PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
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.
Reread it. The point is that she was supposed to counsel everyone, including homosexuals and refused. Further, she continued with her claim that she felt it was her moral obligation to counself homosexuals to change. That is only OK within a religious setting.
Since the gays are in charge of the university then the religious lady gets kicked out. What if the religious zealots were in charge of the university and kicked out the gay person?
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
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.
Reread it. The point is that she was supposed to counsel everyone, including homosexuals and refused. Further, she continued with her claim that she felt it was her moral obligation to counself homosexuals to change. That is only OK within a religious setting.
"Reread it"??? Yougottabefuckingkiddingme. Nightstrike just knocked down your house of cards point by point and all you can offer in return is "reread it"?
Puhleeze.
If counseling homosexuals to change is "OK" in a religious setting then why was the woman kicked out? Her expressed intention was to become a Christian counselor. You seem to be having difficulty following your own train of thought.
If counseling homosexuals to change is "OK" in a religious setting then why was the woman kicked out? Her expressed intention was to become a Christian counselor. You seem to be having difficulty following your own train of thought.
Honibaz
The program was not a religious counseling program. She knew that before she enrolled.
Had she enrolled in a religous counseling program or a specifically Christian program, all of which are available at other colleges, then it would be different.
I have argued 2 points, yes. One is the above. They had a right to oust her because she did not comply with program requirements, period. Sometimes accomodation can be made for religion, but not when religion directly conflicts with basic tenants of the course/study. If she could not counsel on Friday evenings, that might be something they could work around. The idea that homosexuals need to be changed is not acceptable in modern psychiatry.
The second point is whether that position is legitimate or not. That is, whether the program has the right to decide that it cannot be anti-homosexual. That decision is already made by the psychiatric establishment. You dislike that, but you were not consulted. The Christian view of homosexuality was not pertinet. The only pertinent issue was harm. You dance around that, make off-base references to AIDs, etc. The bottom line is that homosexuality does not harm people, except in a spiritual sense.
I will try one more example. Many Christians counselors, even secular psycologists used to tell battered women to "return and submit". Many Christians, even today, STILL say that is what the Bible says and that this is what is expected of women. I, (and I am sure you also) disagree. Yet, it is their religious belief. If such a woman goes to her Pastor or a clergy within her church, they would have every right to counsel her as they wish. However, if she went to any certified counselor outside of the Church, outside of a specific Christian counseling arena, she would definitely NOT be told that.
So, too with homosexuality. If your child, or mine, were to go to a counselor within our churches, they would be counseled to pray, etc. However, if they went to a counselor outside of the church setting, they would be counseled to be sure that is how they feel, to think about it, etc... but they would not be encouraged to either turn toward or away from homosexuality,( except that a counselor who strongly believes someone is suppressing their sexuality in a way that is giving them problems might encourage them to positively consider other choices. )
Often times, it is only in college that many homosexuals really come to terms with their sexuality. So, yes, colleges are a bit more geared toward that type of counseling than some other venues. This is not because any particular college is trying to promote homosexuality, but it is because they have come to recognize that not dealing with this issue will lead too many kids to suicide, depression, etc.
bedub1 wrote:Since the gays are in charge of the university then the religious lady gets kicked out. What if the religious zealots were in charge of the university and kicked out the gay person?
Gays are not in charge of the university. Homsexuality has not been considered a pathology by psychiatry for some time. Therefore any program outside of specific religous settings will require that people be willing and able to counsel homosexuals.
Religious colleges may offer programs that concur with their religious beliefs. Whether a counselor trained in such a program will also be recognized by the state varies by state and the program involved.
Geologists and young earthers are in conflict, period. Geographers and flat earthers are at odds. Psychologists and those who believe that homosexuals need to be "counseled" out of their sexuality are similarly at odds. Religion is honored only when it does not directly conflict with accepted procedures and facts.
bedub1 wrote:Since the gays are in charge of the university then the religious lady gets kicked out. What if the religious zealots were in charge of the university and kicked out the gay person?
