying to tip toe your way out of it.

[King Doctor]

V to the O, you're babbling.

What on earth are you on about?

[ViperOverLord]

V to the O, you're babbling.

What on earth are you on about?

I will brook no babble.

[King Doctor]

I will brook no babble.

See... you're almost completely incoherent today.

What's going on over there buddy?

[Woodruff]

I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs....
If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong.

I would not in any way support any counselor (gay or not) who would refuse to counsel a patient based on their own personal morality.

I absolutely would. Especially if they realize they aren't qualified and shouldn't be offering advice to the person in general.

What the hell does "aren't qualified" have to do with "based on their own personal morality"? The two have nothing to do with one another.

To just pretend there isn't a conflict and deceive your patients and the others around you is definitely punishable by firing/expulsion.

Pretend there isn't a conflict? Deceive your patients? I honestly don't know what you're going on about here.

It's like the lady just got fired for coming out of the closet.

No it isn't. Not even remotely, actually.

I mean come on, are we still in the middle ages or what?

Some of you may be, yes.

Part of the oath doctors take is to do no harm. I don't know if she has the same things. But a religious counselor giving advice to a gay person could definitely be considered harmful. She might consider it to be helping, but knows her patients will see it as harmful, so tries to follow the code of ethics she agreed to and decline to assist and try to transfer?

If she wants to be a religious counselor, then she should attend a religious university to get her degree, rather than a public institution that will have requirements of her that she won't be willing to follow through with. She would not have those problems at the religious university and could then be a "religious counselor" as opposed to a secular psychologist.

[Woodruff]

Oh you've called me out with your useless opinion. Oh I'm so hurt. I speak quite intelligably and even my honorable foes would not say otherwise.

I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense?

Another fallacy of logic; they are quite common in this thread. Likeability is not a correlative of intelligence.

It was a direct response to your claim that "even your honorable foes would not say otherwise" about your intelligent posting. I'm not speaking about "likeability", I'm speaking about your precise statement...so stop trying to build up those strawmen before you need them (you seem quite concerned).

No, no, no: Don't deflect - I'm not sure even your conservative compadres would agree with that, actually...would anyone like to speak up in ViperOverLord's defense? - I directly responded to your statement in no uncertain terms. I have let you know exactly how meaningless your tactic was and you cannot accept it and now you're trying to tip toe your way out of it.

You seem extremely concerned - can't blame you for that. I haven't deflected anything...and you know what I'm not seeing here? Hint...it has nothing to do with liking or disliking you...

[ViperOverLord]

You seem extremely concerned - can't blame you for that. I haven't deflected anything...and you know what I'm not seeing here? Hint...it has nothing to do with liking or disliking you...

Upon further reflection: I was being a bit presumptive. That goes for my post on HC too. We're cool.

[jonesthecurl]

Viper, I believe that several people have asked you to show us exactly where the following happened...

I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic

...because you seem to be the only person who recalls it.

[ViperOverLord]

Viper, I believe that several people have asked you to show us exactly where the following happened...

I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic

...because you seem to be the only person who recalls it.

Careful jones, I would hate for you to have any post labotomy cramps.

[jonesthecurl]

I'm not sure if that's a threat, a joke, or the demented ravings of a total nutter.
Let me think...

[King Doctor]

I also would like to enquire where NightStrike went and why he still hasn't answered the hypothetical Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Jedi and Holocaust Denier questions?

[PLAYER57832]

I find it funny that people that preach acceptance and understanding of other people and their ways of life are so damn fast to discriminate against a christian because of her beliefs....
If this was switched around....a gay counselor refusing to counsel to a christian etc it would be okay...but since it's a christian refusing to counsel a gay person it's totally wrong

Homosexual counselors should, can and DO counsel Christians, providing it is secular counseling they want. A homosexual will not counsel a Christian in their faith because it is not appropriate.

EDIT: Interesting article from several years ago relating to Doctors and Religion
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143926,00.html

oops...sorry...it's fox news and thus a lie. sorry.

Ironically, your article supports OUR case, not yours.

This article does not talk about doctors refusing to treat patients or going against medical practice to convert people to their religion/ expect patients to follow religious practice instead of standard medical practice. Instead, it talks about patients going to a medical doctor and then expecting that doctor to treat them in a religious manner. That, they are not ethically allowed to do.

