We've reported on Julea Ward's story in the past. Now, state legislators in Michigan are doing something to help her situation and to help others who face discrimination over their pro-marriage views:
The Michigan House has passed a bill meant to prohibit religious discrimination against college students who study counseling, social work, and psychology.
The bill was prompted after student Julea Ward was kicked out of a counseling program at Eastern Michigan University for refusing to counsel a gay student, saying it conflicted with her Christian beliefs. Bill 5040, known as the, "Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act," passed 59-to-50 Wednesday. It now heads to the Senate for consideration. -- WHTC
58 Comments
Good to hear.
Good news that the bill passed.
Somewhat shocking to realize that there are fifty votes for Gay Fascism in the Michigan House.
May November be most unkind to each and all of them.
I have a question: Suppose I'm a good and faithful Mormon in a counseling program and I'm asked to counsel someone in an interracial relationship. Am I allowed to cite this law and refuse to counsel this person because the Book of Mormon calls black skin a curse from God and prohibits interracial relationships?
Honest question I'd like an answer to.
Glad to see Religious Liberty being supported in the law. No one should be forced to accommodate the homosexual agenda when its a matter of conscience and moral belief.
RM asks a great question. I'm all for honoring freedom of conscience. That said, people believe all sorts of things, and acting on some of those things has the potential to infringe on the rights of others. I think this is a dangerous law, since it honors the freedom of conscience for some on a higher plane for some than it does for others, without any rational basis.
RM: The therapist is free to follow their conscience in refusing to take the client on. Other therapists, of course, are free to disagree.
Bruce: The SSA disorder often responds to therapeutic remedies, and hence the individual desiring to be cured is entitled under the First Amendment to seek such remedial therapy.
Therapists who disagree that the disorder is a disorder, or that it can be cured, are of course free to refuse to treat the individual.
Simple.
I think it is becoming more and more important that candidates for public office need to be questioned about their stance on religious liberty. Especially those candidates that support ssm.
Thank you, Rick. It's good to know that I'll soon be able to engage in open racial discrimination in Michigan. All I'll have to do is plead religion as a defense to my crimes.
Crimes?
Please.
You are at war with reality, and it is no surprise to learn that you are therefore at war with the conscience of all who disagree with you.
You are, to put it plainly, a fascist.
For the good of everyone, your movement needs to be defeated, and we will continue to do our utmost to toward the securing of this necessary objective.
Rick,
While I'm sympathetic to those whose same sex attraction creates enormous tension with their religious values, it's simply not true that unwanted same sex attraction "often responds to therapeutic remedies." The studies which put these therapies in the best possible light confirm exactly the opposite.
And your solution might be "simple," but it's certainly not fair or in the interest of those who seek any kind of counseling, the ethical requirements of which require therapists to set aside personal opinions, not use their clients to promote them.
This now gives a license to discriminate against people that are divorced, use contraception.
Unfortunately, these so called Christians are not true to their faith and would never attempt it. They feel it is only rigt to discriminate against the sin of homosexuality.
The hypocrisy.
To Rick:
First, I always enjoy the humor of being lectured about "reality" from someone who believes that the first two human being came into existence from a clump of dirt and a rib bone.
Second, I'm the fascist? You're the one arguing in favor of racial discrimination so long as it can be justified by references to primitive desert mythology.
And third, yes, I have nothing but contempt for your views which is why I fight against them on a daily basis.
Not only is it ethical, but it's also considered "best practices" to refer a client when a counselor determines that he/she is unable for whatever reason to provide the level of service that a client expects.
So they are voting on a law that directs the judiciary to abide by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution?
It appears supporters of marriage corruption are on the verge of abandoning all pretenses that their demands have nothing at all to do with a clandestine assault on the source of our freedom; religious liberty.
The last desperate act of a maniacal horde of decadent miscreants!
@RM
Yes you should be allowed to cite this law.
However, your hypothetical is incorrect. The LDS do not prohibit interracial relationships or interracial marriages. I personally know black/white LDS couples. A good and faithful Mormon would not, therefore, face this problem.
