Bill targets EMU after dismissal of student Julea Ward over refusal to counsel gay client
Republicans in the state Legislature are backing a bill that takes aim at Eastern Michigan University following its dismissal of a student who, citing religious beliefs, refused to counsel a gay student, the Detroit Free Press reports.
A bill approved in a higher education subcommittee Wednesday would require universities with accredited counseling programs to report how they will protect students' "deeply held religious" beliefs, the Free Press reported. The bill doesn't mention EMU, but lawmakers told the Free Press the case of dismissed graduate student Julea Ward is the impetus for it.
Julea Ward sued Eastern Michigan University after she was dismissed from a graduate program because she refused to counsel a gay client.
Photo courtesy of ADF
Ward lost in the lower courts, but Ward and her attorneys, the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization that works to uphold the rights of religious college students and faculty, have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District to step in.
The American Civil Liberties Union weighed in on the side of EMU in the case. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schutete supports Ward.
Comments
ponderinglifeinmichigan
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
If the counselor is not qualified to counsel in the area that the patient is requesting, I think it is their DUTY to refer them to someone who can help them better. How can she counsel about something that she knows nothing of? Doctors refer patient all the time to other doctors with specialties in the area needing help, isn't that what she was doing? She didn't deny treatment but rather referred the person to someone who was more qualified to counsel them. I applaud the fact that she knows when she is not qualified to counsel properly!!!
Marc Williams
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
Not enough is being said about this. If Ms. Ward wanted to be protected from points of view she does not agree with she should have attended one of the many faith based colleges or universities in the United States. You attend a publicly funded institution, you deal with the public.
Jon Saalberg
Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.
"A bill approved in a higher education subcommittee Wednesday would require universities with accredited counseling programs to report how they will protect students' "deeply held religious" beliefs, the Free Press reported." Good to know that when our state is in need of reasoned leadership on education, tax policies, job growth and other weighty matters, the GOP is tackling a really important issue facing our state. As long as the GOP goes after gays and eliminating women's reproductive rights, they can feel happy, knowing they're moving forward with the right-wing agenda. However, it's unfortunate they are not concerned with helping the majority of Michigan residents, who consider the GOP agenda abhorrent and downright embarrassing.
Antonia Maurici
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.
I'm glad that the EMU counseling clinic stood it's ground with this situation. A counselor's job isn't to judge their client but to support their client. Is Ms. Ward planning on rejecting every person who comes in because of their own personal choices and beliefs that don't mesh with hers? If so, she should think of another profession since she won't have any clients!
Matt Cooper
Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:12 a.m.
Secondly, while certain behaviors might be immoral to YOU does not in any way reflect that it is immoral FOR THEM. ALL clients, regardless of race, color, sexual orientation or any other distinguishing characteristic, have an inherent human right to self-determination. And not only to self-determination, but self-determination that is free from discrimination, mocking, judgementalistic behaviors by others and denial of the very services that student s of the counseling professions have agreed to provide.
Matt Cooper
Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 2:08 a.m.
And BW, here is the hole in your rather flawed logic: Nobody, and I mean NObody, can ever be helped by sexism, racism, ignorance or judgementalism. No client can ever be helped by a counselor that judges tham and their conduct by their own personal religious beliefs. No client can be well served by a counselor that openly defies the very credo she swore to adhere to when she took on her professional internship (NASW Code of Ethics, Sections 1.01, 1.02, and 1.05, not to mention the section titled "Ethical Principles, as well as the EMU student code of conduct).
Antonia Maurici
Sun, Apr 17, 2011 : 12:54 a.m.
Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental defect by the American Psychiatric Association, who publishes the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual) that the counselors in training at the EMU clinic use. The counseling clinic is obligated to follow those guidelines provided by the book and not view gays and lesbians as defects. So your statement that homosexuality is anti-social doesn't matter. That is your personal opinion. And personal opinions aren't part of the counseling relationship.
