Federal Court Rules in Favor of Religious Freedom (278 hits)
by Karla Dial
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that a graduate student’s First Amendment rights were likely violated when Eastern Michigan University (EMU) expelled her from the counseling program in which she was enrolled.
In her graduate-level practicum in 2009, Julea Ward was assigned a client seeking help in reconciling her same-s*x relationship in 2009. Ward, who is a Christian, didn’t feel she’d be the best counselor for that case, so she asked her supervisor how to handle it — and her supervisor referred the client to another qualified professional, a standard counseling practice. But afterward, EMU started disciplinary proceedings against her, and ultimately expelled her from the program because of her religious beliefs.
In overturning the lower court’s pre-trial ruling in favor of the university, the 6th Circuit said today that schools cannot force students to violate their religious beliefs, and sent the case back to the lower court for a trial.
“Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the schools’ affirmation directives in doing so,” the justices wrote. “That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heteros*xual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their s*xual practices. What more could the rule require? 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.”
According to court documents, EMU faculty members specifically targeted Ward’s Christian beliefs during disciplinary hearings — asking her whether she thought her “brand” of Christianity was better than others’, and then lectured her about the errors of her religious thinking. Before she was expelled, she was told she could only continue earning her degree if she agreed to go through a “remediation” program to change her thinking.
That, the court said, is simply unconstitutional.
“Why treat Ward differently? That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer,” the justices wrote in their 22-page opinion. “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree.”
The Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Ward in the case, applauded the ruling.
“Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree,” Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said. “Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor — a common, professional practice to best serve clients-EMU attacked and questioned Julea’s religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION Read the 6th Circuit’s ruling.
@JEN, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? You are a nurse, correct?
If you went before the board to get you nursing liscense and you said, "NO", I will give a flu shotto a patient , but I will not draw blood from a patient...would you be granted your liscense? Is this trying to tell you what to do or to not do but saying what is required to get your liscenes.
Another excample, a person may not want to learn about another culture or history, but in the state of Ca. you will take at least one class or you will never graduate from a 4 year college, university in the state of Ca. It is called a requirement and you can taqke it or you can leave it or you can get the law changed!!! (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
Now Jen, here is where a case like this is directly tied to Roe v Wade...IT IS CALLED, 'THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY'... THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN'T CALL ROE V WADE WRONG AND A CASE LIKE THIS RIGHT ,BECAUSE BOTH COME UNDER ONLY ONE MAJOR PART OF THE LAWS OF OUR LAND (AS IN OUR CONSTUTITION) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO P-R-I-V-A-C-Y OR IN OTHER WORDS JEN, WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES AND INDEPENDANT THOUGHTS...
I DOUBT IF YOU UNDERSTAND ME OR EVEN AS IT IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND...AND IN COURT EMOTIONS DON'T COUNT ANY WAY...(S-M-I-L-E)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