Before you set your self up as an authority on the Mormons, you might check with an actual Mormon General Authority like Elder Joseph W. Sitati of Nairobi, Kenya, who is, as his name and nationality might suggest, black.
True, Barb.
That's why the 6th Circuit ordered Ms. Ward's case to be heard by a jury (reversing the lower court's ruling). It was simply implausible to them that EMU doesn't allow values-based referrals. They do.
The court even reviewed the counseling standards and viewed Ms. Ward's request for referral as a way to *prevent* the imposition of her values on the client.
Very sadly there were 50 who voted against this bill which means they favor destroying the first Amendment to the Constitution.
I quite agree, John.
It is disturbing to realize that there are 50 votes for Gay Fascism in the Michigan legislature.
May they have a woeful November.
@Carlos:
"They feel it is only rigt to discriminate against the sin of homosexuality."
First time I've seen you acknowledge that "homosexuality" is a sin. Now if we could only open your eyes to the fact that codifying sin into law is an affront to humanity.
Publius: since you are so knowledgeable about Mormonism, can you tell me why god grants each man a planet when he dies but women receive nothing? Thanks.
I would like to see a law like this in passed in Maryland. The Mdgop needs to move on this!
I would like to see a law like this passed in Maryland. (and other states) Mdgop needs to move on this!
Randy, Was not acknowledging any sin, rather that Christians use sin to discriminate.
I do agree with you that codifying sin is an insult to humanity. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
Carlos:
You are free to reject religion, but not biology.
Or the unanimous decision of your neighbors ion free and fair elections, of which you have lost 33 straight.
It is unfortunate that you chose to attack marriage, but since you did, we will defeat you.
Rick, wrong on several fronts:
- I don't reject religion, in fact I embrace it. Guess, I'm no different than other that embrace religion but still get divorced (can we say Newt Gingrich), use contreception, etc.
- My goal is to strengthen marriage by making it inclusive of all people.
- As for biology, it is my biological make up that, including homosexuality, that I am accepting. I'm not rejecting it, I'm embracing my biology.
Carlos,
Changing the meaning of the word marriage weakens it; it does not strengthen it. Marriage is already inclusive in that all opposite sex pairings can freely enter into a marriage.
Marriage: the joining of opposites
Changing the meaning of the word marriage so that you necessitate severing a component from its descriptive will sever marriages link to our history and traditions; from all the generations that came before us.
You are not just assaulting everything that will be; you are also assaulting everything that ever was.
Carlos:
Biological Makeup:
the structure and functioning of a particular organism. Also, inborn, gene.
How does homosexuality ( a behavior) fit in to your biological makeup? Plus, your organs where not design for homosexual behavior. This is a basic truth you must accept or remain forever delusional.
Carlos, telling NOMers you accept and embrace homosexuality will accomplish what?
Are you in school, how old are you? You seem to be lacking in the understanding of the English language. Simply put, you don't know what you are talking about, but it's typical from so-call gays.
Carlo:
HIV/AIDS further that basic understanding that, the human body were not meant to engage in same sex coupling, all the pharmaceutical drugs and condoms in the world can't change this fact. Of course, you'll have the majority to pay for it through Obamacare, and other State and Fed dependencies. Meanwhile you remain a health threat to everyone else well being. To add insult to injury, you know want to indoctrinate our children to join your hell of a life, and change heterosexual marriage to hetero/homosexual marriage, but this way of life can never be maintain without affecting whole societies existence. The other side don't understand this because they only live for themselves and too self absorbed to see the future...
Leo - Having sex is a biological function, part of a persons biological makeup. Therefore, homosexualtiy is nothing more than the carrying out the biological function.
Organs may not have been desigend for homosexual behavior but doesn't mean they they can be used for it.
Not trying to accomplish anything but bring some thought to the Blog.
Carlos,
As my doctor stated:
"The muscles of the rectum are designed to push things out. When you push things into orifices designed to push things out you are slowly killing yourself with each application."