Bill Wilson
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
Antonia wrote: "I'm glad that the EMU counseling clinic stood it's ground with this situation. A counselor's job isn't to judge their client but to support their client. " Excusing anti-social or immoral behavior isn't support: it's enabling. Here's the real hole in your logic: Some people might be helped by Ms. Ward's honesty. For example, in this past wednesday's "Dear Abby" column, there was a letter that discussed how the person's partner refused to acknowledge their relationship with his own family. This person's partner was obviously uncomfortable with some aspect of the relationship, or in making the relationship known. This type of person might be helped by Ms. Ward's candor, and there is the real problem: many homosexuals are not comfortable of happy as they are, and are looking for the type of help a Julea Ward could provide.
Dog Guy
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
Refusing to counsel a gay student to be gay happily is just as bad as a nurse or physician refusing to abort a baby or euthanize a severely disabled person. Personal morality cannot be allowed or the whole social structure will collapse. Everyone must follow orders.
1bit
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.
You are conflating counseling with killing someone. They are not the same thing. Physicians are do not have to abort a baby, but they do learn about the procedure in medical school.
njgreg
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
For centuries people used the story of Ham in the Bible to justify the enslavement of Africans. In the 21st century, we realize that any such interpretation or commandment is wrong, just as Ms. Ward is wrong, and other religious people who use their holy books to justify the mistreatment and murder of gays. I would love to see Ms. Ward's reaction if a fellow counselor refused to serve a black student based upon his religious beliefs. I'd like to see the legislature try to defend that in 21st century Michigan. As someone already wrote, we've got serious issues this legislature needs to address. This is utter nonsense.
1bit
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
"A bill approved in a higher education subcommittee Wednesday would require universities with accredited counseling programs to report how they will protect students' "deeply held religious" beliefs..." Okay, this is so beyond the bounds of common sense that it mystifies me why any elected representative is wasting our tax dollars dreaming up this stuff. EMU can make whatever criteria they want for their degree. Government (and these doofus representatives behind the bill) have no business interfering. Theoretically, the same folks behind this bill actually believe in less government intervention not more. Maybe if a student has a "deeply held religious" belief that is not compatible with the school or degree program to which one has applied, maybe they should have chosen a different school. It is my deeply held religious belief that I not be subjected to waste in government and I want to know what these representatives are going to do to protect my belief. My hope is their immediate resignation.
JeffreyRO5
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 2:27 a.m.
State legislators cave in to religionist bigotry. Sad for Michigan but not surprising. Ms. Ward was not dismissed from EMU because of her religious beliefs, but because she violated an oath she signed to serve all clients without prejudice. A counselor doesn't get to make a personal statement about religion at a client's expense. Her dislike of gay people could be religion-based or just personal. Either way, she signed an oath to assist clients, not condemn them.
katie
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:59 a.m.
My guess is that it's personal. She wants things her own way. Otherwise she'd be more open minded. Plenty of Christians do not have these beliefs.
northside
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 9:11 p.m.
Based on the numerous Biblical passages requiring women to be submissive, I object to a woman counseling a man. (Note to site comment reader: This is sarcasm. I am not seriously suggesting that women not be allowed to work in counseling. I am just pointing out the glaring contradictions in Julea Ward's position, most specifically her selective reading of the Bible.)
SillyTree
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
Snehal, I was in agreement with your argument for a bit. The problem I have is that if it is not a religous belief, how can being against be a religous belief. Several of the world's religions do not separate their lives into religous and non-religous segments. Those religions are a way of life or a lifestyle. If a gay person (of whatever religion) believes that their vision of that religion allows homosexuality then it is a an allowed way of life in their religion and it is a religious belief. If it is a religous belief to be against it; it certainly can be viewed as a religous belief to accept it. You cannot say that they made up the belief. You cannot say that their vision of this religion is not real. That is a slippery slope. That means that only certain religions are condoned by the state. That is not a separtation of church and state. So now, we come to the crux. We want to be able to separate lifestyle from religous belief, but that is against some religions. You admit that lifestyle is not separate from religion. Certain lifestyles can be probhibited by our religion. The constitution guarantees a separation of church and state. That in itself is against the beliefs of some religions. If this legislation were to pass a person would effectively be able to refuse counsel to anyone that believes in the separation of church and state. This doesn't come down to supporting homosexuality or gay rights. The slippery slope is when we take away rights from one group, we risk losing our own constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.
