Posted on 11/06/2019 8:44:07 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Julea Ward was a master’s student in the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University, a few credits shy of graduating with a 3.9 GPA. One of her final tasks was to counsel real clients under faculty supervision.
She counseled her first two clients without incident. But as she reviewed the file before meeting her third client, she learned he was a gay man seeking counseling for a same-sex relationship. Ward was happy to counsel gay clients about a wide variety of life issues, but her religious beliefs wouldn’t allow her to affirm a same-sex relationship. So she asked her faculty supervisor whether she could refer the client to another counselor.
Her supervisor wasn’t happy. She assigned the client to another counselor but told Ward she was guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation and would need to undergo a faculty review. During the review, Ward made it clear she was willing to counsel gay clients on a variety of issues. But her conscience wouldn’t allow her to affirm a same-sex relationship. The faculty concluded that Ward was guilty of discrimination and expelled her from the university.
Ward then filed a lawsuit, arguing that her expulsion violated her religious freedom. I helped her lawyers refine their legal arguments, and a federal court ultimately ruled in Ward’s favor. The court recognized that counselors are allowed to refer clients to another counselor for a variety of reasons. For example, they can refer a client who is terminally ill and wants to explore assisted suicide if they can’t in good conscience counsel a client in ending his life. They can refer a client who is grieving if they recently experienced a similar loss and are grieving themselves. They can refer a client who is seeking forms of therapy that may be harmful. In fact, the counseling code of ethics allows referral anytime a counselor is unable “to be of professional assistance to clients.”
Given all these permissible referrals, the fact that the university punished Ward for her religiously motivated referral suggested that the university was discriminating against her because of her religious beliefs. “Tolerance,” the court said, “is a two-way street.”
After the court’s ruling, the university erased the expulsion from Ward’s record.
Protecting Conscience
Ward’s case offers an example of how the “abortion” model can resolve conflicts between gay rights and religious freedom. In the abortion context, the law recognizes a right to abortion, but it also recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to live by a different moral view. It allows conscientious objectors to step aside. This doesn’t mean doctors can stop women from getting abortions, but it means they can’t be forced to participate.
In the same way, the law may recognize the right of individuals to enter various sexual relationships, but it can also recognize the right of conscientious objectors to live by a different moral view. It can allow conscientious objectors to step aside. This doesn’t mean counselors can berate same-sex couples or try to force them to abandon same-sex relationships, but it means they can’t be forced to further those relationships. Counselors like Ward should be allowed to step aside.
This sort of compromise makes sense for several reasons. First, it respects the basic human rights of conscientious objectors. For years, gay-rights advocates have sought to protect the dignity of LGBT individuals. They’ve argued that sexual orientation is a core aspect of human identity and that no one should be penalized because of her sexual orientation or choice of sexual partners. Now that the law recognizes same-sex marriage, conscientious objectors are asking for the same kind of protection. They argue that religion is a core aspect of human identity and that no one should be penalized because of his religious beliefs or practices. Protecting conscientious objectors ensures that religious people are not forced to violate a core aspect of their humanity.
Second, this sort of compromise reduces social conflict. Our society is deeply divided over the morality of abortion and sex. Some people believe abortion is permissible and same-sex relationships are good. Others believe abortion is murder and same-sex relationships are immoral. That division isn’t going away anytime soon. Given that division, we have to find a way for these groups to live together in peace. Protecting conscientious objection does just that.
Finally, at a purely practical level, everyone is better off when conscientious objectors are protected. As law professor Douglas Laycock, a leading scholar and supporter of gay rights, has said, “No same-sex couple in its right mind would want to be counseled by a counselor who believes that the couple’s relationship is fundamentally wrong.” The couple would be better served by a counselor who is sympathetic to their views. Similarly, many religious people want counselors who share their religious views. Protecting conscientious objectors ensures that everyone will have a diverse range of counselors to choose from.
In short, in a society that is deeply divided over human sexuality, the abortion model does the best job of respecting both sides. Same-sex couples are free to live according to their views; religious people are free to live according to theirs. The government doesn’t force either side to violate their deeply held beliefs about human sexuality.
Why would anyone object to this kind of compromise?
LGBTQ ideology has already trumped religious liberty.
LGBTQ ideology has already trumped religious liberty.
Man has tried to undo what God has done since the dawn of time, and in the end, God wins every time.
Hmmmm. Tough one. First Amendment rights vs. political correctness.
Of course in today’s world...
Because they are anti-Christs.
