Georgia Federal Court Dismisses Christian Counselor's Attempt to Opt-Out of Gay Counseling
Religion Clause:
In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, (SD GA, June 22, 2012), a Georgia federal district court, in a lengthy opinion, dismissed claims by a former graduate student in Augusta State University's graduate counselor education program that her constitutional rights were infringed when she was dismissed for refusing to complete a required remediation plan. The remediation requirements were imposed when graduate student Jennifer Keeton, a devout Christian, told faculty that she would not condone the propriety of homosexual relations or a homosexual identity in a counseling situation. This position violates professional ethical standards of the American Counseling Association that require counselors to respect the diversity of their clients and avoid imposing values on them that are inconsistent with counseling goals. The court rejected both Keeton's facial overbreadth and vagueness challenges as well as her "as applied" challenges to the remediation plan. Finding no viewpoint discrimination against Keeton, the court said...
...The court also rejected Keeton's "compelled speech" claim, saying that when someone voluntarily chooses a profession, the person must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Finally the court rejected Keetons's free exercise of religion, unconstitutional condition and equal protection challenges.
The court's decision was consistent with an earlier 11th Circuit decision in the case that refused to grant a preliminary injunction because plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits. (See prior posting.) SPLC reports on the district court's latest decision.
37 Comments
Freedom to practice religion does not mean freedom to impose one's religious views on a professional society. Imagine licensing an Amish person as an x-ray technician who refused to use x-ray technology!
Or a "devout" Muslim refusing to give work or divorce related counseling to a woman.
Opting out of something is not imposing one's views on anybody. However, running people out of their jobs and careers because of their faith does exactly that. Any law that forces one to choose between her faith and her career is unconstitutional.
Hopefuly Jennifer Keeton's situation will serve as a warning of the threat the homosexual agenda poses to our constitutional rights.
You said it, Son of Adam. I am getting sick and tired of homosexual and pro abort groups telling society how it is going to be run. Ha! they think we are shoving religion at them? We are trying to preserve our GOD given freedom in this once FREE country. I myself, will not go down without a fight. Christians or any religious group , will not be bullied by the likes of a tainted agenda. We WILL overcome! "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:28-31
I like this one "avoid imposing values on them". If this were true (and I don't believe it is) based on that premise, homosexuals would be imposing their values on those of us who would disagree with their lifestyle. Unless she is a counselor for the State, she has the right as a private business owner to counsel whomever she wishes. However, this is a case in which the State is involved via the school but I believe that she should have, as a right of religious conscience to object. This is the problem with many of these so called "equality" laws we've seen pass in some states. They don't account for Consituttional religious rights garanteed by our 1st Amendment. The term "freedom of worship" has become popular among some in our culture. However the 1st Amendment says nothing of freedom of worship, as in a private act that one does on sunday morning. The 1st Amendment does say we have freedom of religion, that is the freedom to practice our religion in our daily lives in the public square not just in a church or closet somewhere.
Funny how as soon as a religious person says your views violate my conscience and what I know to be truth the left marches out that tired old "imposing your faith on someone else". The fact is that if a marriage counselor did not want to counsel same sex amrriages they needn't impose their faith on the poor little gay folks because the counselor isn't counseling them. I have an openly christian therapist who treats me for PTSD and guess what I don't mind if he is a christian I also don't mind that he is an army veteran. I went looking for those credentials. What you who are so christophobic are doing is fixing it so that we who want this style of counseling can't'get it because you have forced your opinion on us when we didn't want it. Leave us alone.
Well said Son of Adam...totally agree.
It seems to be that if she has certain person views which she has the right to have, she should be able to "opt out" of certain counseling situations where she may be biased. We all have biases and need in that situation would need to put the client ahead of them. Lawyers withdraw from cases where they may have a conflict. I see no difference.
I am studying Christian Counseling and I would not opt out of treating anyone who came to me but my requirements and religious views would be in writing and they would have to sign them and agree to them to be treated. It's like Christ told the Pharisees, "the well do not need a doctor." Homosexuality is another sin that needs to be treated like any other sin and the only cure is Christ.