That is the only objection I have to this otherwise fair law. If following three things are done then it woul dbe a better law: - Nobody can refuse anything based on religion - People should be made aware of all possibilities and/or dislikings fo ra job they wish to join. - If any unforseen circumstances arises then people should be able to express their dislike without resorting to any belief system or quoting it and if feasible this request should be accomodated to the best efforts by both parties involved.
SillyTree
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:25 p.m.
I just want you and others to be aware. Our law is based on precedent. Some of the greatest legal victories for one party have been achieved by precedent set by the other. What we think we want now can lead to undesired consequence in the future. We must look at things in the abstract or rather than the specific or we will assuredly face those negative consequences.
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:14 p.m.
SillyTree (I like that name!), You are right. People tend to identify or define themselves based on their religious beliefs which is not correct. But then alas, people have lost self-identity. We do not know who we are! But that's a different point. My point is simple. A person is not gay based on religious beliefs because as far as I know, no religion promotes homosexuality. But almost all religions are against it. So, people who cannot openly project their dislike towards homosexuality take cover under religious beliefs. I want equality in rights. If a person has right to be gay then somebody else should also have right to show disassociation (mind you I am not saying dislike or hatred). If you are a smoker and I do not smoke then I have a right to distant myself away from you or ask you to stop smoking. Similarly if your sexual likings are not compatible with mine, then I should atleast have a right to distant myself from that concept. There can always be acceptance with disassociation. And that is what is needed in this world. Not religious certificates because the so-called religious leaders are sometimes themselves gay or have relationship with same sex. In this scenario, Julia chose to take cover of her religious belief and that is where I think got tangled. And reason for this is that neither constitution nor any law gives normal people any rights to express their disassociation with abnormal people.
bedrog
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:34 p.m.
After all the ' religious beliefs ' vs. 'simple bigotry' vs.' protection of deeply held faith' yadda yadda, the real issue is, and should be, that students in a training program for a given profession don't get to tell the program/profession what it should teach and what it's standards should be. If they could, i'd have gotten my doctorate alot earlier, with less annoyance and with a higher GPA from the courses i wouldnt have taken because i hated them and stank at them. If ward isn't prepared to play by those rules, she should have enrolled in a program more attuned to her particular values...and they no doubt do exist ( at places like Bob jones u., jerry falwell's Liberty U, Ave Tom Monaghan u etc.).
bedrog
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
snoop...question away by all means . But don't bellyache if there are consequences ,particularly if you are a student -apprentice in a field that already has established standards of conduct. Also if you want to set yourself up as a religious martyr ...which ward and her fat cat backers/instigators clearly do want...it doesnt come off if you don't suffer a bit. Do you think Joan of Arc would have made it to sainthood if she'd sued the english for 'defamation of character' instead of being burned at the stake by them??
katie
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:57 a.m.
Yep, the guidelines for counselors and social workers are plainly laid out for all to see. If she does not agree with those guidelines and those who are trying to teach to professional standards she should not have taken the program. I don't get why she didn't do that in the first place. Students get far by complaining these days it seems.
snoopdog
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
So in other words bedrog, never question authority or the higher ups in any given power of "authority" or "expertise". I think we saw the horror of this thinking during WW2. Good Day
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.
This is a far greater blow to the science of psychology than it is a benefit to religious nuts. By law, now, psychology cannot be considered urgent care.
catfishrisin
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
For a party that preaches against government interference ...they sure like to interfere.
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.
Why do so many supposed christians care more about the old testament than the new one? You know, the testament that Jesus is actually in where he tells us not to judge others and to love our neighbors, etc? When did Jesus tell us to hate our gay neighbors? I guess I missed that part. If you're a christian who uses the old testament as an excuse to hate others you're missing the point of the religion.