If my doctor is right - and a challenge you to prove otherwise - then you are advocating violence against humanity.
Carlo, sorry for the misspellings or grammar issues in my last two post. The message I wanted to convey is the importance of my post...
Carlos, again, you are just making up stuff...
Having sex is an "act" also a "behavior", having sex is not a biological function of your body. You need a partner to have sex. Humans can survive without sex but will become distinct if they do not.
Carlos, go read some books and learning about life, specifically about the human body.
@ 32 ...extinct...
LEO, your comments are totally offensive [not that you care] but are, more importantly, totally wrong!
Homosexuality has been shown, time and time again, in rigorous, large-scale scientific studies to be a natural phenomenon that occurs in a small percentage of the population. It is not just a "behaviour". In fact, many gay people don't act upon their feelings but they are still homosexual. Homosexuality is seen in 1000s if not 10000s of species across the globe, and it has been known in every single society across the history of civilisation.
Your absolute drivel about HIV/AIDS being proof that gays shouldn't have sex would make every scientist on this planet despair. It is trash. More Africans have HIV than there are gay people on this planet. Is that "science"s way of telling us that black people shouldn't have sex? Of course not! Don't be ridiculous. Plenty of heterosexual couples have lots of anal sex and plenty of homosexual couples have none.
Homosexuals will only ever remain a small proportion of the population, and NOBODY wants that to change. When there [hopefully] comes a day when gay people are completely accepted in society in every way, they will still only make up about the percentage of people that they do currently. People don't just turn gay. They either are, or they aren't. Having a small proportion of the population who can't/won't reproduce is good for humanity anyway - this planet is waaay overcrowded.
...and LEO, before you go and tell me to read some books about the nature and function of the human body, it's probably wise to tell you that I'm a doctor. I've read plently. I know what I'm talking about.
Dan:
Dan please provide us NOMers with some evidence to all of over your presume facts, especially about African Americans. As for your biology references, similarly to Carlos, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING OUT. That's because your uneducated and delusional, they have drug for your problem.
Dan,
Your a Doctor, what are you a Foot Doctor, a Dentist? So what are you trying to say with the Doctor reference? I'm suppose to believe everything you say that does not make sense just because you're a Doctor? If you are a Doctor, you won't prove that by me!
Dan,
I had a Heart Doctor tell me I need to have Heart or else, that was almost 10 years ago. And, with the help of a second opinion, I'm doing just find because I trusted my instincts, my guides. The Doctor who told me I needed Heart surgery was looking for another heart surgery customer, the pay is better.
Thus, I am not impressed by your Doctor reference, get it?
@ 39 heart surgery...
@ 37 ...About!
"Am I allowed to cite this law and refuse to counsel this person because the Book of Mormon calls black skin a curse from God and prohibits interracial relationships?"
Your question is based on two false premises: 1) that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibits interracial marriage and 2) that the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, names "black skin" a curse from God.
1) If you peruse Handbook 2, which is the Church's official book of policy, you'll find no policy prohibiting interracial marriage. The handbook can be found on the Church's official web-site.
2) If a person actually reads and studies the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, a dark skin was not a curse, but a sign of distinction between those who rejected God, and those who made covenants to keep His commandments. The actual curse was to be cut off from God (which one does to oneself, through rebellion against God). Dark skin is not a curse, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches God's love for all His children, of whatever color/race. Furthermore, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, those with darker skin were oftentimes more favored of God for faithfulness, than their lighter-skinned brethren, and were blessed accordingly. Again, a careful reading of the book will provide clarity on the issue.
Regards
In fact, according to doctrine, African Americans were more valiant in the spirit world being so blessed than others destined for mortal life.
Sad that we have to have these laws nowadays to protect people that hold a traditional view of marriage and family from the homosexual militants out there trying to impose their lifestyle down our throats, but definitely happy to hear it passed and hopefully it will make it all the way through the legislature and be signed soon.