Do you make a habit of just making shit up on the fly, or is this more of a one-time event?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
yeah...it's okay to discriminate against Christians (but not Muslims, that's racist), and not gays, cause that's discrimination.
No one is discriminating against her. She wanted to do much more than discriminate against gays.
Even so, she was and is free to enroll in a religiously based counseling program at a religious college. She is not free to demand that a medical program alter from standard medical practice because she doesn't happen to agree.
b.k. barunt wrote: 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.
Dude, I would only have to cite the Hypocratic Oath to show you're wrong.
Doctors are free to reassign any case to someone they deem more fit to handle the case, but the catch is that they have to be able to handle it themselves too. And it's based on experience and ability, not personal beliefs. You have to have good grounds for reassigning, even when the grounds aren't checked. Personal reasons for a different doctor can only be granted if the patient wants it. (for example, women asking a female doctor for various reasons.) Even then it might not happen and the doctor has to treat the patient.
And this is even a deflection because this woman said she felt obligated to tell patients that their "lifestyle" was immoral. Since a person's sexual preference might actually be revealed after a few apointments this is a serious problem because the doctor-patient relationship is very important. In counseling the reason given might actually hurt the patient. Telling them that you don't want to treat them because they are wrong and doing evil stuff could have some very negative consequences. (You told someone who is obviously having problems mentally that they're doing wrong stuff.)
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
b.k. barunt wrote: 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.
Dude, I would only have to cite the Hypocratic Oath to show you're wrong.
Doctors are free to reassign any case to someone they deem more fit to handle the case, but the catch is that they have to be able to handle it themselves too. And it's based on experience and ability, not personal beliefs. You have to have good grounds for reassigning, even when the grounds aren't checked. Personal reasons for a different doctor can only be granted if the patient wants it. (for example, women asking a female doctor for various reasons.) Even then it might not happen and the doctor has to treat the patient.
And this is even a deflection because this woman said she felt obligated to tell patients that their "lifestyle" was immoral. Since a person's sexual preference might actually be revealed after a few apointments this is a serious problem because the doctor-patient relationship is very important. In counseling the reason given might actually hurt the patient. Telling them that you don't want to treat them because they are wrong and doing evil stuff could have some very negative consequences. (You told someone who is obviously having problems mentally that they're doing wrong stuff.)
f*ck me running. This shit is getting stoopit even for you snorri. In order to avert more snorriopinions i ask you to cite a specific ethic that is being violated. You respond with the Hippocratic Oath (not "Hypocratic", genius). This is of course followed by more snorriopinions because the Hippocratic Oath is as fooking general and therefore vague as you can possibly get. You continue to pull shit out of your ass rather than give me a straightforward answer. You accuse the woman of violating ethics by reassigning a case and yet you can't name the violated ethic.
Go to the web site of the AMA, ABA or ACA and find a fucking ethic to back up your statement. If you're too lazy or ignorant to do that then admit that you didn't really know whatthefuck you were talking about.
Or you can ramble on with more snorriopinions and watch my head explode again.
yeah...it's okay to discriminate against Christians (but not Muslims, that's racist), and not gays, cause that's discrimination.
If that were true then why are all these persecuted Christians not winning compensation cases, the US establishment after all is still overwhelmingly Christian , where is this huge wave of discrimination coming from ?
b.k. barunt wrote: 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.
Dude, I would only have to cite the Hypocratic Oath to show you're wrong.
Doctors are free to reassign any case to someone they deem more fit to handle the case, but the catch is that they have to be able to handle it themselves too. And it's based on experience and ability, not personal beliefs. You have to have good grounds for reassigning, even when the grounds aren't checked. Personal reasons for a different doctor can only be granted if the patient wants it. (for example, women asking a female doctor for various reasons.) Even then it might not happen and the doctor has to treat the patient.