The comparison would be what often does happen, that Christian parents bring a child who they believe to be or who is homosexual and ask the counselor to "fix" them, meaning "turn them heterosexual". That is not appropriate for a counselor to do. The correct response is to say "homosexuality is not an illness, if you wish religious counseling, you need to see a religious counselor".

Some people are still confused because for a long time, homosexuality WAS considered a diesease, something to treat, within mainline psychology. Now it is not. Times change, science advances.

Again, for something to be a pathology, it has to be considered harmful to the person or society. AND, violating your moral ethics, your religion or anybody else's is NOT what is considered harm.

[got tonkaed]

I feel like a lot of people are kind of missing the point of the decision. The main issue for the judge appears (at least from the op) to be whether or not the university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA. If this condition is fulfilled, then any thereafter violations of the ACA (which is now deemed to be equivalent to criteria for the program) become matters of university discretion. Since the judge found they had a rational basis, likely due to the fact that this graduate program was going to be training professionals specifically to join that association, then the university is pretty much in the clear as far as making decisions that are supportable from that organizations guidelines.

[Ace Rimmer]

I also would like to enquire where NightStrike went and why he still hasn't answered the hypothetical Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Jedi and Holocaust Denier questions?

He cannot answer them without questioning the bullshit that he is fed from Faux News, and therefore will ignore any questions that would cause him to question his beliefs.

[PLAYER57832]

If you bothered to read the previous posts, you would know that I refuted many of their claims as being false and sufficiently proved many fallacies of logic. Their errors were so gross that I was not even envoking the battle of opinions. Please be informed next time rather than making senseless snipes based on your bias against me.

You did NOT address most of my points.. in fact tried to claim I was on some kind of "anti-Christian" campaign, which shows exactly how little you understood of my argument.

Most of what you posted as "fact" was very much wrong. Furthermore, I DID provide you with evidence of your error, but you ignored it and instead launched in a diatribe of opinion, without providing an iota of real evidence to support your claim.... though you several times chastised us for ignoring the obvious and not understanding basic concepts.

You fail, both in logic, research and understanding of what you debate.

[PLAYER57832]

Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case? Use your blood transfusion scenario genius - if i as a doctor or intern have someone else do a blood transfusion am i violating some obscure ethical formula?

Absolutely, if a transfusion is medically required and you refuse on religious grounds (not simply because you are not trained in the technique), you WILL most certainly be violating ethical standards. Further, in a more direct scenario, if you enrolled in a medical program and refused to learn how to do transfusions and/or made it clear that you would not perform them, refused to do so even though it was part of the training program, then you would be rightfully ousted, just as this person was ousted, and you were earlier ousted for not complying with program standards.

Medically, the issue of homosexualiy WAS decided a long time ago. Whether it is biologically based or not is utterly irrelevant. The point is that homosexuality is not directly harmful to the individual or to society, except that it does violate some people's morals and ideas of right and wrong.

However, as has been noted many times, MANY things in society violate Christian and other ethics, most particularly pre-marital sex, adultry, etc.

Hell no! Lawyers reassign cases, doctors cover patients for each other, counselors reassign cases if they feel someone else is better qualified for that client. WTF?

I really depends on the circumstances. If another person is readily available and truly IS more qualified, then a transfer might be OK. However, mostly that happens BEFORE much work is done.

However, counseling requires a relationship to even work well. So, for an agency or school to have a counselor in their programs who has an anti-homosexual bias means that they would have to pre-screen every client BEFORE counseling to ensure there are no issues of homosexuality involved. That is just not possible. Oftentimes, people struggling with issues are not willing to admit what the real problem is. That is true in addictions, it is true in abuse and, it is true when there are gender or sexual orientation issues. This is why counseling is different.

Furthermore, even that is actually irrelevant to this particular case. The point here is that these standards were set, were known well before this lady enrolled. She was told that the school did not consider homosexuality to be pathology, that she would be required to counsel homosexuals as well as anyone else. She refused, so the school had every right to remove her for refusing to comply with the programs policies. If she wanted a program with different policies, then it was up to her to seek out such a program.

Seems to me that the gayboys are ready to scream "hate crime!" anytime someone looks at them crosswise.


Honibaz

I see, so according to you, someone who wants counseling, but is denied and complains is screaming "hate crime"? Seems you are the one who is illogical here.