I like this one "avoid imposing values on them". If this were true (and I don't believe it is) based on that premise, homosexuals would be imposing their values on those of us who would disagree with their lifestyle. Unless she is a counselor for the State, she has the right as a private business owner to counsel whomever she wishes. However, this is a case in which the State is involved via the school but I believe that she should have, as a right of religious conscience to object. This is the problem with many of these so called "equality" laws we've seen pass in some states. They don't account for Consituttional religious rights garanteed by our 1st Amendment. The term "freedom of worship" has become popular among some in our culture. However the 1st Amendment says nothing of freedom of worship, as in a private act that one does on sunday morning. The 1st Amendment does say we have freedom of religion, that is the freedom to practice our religion in our daily lives in the public square not just in a church or closet somewhere. I don't see religion being imposed on anyone here but I do see religious discrimation.
I believe you are entirely correct Judy. It is a shame that some would deny this young woman the title of counselor simply because there are some she cannot counsel in good conscience. As I remember the story, she sought out another counselor for the person too. Which is all she should have to do. Just because you cannot personally help someone, does not mean you should be prevented from helping anyone.
Homosexuals are in desperate need of counseling to deal with their illness.
They are trying to justify bad behavior by demonizing those who hold the truth. Just like alcoholics try to justify their destructive behavior, so too do the homosexuals.
If your professions mandates that you follow a standard code of ethics, then you are bound by that professions rules and procedures. America has freedom of association and this woman was free to choose to either abide by the rules of her chosen profession or choose to go without being credentialed.
How would you like it if doctors "opted out" of the hippoctratic oath? Or lawyers chose not to be bound by legal ethics and rules of conduct? She is in a profession where the rules are stated in black and white before she even began her persuits. Religion does not exempt you from the rules a profession has set for itself.
Follow the rules fo your profession or seek another profession. This woman is in a job where she is dealing with the most vulnerable of people. Can you imagine the damage and person would suffer if they were told that the person they came to for help wouldnt help them because of who they are?
@LonesomeRhoades
What's your point? That she should have taken on the counseling since, according to you, LGBT folks need it so badly?
"This woman is in a job where she is dealing with the most vulnerable of people. Can you imagine the damage and person would suffer if they were told that the person they came to for help wouldnt help them because of who they are?"
This woman was being asked to promote and encourage a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle, Austin. She could not in good conscience do that. Helping them out of that lifestyle, as thousands of others have, would be the more conscienable course.
"Best practices" requires a counselor to refer a client when the counselor, for whatever reason, feels unable to provide the client with the needed level of service.
Well, either we win at SCOTUS or we start watching out for the lions.
Whatever.
We've been here many times before, and the blood of martyrs has always been the seed of Christians.
#15 Rc: homosexual militants have continued to work at making a clearly unnatural practice as being tolerable, acceptable.
For too long, people have kept silence. It is time for the homosexual movement to be resisted.
It seems none of you on here have read the judgement or in the other similar case.
it was this woman's choice to sign up to this particular course and she agreed to be bound by the professional rules and ethics involved.
She should have gone to a Christian University to study.
Real counselling, (as opposed to the religiously mediated partisan version) requires counsellors to have unconditional positive regard for client's. She couldn't do that. So she can't be a good counsellor in the real world. She can be a Christian counsellor and make it known to clients and have them accept that. But she can't set herself up as a counsellor who can help people regardless of their problems.
I disagree with Paul Mc's rather condesending view at counselors who happen to be Christians. I would say that, regardless of orientation, if the problem that the person needs couseling for isn't related to sexual orientation then this is a non-issue. But this case, as far as what is being mentioned in this article, was specific to include counseling those with homosexual relationships. This woman should be allowed to refer such couple to someone else who is ok with that without being discriminated against by the school.
For gay apologists and their enabling supporters: The gay movement has always pandered to homosexual pedophilia from its inception. The gay pioneers and historians like David Thorstad, Harvey Milk, Allen Ginsberg (beat poet) and many others were pedophiles. They championed man/boy lovers as a gay right. Thorstad founded NAMBLA ( North American Man Boy Lovers Association). Current gay literature abounds with homopedophilic themes like man/boy lovers and graphic depictions of sexual assaults on young boys. The gay lifestyle is obviously immoral. unhealthy, and destructive.
Just another homosexual militant attack on people of faith.
For the record, Christians of course can be counsellors if they agree with professional ethical stds. They can't be real counsellors if they practise an ethic that refers on clients for things like sexuality. Also I don't see how a modality that includes the belief that behaviour is about original sin and the fallen nature of mankind rather than real root psychological cause, can ever be effective. It's looking in the wrong place.
Well then, I would suggest that she keep her profession but start her own organization.