And this is even a deflection because this woman said she felt obligated to tell patients that their "lifestyle" was immoral. Since a person's sexual preference might actually be revealed after a few apointments this is a serious problem because the doctor-patient relationship is very important. In counseling the reason given might actually hurt the patient. Telling them that you don't want to treat them because they are wrong and doing evil stuff could have some very negative consequences. (You told someone who is obviously having problems mentally that they're doing wrong stuff.)
f*ck me running. This shit is getting stoopit even for you snorri. In order to avert more snorriopinions i ask you to cite a specific ethic that is being violated. You respond with the Hippocratic Oath (not "Hypocratic", genius). This is of course followed by more snorriopinions because the Hippocratic Oath is as fooking general and therefore vague as you can possibly get. You continue to pull shit out of your ass rather than give me a straightforward answer. You accuse the woman of violating ethics by reassigning a case and yet you can't name the violated ethic.
Go to the web site of the AMA, ABA or ACA and find a fucking ethic to back up your statement. If you're too lazy or ignorant to do that then admit that you didn't really know whatthefuck you were talking about.
Or you can ramble on with more snorriopinions and watch my head explode again.
The reason I didn't bother the first time is that it's so easy.
Opinion 9.12 - Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights
The creation of the patient-physician relationship is contractual in nature. Generally, both the physician and the patient are free to enter into or decline the relationship. A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician's current competence. However, physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination. Furthermore, physicians who are obligated under pre-existing contractual arrangements may not decline to accept patients as provided by those arrangements. (I, III, V, VI)
Suprisingly enough doctors don't get to discriminate!
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
The reason I didn't bother the first time is that it's so easy.
Opinion 9.12 - Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights
The creation of the patient-physician relationship is contractual in nature. Generally, both the physician and the patient are free to enter into or decline the relationship. A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician's current competence. However, physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination. Furthermore, physicians who are obligated under pre-existing contractual arrangements may not decline to accept patients as provided by those arrangements. (I, III, V, VI)
Suprisingly enough doctors don't get to discriminate!
Bravo! The reason you didn't bother the first time is because you were fooking lazy. But hey, better late than never. I believe you picked the right ethic here - the problem is that she didn't violate it.
She did not refuse services to homosexuals. She was told that counseling according to her religious code of ethics would conflict with the school's curricullum and so she reassigned the cases. She did not refuse services to anyone. She was told that her services were not in the best interest of the clients. She had a choice of counseling them contrary to her code of ethics as a religious counselor or violating the school guidelines - they had no right to put her in such a position.
The school forbid her to render her services as a religious counselor - they violated the ethic.
I did the internship for my undergraduate degree in the state run treatment center for substance abuse. As a former addict myself it was easy to develop a rapport with the clients and my being 50 years old at the time evidently overruled the usual taboo against putting undergraduate interns in charge of groups. So when a counselor would call in sick or go on vacation i'd take over their group.
One young guy was having a real crisis that needed to be dealt with and my supervisor told me that the guy was comfortable with me so i should take it. The guy worked offshore on a rig and he was deep closet gay. He realized that living in the closet was taking its toll and he needed to come out. The conflict was at the root of his substance abuse.
I told him that i wasn't going to bullshit him and said that i didn't consider homosexuality to be natural or healthy. I told him that i could not encourage him in his homosexuality but i could encourage him to open up to the group about who he really was. I talked with him for over an hour and he never asked me to elaborate on my feelings about homosexuality. Instead i endeavored to make him comfortable enough to talk with me.
When the guy successfully completed the program he told the administrator that i had been the main factor in his recovery. He said that i made him feel like he could be accepted as a person by straight people and he didn't need to hide his gayness. Go figure.
b.k. barunt wrote:Bravo! The reason you didn't bother the first time is because you were fooking lazy.
Well yeah, same thing. I'm incredibly lazy, doesn't mean I'm not right.
But hey, better late than never. I believe you picked the right ethic here - the problem is that she didn't violate it.
O rly?
She did not refuse services to homosexuals. She was told that counseling according to her religious code of ethics would conflict with the school's curricullum and so she reassigned the cases. She did not refuse services to anyone.
For real? The reassigning of the cases is the violation. It's not allowed. She's obligated to counsel homosexuals, not according to the schools curriculum but according to the ACA's code of ethics.
