Julea Ward. Credit: ADF
Posted on 07/29/2010 10:33:47 AM PDT by NYer
.- Attorneys of the Alliance Defence Fund (ADF) are preparing to appeal a federal judge's decision that a Christian student's beliefs about homosexuality were an acceptable grounds for her dismissal from a graduate program in counseling at Eastern Michigan University.
Julea Ward enrolled in the university's counseling practicum course in January 2009, and was assigned to a client who sought assistance with a homosexual relationship. Ward considered herself unable to assist the client under the circumstances, due to her own moral and religious beliefs, and was advised by her supervisor to reassign the client.
Eastern Michigan University, however, responded to the situation by initiating disciplinary procedures against Ward, involving a “remediation” program. According to ADF, the “remediation” amounted to an ultimatum: Ward would either “see the error of her ways” and change her beliefs about sexual morality in order to encourage her clients in same-sex relationships, or be dismissed from the counseling program.
The university argued that she broke both school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.
But Ward maintained that faculty members questioned her in an “inappropriate and intrusive” manner regarding her Christian faith before formally expelling her from the program. She appealed to the dean of EMU's College of Education, who upheld the decision. In April 2009, with the assistance of ADF, she brought a lawsuit against the university.
In March of this year, a district court in Michigan ruled that those professors responsible for Ward's expulsion could be held liable for discriminatory actions against her. This week, however, the court issued a summary judgment in favor of the EMU professors.
ADF maintains that the university's policy is both personally discriminatory and legally unconstitutional. The professors' real aim, they say, was “to make all students conform to the views promoted within their schools” on “some of the most important and controversial social and moral issues of our day.”
David French, senior counsel for the ADF's regional center in Tennessee and an attorney for Julea Ward, said that the academic freedom and constitutional rights of his client and others were at risk in the wake of Monday's decision. “Christian students,” he said, “shouldn't be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs.”
French also stressed the unprecedented nature of the court's summary judgment. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that's never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”
Additionally, he pointed out that Ms. Ward had not personally refused the client her assistance, but merely followed the advice of her supervisor as to how her dilemma should be resolved.
Declaring his intention to move forward with an appeal, Mr. French expressed his confidence on Tuesday that his client would be vindicated. “We trust,” he said, that “the Sixth Circuit will understand the constitutional issues involved in this case.”
Thank you for that very eye opening background information.
The school: it’s not a law, it is a policy.
The court: it’s not a law, it’s a ruling.
[/cynic]
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. We are His creation, living in His world and according to His rules.
Man need not apply to try and change - what “I AM” says.
Every judge has the final Judge. There is NO stopping that. Live today as if it’s your last is good advice.
50/70/100 years here exercising free will is a blimp on the screen compared to eternity. I’d say the clueless aren’t good at math either. What’s funny is - they think if they don’t believe ‘IT’ - it doesn’t apply to them. Clueless indeed and all by their own choice - each man will be held accountable for himself - no finger pointing or sob stories allowed.
A pretty Afro-American Christian woman. Oh, this is going to be GOOD. Millions will sympathize with her, to the everlasting consternation of the elites. She will eventually be awarded millions of inflated dollars. Pop the popcorn. Appeal, appeal, appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court.
1973 was also the year abortion was legalized.Two horrific sins made "normal" in one year,and America has been headed downhill fast ever since.
And the only way to stop engaging in that behavior (or any sinful behavior) is to agree with God that it is sin and repent of it. It’s a start.
I've known a few, and all had severely feminized opinions and didn't mind showing them.
One was a vegan, and made her father's life hell with her nastily stated views.
Another was a marriage counselor of whom I remarked "I wonder what she did with her husband's balls after she cut them off."
I will make a contrarian point. If the laws of counselling require that the counselor accept homosexuality, maybe Christians should not try to enter that profession.
I would be like an atheist complaining that he can’t be a priest.
To which I will respond:
If state laws require that a pharmacist sell the morning after pill, maybe Christians should not try to enter that profession.
If state laws require that a physician perform an abortion, maybe Christians should not try to enter that profession.
Do you see where this logic proceeds? Eventually, "Christians" will no longer be able to enter any profession because their faith is in contradiction with the state and/or federal practices.
Yep. If they make your kids play baseball on Sunday, you just don’t sign them up for baseball.
The question of course is when do you simply decide that the basic philosophy of a profession is antithetical to your beliefs, and when do you decide that the rules imposed are artificial and therefore fight to have the rules changed?
Or you could debate whether Christians should actively violate the rules of society when those rules keep Christians from participating in voluntarily chosen activities or professions for which the rules unnecessarily impose burdens. My argument would be that Christians were told to yield to authority when that authority didn’t force us to violate our beliefs, and that no voluntary activity can ever be claimed to FORCE us to violate our beliefs.
(I’ve heard parents argue that they were FORCED to take their kids out of church to play sports because the sports authority wouldn’t block off sunday morning. But where is it written that your children must play sports? Sure, it’s unfair, but so was getting eaten by lions).
So to answer your questions, if the law requires you to sell a pill you believe is immoral, your choice is to fight the law, and stop practicing the profession until the law is changed — I don’t believe you can practice the profession in violation of the law.
I imagine we would all think differently if the question had to do with some Muslim taxi driver refusing to transport a family because they were Jewish.
As a last analogy, I can’t imagine a good Christian girl getting very far arguing that she should be allowed to work in a strip club as a stripper without taking any clothes off since that would violate her religious beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.