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
I should have been clearer - I'm not accusing Ward of hating. However, I'm accusing a large number of self identified christians as hating, not just 'disassociation'. Many of the people pushing this legislation and defending Ward actively support govt discrimination against gay people. What's in her heart and mind is irrelevant. Professional counselors aren't allowed to pick and choose who they work with, they're required to set aside their personal feelings in order to assist their clients. This isn't that difficult. If she wants to pick and choose she could probably become a religious counselor and then she wouldn't have to worry about all those pesky professional licensure requirements. btw - where in the new testament does Jesus say we should shun gays?
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.
Do you know the difference between hate and disassociation? Disassociation respects the existence of unlikable factor but moves away from it. Hate is rejection with vehemance. Here, Julia just disassociated herself from the client by referring him/her to another counsellor. Never she has hated the person. If you are gay, I can still love you as a person but I would wish not to interact with you if I do not support your behavior of being gay. I hope you understand this difference, if not, then I would recommend you to take some spiritual classes.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.
"Republicans in the state Legislature are backing a bill that takes aim at Eastern Michigan University" Never fear, EMU! You hired Leigh Greden precisely to deal with this kind of problem. Oh, wait, nevermind. You're screwed. Hopefully he hasn't written some email insulted every member of the Michigan House.
Roadman
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:36 p.m.
I support the position of our Attorney General and hope for reversal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Michigan State Bar rules allow lawyers to decline representation or counsel of clients whose characteristics or beliefs make them repugnant to the lawyer. The State Bar realizes that such a situation can inhibit effective legal counsel. Many religious fundamentalists believe that homosexuality is a form of perversion that is sinful. Others have a differing view that it is not. I do not believe Jolea Ward should be punished for her failure to counsel this student due to a sincerely held religious belief. The remedy should be to find another counselor for that student. I admire Ms. Ward for her position in holding fast to her beliefs.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:55 p.m.
Unfortunately for Miss Ward, she is not, was not and most likely will never be a member of the Michigan Bar. Therefore, your argument is moot. Secondly, she agreed to the student code of conduct as well as the National Association of Social Workers code of ethics, which states: 1. "Social workers elevate service to others above selfÂinterest" 2. "Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people" 3."Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to selfÂdetermination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals"
Mr. Tibbs
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
SInce when is a christian belief held, called hate? Perhaps the freedom of association has been misread, as is all constitutional law that can be held and used against "US" and itself. The freedom of association is also the freedom FROM association. And I can prove the point. There are those of you so brainwashed, that this story will not last long in here for THAT very reason. SO consider this carefully. This is the truth. A while back a man I knew was convicted of a sex crime involving his daughter. Incest. got that. Incest is a major crime by all those just about anywhere on this planet, but if you were to stop and think a moment about homosexuality, that either by nature or by religious belief is also an abomination. And within the confines of sharia law, punishable by death. You are forced in this society to "accept" a gay lifestyle in the workplace and everywhere else in michigan, that it is almost hypocritical to say that this form of sex is right but that one isn't? slippery slope anyone? So while a christian student refuses to counsel a gay student, at least she didn't "offer" to stone him, or her, to death! This young lady is somehow hateful? So which is it? Is it hateful to force someone into a situation they are uncomfortable with? Or is it hateful to just say no thank you to someone and refuse to help them with something you disagree with? Be careful of this two wrongs making a right, thing going on here. Because the third and fourth wrong is called "escalation" and will get ugly!
snoopdog
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1:21 a.m.
excellent post, I would say both acts are wrong based on the Bible. I am sure A2.com will delete my post. Good Day
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
Are you comparing incest with homosexuality? That's really disgusting.