She was told that her services were not in the best interest of the clients. She had a choice of counseling them contrary to her code of ethics as a religious counselor or violating the school guidelines - they had no right to put her in such a position.
Of course they had the right. The whole point is that as a counselor she has to keep her personal beliefs to herself. It's her duty to counsel homosexual clients contrary to her religious beliefs.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
b.k. barunt wrote:I did the internship for my undergraduate degree in the state run treatment center for substance abuse. As a former addict myself it was easy to develop a rapport with the clients and my being 50 years old at the time evidently overruled the usual taboo against putting undergraduate interns in charge of groups. So when a counselor would call in sick or go on vacation i'd take over their group.
One young guy was having a real crisis that needed to be dealt with and my supervisor told me that the guy was comfortable with me so i should take it. The guy worked offshore on a rig and he was deep closet gay. He realized that living in the closet was taking its toll and he needed to come out. The conflict was at the root of his substance abuse.
I told him that i wasn't going to bullshit him and said that i didn't consider homosexuality to be natural or healthy. I told him that i could not encourage him in his homosexuality but i could encourage him to open up to the group about who he really was. I talked with him for over an hour and he never asked me to elaborate on my feelings about homosexuality. Instead i endeavored to make him comfortable enough to talk with me.
When the guy successfully completed the program he told the administrator that i had been the main factor in his recovery. He said that i made him feel like he could be accepted as a person by straight people and he didn't need to hide his gayness. Go figure.
This is actually the way this woman could've dealt with it btw. It's not immediately wrong to admit you have a problem with homosexuality. The real problem is when you tell the person that he should stop. Much like it's not wrong for a doctor to admit he has a problem with a young teenager having sex if he still helps her.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
b.k. barunt wrote:I did the internship for my undergraduate degree in the state run treatment center for substance abuse. As a former addict myself it was easy to develop a rapport with the clients and my being 50 years old at the time evidently overruled the usual taboo against putting undergraduate interns in charge of groups. So when a counselor would call in sick or go on vacation i'd take over their group.
One young guy was having a real crisis that needed to be dealt with and my supervisor told me that the guy was comfortable with me so i should take it. The guy worked offshore on a rig and he was deep closet gay. He realized that living in the closet was taking its toll and he needed to come out. The conflict was at the root of his substance abuse.
I told him that i wasn't going to bullshit him and said that i didn't consider homosexuality to be natural or healthy. I told him that i could not encourage him in his homosexuality but i could encourage him to open up to the group about who he really was. I talked with him for over an hour and he never asked me to elaborate on my feelings about homosexuality. Instead i endeavored to make him comfortable enough to talk with me.
When the guy successfully completed the program he told the administrator that i had been the main factor in his recovery. He said that i made him feel like he could be accepted as a person by straight people and he didn't need to hide his gayness. Go figure.
Honibaz
But you did not try to convert him. This lady made it clear that is what she would need to do. Also, from what you have said, this was a substance abuse field and even though you did have to deal with a deeply closeted homosexual, it was not a normal part of the work. This program did include homosexuals and homosexual issues as a part of the program.
Also, views on homosexuality, even within the psychiatric association have continued to change. Tweny years ago, the idea that homosexuals should not be changed was still being debated in many areas, even if homosexuality was no longer considered pathology. Now, that issue is much more settled. Any psychiatrist who tries to alter someone's sexual orientation is unethical.
The bottom line is that she chose the wrong program. She thought she could force them to change, but was turned down.
The reason I didn't bother the first time is that it's so easy.
Opinion 9.12 - Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights
The creation of the patient-physician relationship is contractual in nature. Generally, both the physician and the patient are free to enter into or decline the relationship. A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician's current competence. However, physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination. Furthermore, physicians who are obligated under pre-existing contractual arrangements may not decline to accept patients as provided by those arrangements. (I, III, V, VI)
Suprisingly enough doctors don't get to discriminate!
