Jump to content

Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality


Recommended Posts



A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday's ruling, according to Julea Ward's attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.


“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.”


U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.


The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.


“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”


Eastern Michigan University hailed the decision.


“We are pleased that the court has upheld our position in this matter,” EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a written statement. “Julea Ward was not discriminated against because of her religion. To the contrary, Eastern Michigan is deeply committed to the education of our students and welcomes individuals from diverse backgrounds into our community.”


In his 48-page opinion, Judge Steeh said the university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics.


“Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values,” he wrote in a portion of his ruling posted by The Detroit News. “In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”


Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.


The case is similar to a lawsuit the ADF filed against Augusta State University in Georgia. Counseling student Jennifer Keeton was allegedly told to stop sharing her Christian beliefs in order to graduate.


Keeton's lawsuit alleged that she was told to undergo a reeducation program and attend “diversity sensitivity training.”


University officials declined to comment on specifics of the lawsuit but released a statement to FOX News that said Augusta State does not discriminate on the basis of students’ moral, religious, political or personal beliefs.


Tedesco said both cases should be a warning to Christians attending public colleges and universities.


“Public universities are imposing the ideological stances of private groups on their students,” he said. “If you don’t comply, you will be kicked out. It’s scary stuff and it’s not a difficult thing to see what’s coming down the pike.”


The Alliance Defense Fund told FOX News it will appeal the ruling.


Seems like a good idea to me. She wasn't expelled for her religious beliefs. She was expelled because she was a bigot and was studying to be a counselor. As a university, you endorse everyone that has a degree from you. When you want to be a freaking counselor, and can be in a position where someone has homosexual tendencies, you should NOT at any costs be in any position to tell them their beliefs are morally wrong. Your career needs to be separate from your religious beliefs in a field like this. The university covered their own asses because as a counselor, you're supposed to be completely objective and open to all sorts of problems, homosexuality included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

today i went into lowes to by a saw, while walking through the store some black kids were playing on a electric wheel chair like it was a go cart. nobody would tell them to stop out of fear of being called a racists. if it was anyone else they would of been escorted from the store.


it is what it is, reverse discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, as a counselor, they say you have to know that homosexuality is the norm and treat it as such,


or you will be discriminated against.


Welcome to Heck's hypocrisy turn America upside down and inside out world.


Freedom of religion has been declared war upon.


Which, is a large part of the wholesale support for gays.


They, like taxes and the economy, and trying to diminish gun ownership rights, and


trying to "lean" on conservative talk media, and "leaning" on the U.S. Supreme Court...


and calling anyone who doesn't want the ILLEGAL alien criminals to get to vote for Democrats racist...


on and on it goes.


Liberals have NO principles, No beliefs. Just self-serving attacks on everything that is.


Arrogant, tyrannical eletist marxists hate us, hate America, hate everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe it's okay to have a policy that your counselors can't refuse to see gay students.


I think it's fine if they want to have that policy. They're a state university, not Oral Roberts, and all students are entitled to equal treatment.


This woman has a right to believe whatever she wants. She doesn't, however, have the right to work at the public university unless she's willing to comply with the non-discrimination policy of the school.


Scary stuff, I know. When these judges start telling adults who work for public universities that they can't discriminate against the students at the university and openly defy the university's policies, what then? NAMBLA? Repealing the 2nd Amendment?


When will they stop the liberal hate and start allow public employees to openly discriminate against homosexuals?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not reverse discrimination. I'm sure there are a bunch of other counselors that are Christians and don't approve of homosexuality. However, once you start REFUSING to see people on the basis of their sexual orientation, you violate the ACA code of ethics. If you're a Christian, and you disapprove of homosexuality, but you're also a counselor, that shit MUST go out the window, and you must be able to treat your patient. This isn't a hard thing to do. The same thing goes for me in medicine. I don't like how much money gets allotted to the terminal, but god damn it, I will NEVER refuse to treat a terminal patient. If I ever would do that, I'd hope that they'd take away my right to practice....


Jeez... I wish I could be a doctor already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Scary stuff, I know. When these judges start telling adults who work for public universities that they can't discriminate against the students at the university and openly defy the university's policies, what then? NAMBLA?


So let me be the devils advocate and ask you what it is in NAMBLA you find so evil?

And for fun try not to base it on your own bigoted morality, since right and wrong should be up to the individual.





Repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Oh I'm sure it's on the docket...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Cal, when you misspell "eletists", you help make their point. Heck




actually, I'm right armed. I did get my hellish immobilization brace off lasat Monday.

But I am not allowed to use my shoulder or upper arm. I tried to get my left hand to the keyboard,

but it makes my shoulder ache.


My Wifie does my passive exercizes for me. I just had 2 hours and ten minutes of surgery the 16th, wors

the freakin imm. brace ten days, and my arm/shoulder has to excersized FOR ME for the next 3 weeks, three times

a day, 20 reps.


Iow's, Heck, despite my excellent spelling over the years, you find a misplled word and smart off?

as a programmer/very fast typist, i can't stand hunting and pecking.


But thanks so much, Heck, for validating all the bad stuff we have been saying about you.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if Obamao did that,


would you criticize Obamao for it and demand he be impeached, Heck?


Or would you just show up here after sending Obamao a package of pecan sandies,


and defend him to the hilt ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? What is it about raping children that I find so evil?