I'm not someone who questions authority nor do I question rules, but this is a matter where she should go her own way. I don't believe people should be forced to go against their religious beliefs.
Every counselor will have situations that their beliefs &/or personality bring their neutrality into question. Not being able to be neutral re: homosexuality is no different. The comparisons being made here (like dr. not taking hippocratic oath) are not apples to apples. One doctor cannot treat every condition. Why should one counselor be expected to treat every condition?
It's a shame to know I can't trust or accept the practice of psychological counselors. If I had homosexual feelings and I couldn't trust a counselor to help me find actual lasting happiness instead of insist that what I want is normal and good when I know it's not, I don't know what I'd do.
This is a sad state of affairs for the helping professions, to not be able to cure and heal the suffering...
Austin, if imposing the supremacy of gay identity politics has a place in any code of ethics, that code is immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional.
Apart from such an imposition of such supremacy, what do you imagine to be ethical about forcing a counselor, or someone qualified to perform as a counselor, to act against his or her conscience?
There are bigger things in reality than the nonsense conjured up by the hockers of gay identity politics.
Paul Mc, you are speaking out of ignorance.
You said that the organization "requires counsellors to have unconditional positive regard for client's. She couldn't do that."
She could do that. She said she would do that. There is nothing in her beliefs that prevents her from making and living by such a commitment.
Gay identity politics ought to be recognized for what it is: an irrelevant imposition on the profession.
You clearly see it as supreme over all other considerations. Your telling of half-truths does not transform the truth into a falsehood.
What has happened to our beloved America? We have watched the dissolution of our 1st Amendment rights. How can this continue?
Although I deplore the homosexual agenda, the most flagrant injustice in this case, is the failure of the courts to halt the erosion of basic rights of speech, religion, and conscience. Those who occupy the bench and elected offices in our country are complicit in the most egregious dismantling of our freedoms that could possibly occur. There is very little standing now between us and totalitarian enslavement of all mankind.
@Austin,
You are very smug when you refer to "rules" of the profession. Ten years ago, the WHO still listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Because of activism by mentally disturbed people, you now call yourselves "normal". But "normal" is actually an objectively defined trait - and you are not it. To be normal one conforms to the norm. Normal human sexuality does not abuse the body parts and perform unnatural acts for the deviant pleasure that confers.
Also, in the United States of America, citizens have certain guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and thought. These have always been understood to mean that the practice of your rights were not to be used as a basis for official sanction. Homosexuals today have taken up the cause of persecution against those with whom they disagree. This is both dishonest and coercive. You have ceded any moral ground you could have claimed on the basis of being persecuted, when you began attacking Christians and any others who oppose your agenda.
It is strange that physicians and pharmacists may refuse to provide birth control as a matter of conscience (and in doing so are expected to refer patients to those who will), but a counselor doesn't have a similar "conscience clause" option. It seems like she could refer gay patients to other counselors.
Wouldn't they prefer that over having her pretend that she is okay with it (in order to get her credentials) and then counsel gay patients from her true standpoint?
Isn't it odd that a woman's right to medication (which is often NOT used for contraceptive purposes and can be vital to her health and well-being) is less important than gays' right to have their sexual behavior affirmed by all? When did it become like that? What does it say about us as a society?
For the record, I DO support the right of conscience for doctors etc. within reasonable situations.
P.S. I also don't mind if anyone is gay. That is their business. If it is a sin, it's between them and God and doesn't involve me. HOWEVER that doesn't give anyone the right to my approval, or a counselor's affirmation, of their behavior. It seems that is the way the winds are blowing -- it's not enough to tolerate homosexuality; we are expected to actively endorse it. That's where I draw the line. Live and let live, but don't tell me what I should agree with.
At PinkSparkles: As the great Thomas Sowel pointed out when you demand a right to have your behavior be approved you have violated my civil rights to make my own moral decision.
if the judge has personal bias, he can opt out or exclude himself, but those they sit over in judgement cannot sit out when they biased. So is this a "sitting farce" situation? How lovely judicial activism works. When it goes to a higher court, I will support/financially.
Let's cut to the chase here.... In the Julea Ward case the court said that if the counseling profession offered an option to not counsel for any reason, it was religious bias for the university to not allow Ms. Ward that option. That was a case in Michigan so this must be another state which would explain why it was not cited by this court. I'm sure it will be appealed. But that is the truth here.....case closed.