Show how homosexuality is harmful to society, without reference to God's dictates, religious beliefs, etc... then you might have a case.

And no.. AIDs is a poppycock argument, as is "tendency to pedophilia". Neither are true and valid, despite what some people wish to assert.

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps, rather than the religious issue, it might be more helpful to think of addiction. Someone who comes from a alchoholic family might be very understanding/compassionate, etc. However, if that person has a huge chip on their shoulder against people who abuse substances, then they do not belong in a program that counsels substance abusers.

Similarly, a counselor with a bias against homosexuality does not belong in a program that deals with homosexuals.

[b.k. barunt]

Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case?

The ethics of not reassigning a case unless real problems develop regardless of one's beliefs?

Oh puhleeze - are you making this shit up as you go along?

I've worked as a counselor in substance abuse rehab and i did a stint with an alternative school for adolescents with charges ranging from pot to attempted murder. During my 6 month stay at the school i reassigned 2 cases, as the 4 counselors there had the option to do so between themselves in order to facilitate a more effective counseling strategy. The administrator explained this to me when she hired me as "combining our talents and determining when and where to use them".

The other 3 counselors were women, and strangely enough they reassigned all the extreme badasses to me. I got over 15 reassignments in the 6 months i was there and gave out 2. The 2 i reassigned were girls, 12 and 14, who were both raging nymphomaniacs and had probably had more sex than i ever did - wtf? Would you know how to counsel a 12 year old nympho?? What fooking "ethics" did i violate by reassigning these girls? I recognize a population that i don't really have the skills to deal with and i don't deal with that population if i don't have to.

Doctors, Lawyers and Therapists reassign cases wheneverthefuck they want to - they violate no ethics in doing so. Like i said you are making the shit up - cite any ethics from any of these three professions that would back up your gay rantings. Notice i said "cite". That means you find an ethic printed somewhere in the Mission Statement of one of these three professions and show where it came from when you quote it. Spare me the snorri inventions, please.


Honibaz

[King Doctor]

Would you know how to counsel a 12 year old nympho??

*Gets a hernia from attempting to restrain self from burying this thread under a tide of smutty inuendo*

[PLAYER57832]

Violating ethics? What ethics did she violate by reassigning a case?

The ethics of not reassigning a case unless real problems develop regardless of one's beliefs?

Oh niggapleez - are you making this shit up as you go along?

I've worked as a counselor in substance abuse rehab and i did a stint with an alternative school for adolescents with charges ranging from pot to attempted murder. During my 6 month stay at the school i reassigned 2 cases, as the 4 counselors there had the option to do so between themselves in order to facilitate a more effective counseling strategy. The administrator explained this to me when she hired me as "combining our talents and determining when and where to use them".

The other 3 counselors were women, and strangely enough they reassigned all the extreme badasses to me. I got over 15 reassignments in the 6 months i was there and gave out 2. The 2 i reassigned were girls, 12 and 14, who were both raging nymphomaniacs and had probably had more sex than i ever did - wtf? Would you know how to counsel a 12 year old nympho?? What fooking "ethics" did i violate by reassigning these girls? I recognize a population that i don't really have the skills to deal with and i don't deal with that population if i don't have to.

Doctors, Lawyers and Therapists reassign cases wheneverthefuck they want to - they violate no ethics in doing so. Like i said you are making the shit up - cite any ethics from any of these three professions that would back up your gay rantings. Notice i said "cite". That means you find an ethic printed somewhere in the Mission Statement of one of these three professions and show where it came from when you quote it. Spare me the snorri inventions, please.


Honibaz

The difference is WHY and how you transferred the cases. First, it sounds like you did so from the outset and simply because there was someone else more suited to the job.

The problem with this student was that she was told from the outset that counseling homosexuals would be required. It wasn't that she felt another counselor would do a better job, she flat out stated that she felt it her duty to counsel homosexuals against their sexual orientation. There was definite concern that she would not be able to simply hand over clients, for a lot of reasons, most specifically because she would often already be counseling them by the time the homosexuality issue came up. This concern was based on her own statements and position. And, she was ousted because she refused to fully participate in the program in which she enrolled.

[Night Strike]

The problem with this student was that she was told from the outset that counseling homosexuals would be required. It wasn't that she felt another counselor would do a better job, she flat out stated that she felt it her duty to counsel homosexuals against their sexual orientation. There was definite concern that she would not be able to simply hand over clients, for a lot of reasons, most specifically because she would often already be counseling them by the time the homosexuality issue came up. This concern was based on her own statements and position. And, she was ousted because she refused to fully participate in the program in which she enrolled.