You can't give a code of ethics for a physician when we're talking about a counselor. Those are different fields. I posted the applicable sections for the ACA's Code of Ethics (the ones Eastern Michigan follows) and they DO allow for referrals if the counselor does not think he can be neutral.
b.k. barunt wrote:She did not refuse services to homosexuals. She was told that counseling according to her religious code of ethics would conflict with the school's curricullum and so she reassigned the cases. She did not refuse services to anyone.
For real? The reassigning of the cases is the violation. It's not allowed. She's obligated to counsel homosexuals, not according to the schools curriculum but according to the ACA's code of ethics.
There you go again with the pulling whatnot out of your ass when (as Nightstrike just made perfectly clear) you don't know whathefuck you're talking about. The ACA's code of ethics allows for referrals. Period. I do not counsel teenage girls. Teenage girls are bizarre creatures and i don't have the foggiestfuckingidea as to what makes them tick. For me to counsel a teenage girl would be a farce and a fraud, so i pass. I am not only within my rights to do this, i am being professionally responsible.
She was told that her services were not in the best interest of the clients. She had a choice of counseling them contrary to her code of ethics as a religious counselor or violating the school guidelines - they had no right to put her in such a position.
snorri wrote:Of course they had the right. The whole point is that as a counselor she has to keep her personal beliefs to herself. It's her duty to counsel homosexual clients contrary to her religious beliefs.
As a religious counselor she would counsel according to her religious beliefs, so how could she keep them to herself? You've completely ignored my point on this, which is understandable as it completely topples your house of cards.
A religious counselor is a legal profession in this country and they have to be certified and licensed by a publicly accredited school. These schools take into consideration that the student will be counseling along religious lines and adjust the student's curricullum accorrdingly. This time they did not. They are now making it clear that you can no longer be a Christian Counselor if you don't accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and counsel accordingly.
This time they purposely chose to attack a religious student because the Gay/Lesbian PAC has made religious "bigotry" their main target.At this present time, Freedom of Religion is the most heinous threat to gay and lesbian "rights". Imagine that.
The problem with your argument is that the school specifically cited use of ACA standards as the basis for their program and that this person's unwillingness to adhere to those standards was reason for her dismissal from the program.
To verify this, I googled ACA and got their website, with a link to the ethics section. Strange thing is, what I found is not what you claim they say.
The document was a pdf file, so I don't know how to give a link. However, here is the ACA, ethics link with both a llink to the "layperson's guide" and to the .
First, from the "layperson's Guide" .. What to expect: • Your professional counselor will treat you with respect and dignity, especially in regard to age, color, culture, disability, ethnic group, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, or socioeconomic status.
Here are a few pertinent sections:
When counselors are faced with ethical dilemmas that are difficult to resolve, they are expected to engage in a carefully considered ethical decision-making process. Reasonable differences of opinion can and do exist among counselors with respect to the ways in which values, ethical principles, and ethical standards would be applied when they conflict. While there is no specific ethical decision-making model that is most effective, counselors are expected to be familiar with a credible model of decision making that can bear public scrutiny and its application
A.4.b. Personal Values Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values thatare inconsistent with counseling goals. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants.
A.11.c. Appropriate Termination Counselors terminate a counseling relationship when it becomes reasonably apparent that the client no longer needs assistance, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by continued counseling. Counselors may terminate counseling when in jeopardy of harm by the client, or another person with whom the client has a relationship, or when clients do not pay fees as agreed upon. Counselors provide pretermination counseling and recommend other service providers when necessary.
Section C Professional Responsibility Introduction Counselors aspire to open, honest, and accurate communication in dealing with the public and other professionals. They practice in a nondiscriminatory manner within the boundaries of professional and personal competence and have a responsibility to abide by the ACA Code of Ethics. Counselors actively participate in local, state, and national associations that foster the development and improvement of counseling. Counselors advocate to promote change at the individual, group, institutional, and societal levels that improve the quality of life for individuals and groups and remove potential barriers to the provision or access of appropriate services being offered. Counselors have a responsibility to the public to engage in counseling practices that are based on rigorous research methodologies. In addition, counselors engage in self-care activities to maintain and promote their emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual well-being to best meet their professional responsibilities.