But wasn't Julia Ward discriminating against gay students by refusing to provide them with counseling services? Isn't it a violation of Christianity to refuse help to anyone? Could Julia be said to have violated that gay student's religious beliefs? What was Julia supposed to counsel that gay student about?
Iam not religious and it makes sence to me. Out in the field after school Iam sure she can say no do why not when is school. Now wether or not I think she's right is a different reason but I see how i
Militant homosexuals will never be content until government forces everyone to accept their lifestyle as normal. The principles of Christianity are foundational and consistent. they go back as far as recorded history. The foundation is based around the ten commandments. Homosexual normalcy is not foundational or physiologoically supported. To be blunt....there is no physiologocal evidence that a rectum was designed for anything except waste removal
Her right to refer a potential homosexual client who wishes counseling on same-sex relationships is the same right as an atheist counselor to refer a Muslim client who wishes counseling on issues of religious faith.
What planet are you living on? I am a Mormon who grew up in a very integrated area in Los Angeles County. I now live in Arizona. We have many, many bi-racial couples in our church.
The Book of Mormon passages you are referring to only relate to the family of Lehi whose two oldest sibling's posterity hated their younger brothers who followed the teachings of the Old Testament prophets. Remember Ishmael and Isaac? Jacob and Esau?
So no, as a LDS counselor I would have no problem with a bi-racial couple. Those are the facts.
Unfortunately, in the UK it is illegal to refuse to counsel homosexual persons or to suggest to one seeking to change that it may be possible. A gay activist went undercover to entrap a therapist who did and she was prosecuted.
Just an aside. I am a born again Pentacostal but just be on the alert for strategic Mormon bashing leading up to the November election.
Just a reminder: this website is for National Organization for Marriage, between one man and one woman. If you don't agree with this, and you post, then you are trolling. Go post your opinions on your homosexual website. The rest of you, ignore, do not respond to them. Let's continue our discussion to promote the passage of more laws like this, let's take back the rainbow as a Christian symbol. Lets stamp out the teaching of homosexual history, etc. Remember, acceptance under the law doesn't mean one is entitled to advocacy!
I guess I left Dr. Dan speechless? Great another soul was saved here @ NOM...
Amen, Michael E.
That’s why the judges said in the ruling:
“Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.”
The court also noted that the ACA Code of Ethics specifically permits referrals when counselors are assigned terminally-ill clients who want assistance with end-of-life decisions, acknowledging that such decisions involve weighty moral and religious issues.
Even the expert witness for the school, though writing for the court that refusing to counsel someone on issues related to sexual orientation is a clear violation of the ACA Code, had stated in other forums that he knows many counselors who refer gay and lesbian clients when they want to discuss their relationships.
I don't believe that RM meant to demonize Mormons. He was simply asking a hypothetical: does a counselor or therapist who believes interracial marriage is immoral have the right to refuse to offer his services to such a couple under this law? Plenty of posters defended Mormonism, which is fair enough, but everyone dodged RM's real question, which I think is an excellent one.
Buce,
The race relation comparison to the practice of sodomy is clearly not the same, If you think so you need to have your head examine. Not only are the two subjects extremely different from each other, even an amateur psycho-counselor would agree your hypothetical was pure racial and unrealistic.
But, your hypo-reality lead me to think you may be a racist, well are you?
Bruce,
Furthermore, why do your side keep doing Apples to Oranges comparisons when you're trying to be the post-person for LGBT crowd?? Those mind tricks may work on the weak minded who sucker into submission, but there no weak minded people here @ NOM so move on.
You of all people should know better, you're a regular on this website. You continue hoping to win over some NOMers only to set yourself up for disappointment every-time...give your self a break!
I look forward to the day when all the others finally realize that standing up to tyrants is not only permitted in this nation it also happens to be a whole lot of fun watching tyrants change colors out of frustration for no longer possessing the ability to bully people into submission via peer pressure.
Reminds me of when the character ‘Boo’ lost her fear of her ‘Monster.’
“Kitttty!”