Oh, xxxx off.



I see you weren't able to answer as I asked.

What a shock.

Try again.

Make a case Heck, or Mr Webster.


Homosexuality if a perfectly normal and acceptable lifestyle choice but a 40 year old man and a 15 year old consenting boy is evil.





Link to comment
Share on other sites



heck translation to my post about surgery:


"...(being a liberal means you are always right when you're always wrong, and you never have to say you're sorry....




Link to comment
Share on other sites

heck..... its simple : cognitive dissonance


I have been extremely busy lately so I dont post as much but also most of these "discussions" revolve around that concept and problem.


just people who dont want to come to a mutual respectful understanding... screaming against each other in an echo chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



cognitive dissonance is primarily the reason I speak about comprehensive analysis, and linear analysis.


those who can't process two different lines of thought, simply go with a politically, for example, expedient


single line of "reasoning", regardless of conflicting or complicating reasoning. That single line of reasoning is linear.


The ability to consider many/several various factors, and DEDUCE a line of reasoning that takes into consideration


those other related aspects of reasoning, can simply back up why they believe like they do.


The linear analysis types, like most liberals, can't do it. They can repeatedly repeat a single mantra/talking point


and they don't get it at all.


But thank you for bringing up why Heck is a linear thinking nincompoop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

false charge.


Linear analysis by definition, pretty much easily is proven to be inferior to comprehensive thinking.


Why would you think a knee jerk emotional reaction based on just ONE line of reasoning,


would be as legit, or superior to a line of reasoning that takes in several aspects of a discussion point?


Come on. Join the club. Admit Heck is wrong.


And, I was already to accept his apology about my surgery.


But, alas, to no avail - liberal's hearts are cold, their minds are closed, and whatever "it" is, they're against it.


Come on.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, I hereby submit to you, the liberal anthem:



and for the libs who can only comprehend on verse at a time... @@


here are the words to their own anthem:


Song Lyrics:


I don't know what they have to say,

It makes no difference anyway,

Whatever it is, I'm against it.

No matter what it is or who commenced it,

I'm against it.


Your proposition may be good,

But let's have one thing understood,

Whatever it is, I'm against it.

And even when you've changed it or condensed it,

I'm against it.


I'm opposed to it,

On general principle, I'm opposed to it.


[chorus] He's opposed to it.

In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!



For months before my son was born,

I used to yell from night to morn,

Whatever it is, I'm against it.

And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,

I'm against it!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal, I can just as easily call you a "linear thinker" when it comes to your views on homosexuality and religion. You believe what you believe and nothing I tell you will change that. Ta-dah, you're a linear thinker. This isn't based off of you just calling him that, you've called me that for having a differing viewpoint on climate change, just because I disagreed with you.


That being said, I do agree with you guys in that I think he's wrong in calling NAMBLA evil. They're just different. I have a hard time calling anything evil, as it has an absolute connotation. 15 is the age of consent in Sweden. Does that mean every Swede that dates a 15 year old is a pervert? Maybe. Do I think it makes them evil? No. Should the age of consent here be 15? Hell if I know, probably not. Should homosexuality even matter when it comes to age of consent? I think to do so is unfair to gays, but the idea of 40 year old dude being allowed to go after your 15 year old child (male or female) just irks me.


And as for your song. Your propositions usually aren't good in my humble opinion. ;)



Anywho, back on topic.



I can't get past the irony of this when she says she was met with "more intolerance." Are you f*cking kidding me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You confuse morality with issue appraisal.


A spirtual belief, a moral belief, doesn't come with factoids that you can defend your opinion with.

I agree with her. I'm sure the school has a right? to fire her for not counseling gays... but did they demand

that she BELIEVE the gay lifestyle is immoral?


I believe it is. The refusal to counsel a gay person when you are opposed to gayness as immoral, is a stretch.

Where is the justification for not counseling someone? I'm sure somewhere that a couple living together was

denied membership in a church, at least, I suppose so.


that's a moral judgement, not an analysis judgement. So the comprehensive factors are basically - the moral judgement

of the counselor prompting her to make a decision to DENY counseling to a gay person when SHE IS the COUNSELOR.

In private practice, she is probably within her rights. In a public school setting, not so much. To deny the care is the issue...

which she forced.

Now, to be fired because she wouldn't sign a statement contradicting her moral views of gay people, that would be a violation

of her rights to freedom of religion.


Once again - a linear viewpoint, is a viewpoint that is held because of ONE FREAKIN point, generally, and a comprehensive

viewpoint is one in which several factors are considered.


Think deductive reasoning as comprehensive. Did Sherlock Holmes go "AHA, my dear Watson, the game is afoot !"

simply because the door buzzer rang?


Nope, that would be linear thinking, based on emotional needs/reactions, who knows.


NO, Holmes would have heard the buzzer, welcomed the visitor in, appraised the demeanor and appearance of the visitor,

listened to the visitor's entire story, considered the answers to his subsequent questions put to te visitor, etc,

and in a burst of Calfox type comprehensive appraisal, he would think on all the information gleaned from the visitor,

and then deduce that the game was afoot.


And that, my dear Watson, is comprehensive thinking.


Linear thinking would be seeing the visitor was wet from the rain, then deciding the visitor is stupid and not worth listening to.


So, any questions ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...