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
One thing I do not understand in this whole discussion is why people tend to think that sexual orientation is a religious belief. Religious beliefs and sexual likings have nothing to do with each other. Which religion says that being Gay is OK? Yet, we see gays in all religions either publicly or being in private. I have seen priests sexually abuse males in Christanity, Hindus, and Islam. So, let us take this religious aspect out. If I like being heterosexual, bisexual or gay it is due to my likings and dislikings. So, if a gay person thinks he has a right to be gay then I should have equal right to dislike his likings and refuse to interact with the person based on his likings or dislikings. Having said that, it will be nearly impossible to co-exist in a society if people are granted rights for every likings and dislikings. So, if a position demands interaction with people of different sexual orientation then it should be a part of the interview process to make the candidate understand what the position he/she is applying will demand. A pilot can not say that I will not fly a plane because I hate heights! He should not have been a pilot in the first place. Similarly, the student counsellor should not have jumped into this position as she should have known what all people she would have to deal with.
Terri
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 9:11 p.m.
Uh, not at all, Snehal.
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
My point exactly Terri!
Terri
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.
Snehal, I don't think that sexual orientation is a religious belief (and I don't really see anyone here who does, so what am I missing?). I'm very clear on the fact that Christianity is my religion and that being a lesbian is how God created me. Jesus didn't address homosexuality, no matter how often so-called Christians shout about how he condemned it. He didn't. The simple face is this: If you choose to pursue a field where you will counsel people (or care for their medical needs, etc.), you commit to counseling people. What's going to happen when Julea's been counseling a 12 year old for a year or two who's having trouble at home, and that kid comes out to her? She's established a relationship with that child--it's cool with you if she says, "Oh, geez, you know what? My religious beliefs no longer allow me to work with you. There's a queer-friendly therapist two schools over. Good luck and God bless!" With everything that kids go through to get to adulthood, I'm horrified that anyone thinks it's fine for a school counselor to pick and choose.
genetracy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
How would this playout if the counselor was gay and the patient Christian and the gay counselor refused treatment because of the patient's religious beliefs?
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.
SillyTree (I like that name!), You are right. People tend to identify or define themselves based on their religious beliefs which is not correct. But then alas, people have lost self-identity. We do not know who we are! But that's a different point. My point is simple. A person is not gay based on religious beliefs because as far as I know, no religion promotes homosexuality. But almost all religions are against it. So, people who cannot openly project their dislike towards homosexuality take cover under religious beliefs. I want equality in rights. If a person has right to be gay then somebody else should also have right to show disassociation (mind you I am not saying dislike or hatred). If you are a smoker and I do not smoke then I have a right to distant myself away from you or ask you to stop smoking. Similarly if your sexual likings are not compatible with mine, then I should atleast have a right to distant myself from that concept. There can always be acceptance with disassociation. And that is what is needed in this world. Not religious certificates because the so-called religious leaders are sometimes themselves gay or have relationship with same sex. In this scenario, Julia chose to take cover of her religious belief and that is where I think got tangled. And reason fo rthis is that neither constitution nor any law gives normal people any rights to express their disassociation with abnormal people.
SillyTree
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.
Snehal, I was in agreement with your argument for bit. The problem I have is that if it is not a religous belief, how can being against be a religous belief. Several of the world's religions do not separate there lives into religous and non religous segments. Those religions are a way of life or a lifestyle. If a gay person (of whatever religion) believes that their vision of that religion allows homosexuality then it is a religious belief. If it is a religous belief to be against it; it certainly can be viewed as a religous belief to accept it. This puts us in a quandary. Religions with multiple deities fly in the face of monotheistic religions. In one, it is accepted; in the other, it is denied. So now, we come to the crux. We must be able to separate lifestyle from religous belief, but that is against some religions. The constitution guarantees a separation of church and state. There are elements of our lives that cannot be dictated by religion. That in itself is against the beliefs of some religions. Effectively, a person would be able to refuse counsel to anyone that believes in the separation of church and state. This doesn't come down to supporting homosexuality or gay rights. The slippery slope is when we take away rights from one group, we risk losing our own constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.
Sexual Orientation is NOT a religious belief. Do not confuse them together.
SillyTree
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.
So, can a Christian refuse to counsel a Hindu?