Really? "There was definite concern that she would not be able to simply hand over clients..." From your own source:

I posted a few weeks ago about Julea Ward, who was expelled from Eastern Michigan University’s counseling graduate program because she insisted that as a Christian she had a moral obligation to steer gay counseling clients to “cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex.”

When Ward discussed this issue with her professors, they made it clear to her that if she offered such a suggestion in a therapeutic relationship, she would violate the code of ethics of the American Counseling Association. And so, when Ward was assigned to a gay client in the course of her counseling training, she suggested that this client be given a referral to another counselor.

Looks like it was her suggestion that the client go to a different counselor.

The ACA's Code of Ethics:

A.4. Avoiding Harm and
Imposing Values
A.4.a. Avoiding Harm
Counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm.
A.4.b. Personal Values
Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants.

A.11.b. Inability to Assist Clients
If counselors determine an inability to be of professional assistance to clients, they avoid entering or continuing counseling relationships. Counselors are knowledgeable about culturally and clinically appropriate referral resources and suggest these alternatives. If clients decline the suggested referrals, counselors should discontinue the relationship.

C.5. Nondiscrimination
Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination based on age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status/partnership, language preference, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law. Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons.

These seem to clearly indicate that when a counselor feels that their personal values may come in conflict with being a neutral-perspective counselor, then they need to identify that and refer the client to another professional.

[King Doctor]

These seem to clearly indicate that when a counselor feels that their personal values may come in conflict with being a neutral-perspective counselor, then they need to identify that and refer the client to another professional.

Well, Mr Habitual Inconvenient Question Avoider, that's all very interesting; but given that the issue here is that this woman (1) showed that she was not willing to qualify as a competent counsellor in the first place, and (2) had stated that she would not refer those clients to another professional, but would instead proselatise at them, all of that copy/pasta scree you just posted seems somewhat irrelevant.



Seriously, no matter how hard you keep trying to run from this issue, the fact is that she threw her hands up and refused to complete a course which she freely signed up to, so she got kicked off it. She didn't want to qualify as a qualified and competent counsellor, so spurious arguments about what qualified competent counsellors sometimes do during the course of their day jobs is completely irrelevant.

[Night Strike]

These seem to clearly indicate that when a counselor feels that their personal values may come in conflict with being a neutral-perspective counselor, then they need to identify that and refer the client to another professional.

(2) had stated that she would not refer those clients to another professional, but would instead proselatise at them, all of that copy/pasta scree you just posted seems somewhat irrelevant.

So you conveniently ignore that part I posted where after consulting with her professors, she recommended that the best course of action for her to take was to refer the client to someone else? That's the whole point of schooling!!!! She learned that trying to change a homosexual would be the wrong course of action, so she said that she would then refer them to another counselor. That's how a person learns proper procedure.

And where's this course she refused to complete? The only issue I've seen is her wishing to change a homosexual person, learning that it was wrong to do, and deciding to refer that client to someone else.

[King Doctor]

So you conveniently ignore that part I posted where after consulting with her professors, she recommended that the best course of action for her to take was to refer the client to someone else? That's the whole point of schooling!!!!

... moaned the poster who has been conveniently ignoring four hypothetical scenario questions since page one.


Seriously buddy, all of that still misses the essential point that she failed to complete the requirements of the course that she'd signed up to.

She needs to learn to counsel all people, regardless of their belief of practice. If she can't do that, she's not competent. Sure she might choose to refer them later in life because she feels that colleagues have better experience to help them, but that doesn't excuse her from having to be able to do the job herself if push comes to shove. It'd be like qualifying a doctor who couldn't competently deliver a child just because he said he'd refer imminent mothers to other colleagues (and hey, why stop there? Why not let him just breeze through the whole course with that excuse? Why, I can't think of any negative drawbacks to that plan at all...).

It's all typical Conservative 'victim card' claptrap; everybody ought to follow the rules and stop whining and be a rugged individualist who works hard and generates success/money... until the victim is a Christian or a Right-Winger, when suddenly everything that doesn't go in their favour is (tenuously) unconstitutional and all of the rules should immediately change to benefit them.