If gays rights mean they can trample my rights, then they should have none.
If I don’t have to bake a cake then I don’t have to call someone by their personal pronouns so called trans peole want me to use.
And that is what I will argue:
Transgender(s): I believe I am this.
Me: I don’t.
Transgender(s): I will make you have to call me by my personal pronouns I choose for myself.
Me: you can’t force me to believe you are something I don’t believe you are and then force me to go along with that anymore than a gay or lesbian couple can make me believe gay marriage is okay and force me to bake a cake for them.
Should be ‘Live and Let Live’. But both sides forget there is a God given choice.
Society gets no where with screaming about how wrong you are.
LGBTOMGWTFBBQ has never been about equality in any sense.
The goal has always been to force you to bow down before evil.
Revelation speaks of a tribulation and, frankly, too many homosexuals who are proud seem well posed to be as nasty and vile as nasty and vile can be in the service of the beast.
I personally speculate that Satan will unify at least two branches of his realm by means of a new Caliph, claiming to be the Muslim messiah (whatever they call him) and proclaiming a homosexual friendly / mandatory version of Islam using the doctrine of abrogation already set in place.
My reasoning is that those in the West who hate Christ will only stream into the mosques if they can keep their cherished poofters.
Gay rights aren’t rights; they’re prerogatives. Gays enjoyed the same rights under the old way of thinking as everybody else. The problem was that straight people retained the right to criticize them for their way of life. Of course that wouldn’t do, because it forced the gays to confront the reality of what they were.
What is abrogation?
Today, maybe tomorrow, but not indefinitely. I think the author is way behind the times already.
The law will not be able to force a doctor to perform an abortion or kill a patient, but it will be able to force him out of medical practice.
The man quoted in the article is correct that a homosexual couple would not have the slightest interest in being counseled by a person who believes homosexual behavior is wrong. However, one could say the same about a cake or flowers or video service: why would you hire someone with profound moral scruples regarding the specific event, when there are plenty of alternatives?
The answer seems to be that some people want to hurt those who disapprove of their sexual behavior.
Abrigation is a central tenant of Islam that later revelations entirely supplant earlier. Thus all the “peaceful” teachings of Mohammad were abrogated by later warring teachings.
In the same way the predicted Muslim leader who is essentially their messiah would be free to abrogate and earlier teaching.
More generally, in legal matters well beyond Islam “abrogation” is the claim to have lawful authority to be able to change the laws.
A much less well known and used word is “arrogation” which is used when someone annuals a law without lawful authority.
In American Law we could point to the Amendment undoing the earlier Amendment allowing prohibition as “abrogation”. Likewise we should point to various FDR era Court rulings which tossed the Constitution to the curb as “arrogating” the Constitution.
Thank you for the informative discussion.
“Why would anyone object to this kind of compromise?”
Because fags secretly know what they are doing is wrong and shameful, but they hope that if everyone in society is forced to praise them for it, that would somehow assuage their guilty conscience. They are overcompensating, hence the “pride” parades, and in-your-face attitudes.
To anyone who’s been paying attention, seeing the rapid progress the anti-religious pro-lgbtq militia has been making, it’s a short matter of time before they will declare victory. They are well funded, highly organized, backed by the media and the democrats, have plenty of judges lined up, use social media to destroy opposition, and have the GOP quivering in their boots. Their opposition is mainly middle America and their traditional values. On the surface, it doesn’t look lika a fair fight. A powerful oppressor with a variety of weapons against an outraged but seemingly powerless group holding onto traditional values, watching their rights being stripped away a piece at a time. The best the Right has been able to do is to occasionally slow down the other side. But the trend is undeniable. All that’s left now is prayer, which was always the best option.
When it comes to Islam, because it is really a legalistic matter, I recommend Stephen Coughlin’s briefings on YouTube. Though somewhat long collectively, briefings like his Red Pill Briefing present quite well the actual lay of the land, allowing one to set aside the dangerous shallows of mantras about Islam.
In particular, something he made sure to point out in an earlier presentation to the Heritage Foundation (IIRC) is very wise.
He said we don’t need to concern ourselves with what is the real Islam but only need to reference the actual books written by Muslims for Muslims to teach them how to be good Muslims ... books which come with the blessings of scholarly authority and which are on sale in Mosque bookstores all across the country.
Naturally, Sunni and Shia (and others) will have different books as they look to different “authorities” ... but each within their own have texts they turn to. The differences help to show why, for example, so-called lone wolf jihad is more of a Sunni thing.
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.