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
I tend to agree with this bill. I do support rights of gays etc. but I do also want to protect my right to disassociate myself personally or professionally with gays if I believe that it is not right to be gay. Having laws to force somebody to be your equal is a rejection of freedom for the other party. each one should have their own freedom of expression and that is what is required to co-exist.
David Briegel
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.
And where is it proven that being a TeaPublican is "natural"? And don't ask don't tell was meant to keep the bigot's out of other people's bedrooms. However, it couldn't stop the bigot's obsession with the sex life of others! Jesus wouldn't have it any other way!
Matt Cooper
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
LOL "...their behavior do."
rusty shackelford
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.
I know, and doesn't it suck you have to sit at the same lunch counter with people of a different race, too? I mean why can't they just have their own counter?
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
I do agree that all man are created equal. I do not deny that at all. But nowhere is it proven that being gay is natural. If it is natural then nature would not have produced women! Hence what is not natural becomes differentiated as it is not the general criteria but a special criteria. And what is different needs to be accepted. Acceptance for natural behavior is not required but only for abnormal behavior. And that is why we need laws like Don't ask, don't tell. And this has nothing to do with religion at all.
David Briegel
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
All men are created equal! Not just the few you deem worthy. I realize equality can be difficult for some.
Snehal
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
Where in the constitution is it written that we should treat gays or people with different sexual orientations as equal? It says that there will be no discrimination based on race, color, religiion, sex but not sexual orientation.
David Briegel
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.
A law doesn't "force somebody to be your equal". Our Constitution does! You might wish to find a TeaPublican that has one in their pocket and the two of you actually read it together!
Technojunkie
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
If she had been Muslim instead of Christian, all else being equal, would EMU have reacted the same way? Or would they have let her into the program in the first place? Islam is far more assertive in its disapproval of homosexuality. I'm trying to get a sense of EMU's consistency here. Referring the student to another counselor seems like a reasonable decision for her to make. EMU's reaction was way over the top. It is interesting that being Christian outweighed the usual PC protections for being black and female.
Bill Wilson
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 11:11 p.m.
I'm not seeing the bigoty or hatred, Andy. Counselor's are individuals, and their advice is subjective: it's based on each individual counselor's experience and beliefs. Julea Ward's personal beliefs defined this type of behavior as immoral, thus excluding the subject matter from the counseling venue: she could no more counsel this person than she could counsel a thief as to his/her right to steal. So, she did the right thing, and referred the patient to another counselor. If we're going to strip the subjectivity of an individual's experience from the job of counseling, then the job needs to be done by a computer, not a person.
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.
It's sad when people hide behind any religion to try to defend their bigotry and hatred.
Jen Eyer
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4 p.m.
A reminder to please keep it civil and refrain from attacking other commenters, please.
snoopdog
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:34 a.m.
Are we still within our "guidelines" to tell you that you are not only smart, but also pretty !!!!! Good Day
ypsi_arbor
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
It seems like Christianity is the ONE thing that people can attack without being public persecuted for it. Ward did not "refuse the student" any service. She transferred the student's request to another employee. The student was still able to receive the help they needed. Ward may not have handled the situation with the political correctness that many people should have been utilized, but freedom to practice religion is a fundamental foundation on which this country was founded.
ypsi_arbor
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
@Garret, the problem is that most people who attack religion deem the term "bigot" as anyone who doesn't conform to their viewpoint. That, in itself, is bigotry.
Moscow On The Huron
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
You are 100% correct. Atacks on any religion, as well as against agnostics and athiests are forbidden and considered hate speech. Attacks on Christians are approved and the attacker is considered to be an enlightened individual. This is the official position of the people who claim to be for free speech. Disgusting (but predictable) hypocrisy.
ypsi_arbor
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
*that many people (FEEL) should have been utilized...
Mumbambu, Esq.
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:32 p.m.
I guess pulling funding for Strong Hall wasn't enough after EMU decided not to raise tuition, room or board. The message from the state is loud and clear.