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.
C.6.e. Scientific Bases for Treatment Modalities Counselors use techniques/ procedures/ modalities that are grounded intheory and/or have an empirical or scientific foundation. Counselors who do not must define the techniques/ procedures as “unproven” or “developing” and explain the potential risks and ethical considerations of using such techniques/procedures and take steps to protect clients from possible harm. (See A.4.a., E.5.c., E.5.d.)
E.5.b. Cultural Sensitivity Counselors recognize that culture affects the manner in which clients’ problems are defined. Clients’ socioeconomic and cultural experiences are considered when diagnosing mental disorders. (See A.2.c.) E.5.c. Historical and Social Prejudices in the Diagnosis of Pathology Counselors recognize historical and social prejudices in the misdiagnosis and pathologizing of certain individuals and groups and the role of mental health professionals in perpetuating these prejudices through diagnosis and treatment.
E.8. Multicultural Issues/ Diversity in Assessment Counselors use with caution assessment techniques that were normed on populations other than that of the client. Counselors recognize the effects of age, color, culture, disability, ethnic group, gender, race, language preference, religion, spirituality, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status on test administration and interpretation, and place test results in proper perspective with other relevant factors. (See A.2.c., E.5.b.)
IN short, over and over and over, there are repeated references to not discriminating, to respecting people's sexual orientation.
When a person enrolls in a program, the school sets standards. A person enrolling in that program agrees to adhere to and follow the program. This person did not. She tried to claim that her religion allowed her to opt out of the homosexual provisions. However, as the court stated, a professional certification confers, among other things, a set standard for ALL. She can enroll in a program that certifies Christian counselors, that does not follow the same standards. Whether such a certification is accepted by the state for all applications is another matter. However, she cannot obtain this certification unless she is willing to comply with its terms.
And, though you have repeatedly dismissed the comparison, it is very much as if a conservative Moslem went through the program and decided to simply refuse to counsel women unless an adult male relative was present and gave permission. It is also it is very much as if a Jehovah's witness asked to be certified as a Medical Doctor, but refused to give blood transfusions or participate in training for transfusions. There is no special "Jehovah's witness only" certification. You are an MD or not. In this case, you are a certified counselor or not.
It was not so long ago that a man engaging in homosexual activity could be arrested and jailed. The diagnostic catalogue just removed homosexuality from its lists of pathologies not so long ago. However, the standard now is that sexual orientation is a personal choice, a personal matter and not anyone else's business to change. A counselor who tries is, now violating ethical standards.
THAT is why she lost in court. The medical establishment has set the standard, not because a genetic link or other biological cause was established, but because homosexuality does not meat any recognized public standard of harm.
snorri wrote:Of course they had the right. The whole point is that as a counselor she has to keep her personal beliefs to herself. It's her duty to counsel homosexual clients contrary to her religious beliefs.
As a religious counselor she would counsel according to her religious beliefs, so how could she keep them to herself? You've completely ignored my point on this, which is understandable as it completely topples your house of cards.
A religious counselor is a legal profession in this country and they have to be certified and licensed by a publicly accredited school. These schools take into consideration that the student will be counseling along religious lines and adjust the student's curricullum accorrdingly. This time they did not. They are now making it clear that you can no longer be a Christian Counselor if you don't accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and counsel accordingly.
A. this was not a religious counseling program.
B. Counseling homosexuals against homosexuality is no longer considered ethical by the American Counseling Association. This is a relatively recent change, but it is a firm change.
b.k. barunt wrote:This time they purposely chose to attack a religious student because the Gay/Lesbian PAC has made religious "bigotry" their main target.At this present time, Freedom of Religion is the most heinous threat to gay and lesbian "rights". Imagine that. Honibaz
Funny, seems like it was a conservative student who decided she would enroll in a program not suited to her desires so she could claim "discrimination".
Also, not sure when asking people to treat you decently, which is what homosexuals demand, suddenly became discrimination of religion.