Garrett
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
@ Moscow Mindless groupthink! haha! I'm going to go ahead and say it's the Christian mentality that is the victim of group-think here, not the diverse population of many different beliefs who see this for what it is: Religious bigots trying to sanction and codify Christian hatred. You know, in the same few paragraphs that it says to hate gay people, it also says to not eat shellfish or wear cotton blends.
SMAIVE
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
Yep, our GOP controlled legislature has its priorities aligned with the common man: 1) Take away the rights of local government 2) Wipe-out the opposition (unions, collective barginning, ) 3) Unfund education to keep the masses ignorant 4) Expand the influence of religion and begin the systematic elimination of non-believers . . 99) Solve that deficit problem 125) consider that unemployment thingy
Moscow On The Huron
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.
The hate pushed by the left against people who disagree with them is disgusting. All this law does is protect citizens against those who claim to support free speech and rights but are actually trying to build a society where everybody will be forced to follow their mindless groupthink or pay the price. It has to be stopped somewhere, of they will turn this country into a collection of scared, follower-minions who have won't dare to voice a contrary opinion due to the severe consequences that would be inflicted upon them.
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
Sorry, this is totally wrong. Ward is free to discriminate against and hate gay people all she wants, but she can't expect that EMU should change its program requirements to help her do it. It's actually part of the job description for counselors to work with people regardless of their personal beliefs. If she can't set her prejudices aside and do her job, then she isn't fit to be a counselor. There is nothing else here except christians feeling sorry for themselves because a public university isn't going to help them discriminate against others.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
The only severe consequences suffered will be the ones administered by the religious freaks that think that they have the right to tell me who is allowed into my bed and who is not. Why are conservatives so concerned with my bedroom anyway? Hmmm? What does your "free speech" ranting have to do with my bedroom?
Dante Marcos
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
I'm actually surprised the Michigan GOP isn't FOIAing her birth certificate.
Cash
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
Dante, that's an excellent point. Perhaps Trump will do that for them.
quitoslady
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
A bill that allows students to discriminate. It feels like we are going backwards.
David Briegel
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
The TeaPublican Values are backwards!
Mike Hartwell
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.
EMU (Once a Huron always a Huron) is a public university accepting public funds. By Statute EMU cannot discriminate. Doesn't matter what her religious beliefs are. A registered student, in a legitimate university function, seeking assistance from a university employee has reasonable expectations for that assistance. She should get fired for not performing those duties which she is paid to perform.
DennisP
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
Without taking any sides in this issue, I have to say that you just don't know the law well. EMU is, indeed, a public university subject to the constitutional limitations on its powers within the 1st Amendment and the protections of religion in the Michigan constitution. However, there is no statutory protection against "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation in Michigan. In contrast, there is both a constitutional protection for freedom of religion in both the federal and state constitutions and there is a protection of religious freedom in Michigan's civil rights law (which applies to both public and private entities). Michigan's Elliott Larsen Act begins with: "AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status..." So, you've turned the law on its head. Further, you seem to think that Ms. Ward was a regular employee of EMU. As I recall, she was an intern and this was requirement for her to get her degree. It's not a simple matter of an employee violating company policy or some such. It is a matter of whether a student's religious beliefs can be subjugated in favor of conflicting academic requirements set by a public university such that the student can be denied a degree for which she's paid tuition when that public college is subject to the constitution and statutes of the US and Michigan. One court has answered yes--that academic standards of that sort do not inhibit the free exercise of a person's religion. Still, it's a complicated legal question. Now it's for an appellate court to decide this question of law.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
Ward was not in the employ of EMU, she was a grad. student working on a masters degree in their counseling program, and refused to counsel another student.
Gail
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
The headline should read "counsel" -- and it's terrifying that no one else has said so...
Mike Hartwell
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
amen.
Jim Knight
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
Gail: Thanks for the alert. We fixed the article.
Andy
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
It's too bad that Ward is allowing herself to be used by all these conservative religious idiots. I guess she should go get a fake counseling degree from a fake religious university if she wants to discriminate based on her shameful interpretation of christianity.
David Briegel
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 4 p.m.
Billy, zealots is much more appropriate than your use of "socialist" and "communism"! Much more. Your beloved "Populist" Tea Party supports the interests of the wealthiest 1% against your very own self interest. Interesting!?
Billy Buchanan
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
I take umberage to your use of the comment "Conservative Religious Idiots". Having to make a statement as that shows someone with lack of thought or without the ability to express themselves in a manner about a subject they haven't thought through properly.
Andy
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 6:03 a.m.
@snoopdog, you're right. I withdraw "idiots" and respectfully substitute "zealots" "It's too bad that Ward is allowing herself to be used by all these conservative religious idiots." = "It's too bad that Ward is allowing herself to be used by all these conservative religious zealots."
snoopdog
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1 a.m.
If Andy is allowedc to call conservatives "idiots", will you delete my post for calling him an "ignoramus" ? Good Day
catfishrisin
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.
No end to the tea party madness
David Briegel
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
Your use of words displays a lack of knowledge of their meaning. Maybe another read of that Constitution would be helpful!
Billy Buchanan
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
We certainly need something or some one who represents the majorty of true Americans who believe in the Constitution. The Government we have in this country today doesn't. I find the Tea Party a very constructive element in making this country something other than an Obama Socialist, Communist Nation. A proud Tea Party Member.
Dante Marcos
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
Would she counsel a student who believed in Santa Claus?
genetracy
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1:47 a.m.
If she refused, I am sure the ACLU would represent the Santa Claus believer in court.
Ellen
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Probably not. Santa is not mentioned in the bible
fjord
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
Republicans push another bill justifying hate. What a shocker. They also want to cut taxes for the rich while eliminating programs for the poor and turning Medicare over to private interests. Remind me again why anyone votes for these fools?
Ignatz
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
More Big Goverment/Big Brother sticking their mythological beliefs into the affairs of others.
David Briegel
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
They are only concerned with the civil rights of the poor downtrodden, oppressed, persecuted and discriminated against White Majority Christians. So Sad!
Forever27
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
from the so-called "small-government" party. They're all about small government when it comes to regulating business, but not when it comes to civil rights.
bedrog
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.
Although i am a Democrat and a Liberal who, unlike many other Dems and libs, has been willing to "cross the aisle" on certain issues ( notably law and order and foreign policy ones) it is getting harder and harder, from stories like this ,to see republicans as being other than religious fanatics...or at least driven as a party by those who are. So i'll cross back to support the ACLU, at least on this one, although I pretty much wrote it off earlier because of others of its stances in support of fanatics like Nazis and Phelpses..
snoopdog
Sat, Apr 16, 2011 : 1:03 a.m.
very disappointed in you bedrog. You are an intellectual from what I have gathered, I believe you are allowing your liberal leanings to fog your intellect ? Good Day
Ruth
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
This bill is nonsense. Do doctors and nurses have the right to refuse caring for someone who is gay or some other category? Of course not. Stop wasting time and get on with the important issues of the state.
Meg
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
No, they don't. Refusal to care for a patient without ensuring they are receiving care from another provider, for any reason, is patient abandonment and grounds for having your license revoked.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
MOTH...and you base this on...what experience? What education? I've worked in a local ICU unit for 10 years and have never once seen any nurse, doctor, respiratory therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, technician, manager or supervisor ever refuse to take a patient because of sexual orientation, race, handicap or any other distinguishing characteristic. Or is this just your opinion? And we knonw that everybodies got one of those. Just some are more informed than others.
Moscow On The Huron
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.
"Do doctors and nurses have the right to refuse caring for someone who is gay or some other category?" Yes
Forever27
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
To Republicans, these are the important issues.
David Briegel
Fri, Apr 15, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.
They protect everyone with deeply held beliefs by preventing them from being harrassed by someone with conflicting deeply held beliefs and compliance with a strict code of ethics. Not too complicated unless you have another agenda.