Nope. Julea Ward was in a secular counseling program, a program set up to train people to counsel a broad range of people, and guess what? Some of those people who get counseling in this world are gay. And when that gay or lesbian person shows up to get counseling, the sum total of that counsel CANNOT be “You should not be gay or lesbian, my personal belief system won’t permit it.” (Note that the objective facts are not represented above, just Ms. Ward’s take on things, as reinterpreted by a conservative blogger. Show us the transcript!)
We know that Christians across the country are not going to be kicked out of counseling programs at public universities. That’s just another straw man, more ignorant culture-war hysteria, another bogus threat that neoconservative “Christians-victims” can circle the wagons over.

No matter how fervently some want this to be about religious oppression, it’s simply not. Fact is, a counselor must be able to treat a client according to best practices based in the science (i.e., knowledge) of medicine and psychology — no matter what issues the client might present, and no matter what the counselor’s own beliefs might be. Sure, in this particular case the client was known to be homosexual before beginning therapy, but many’s the time the issue of sexuality doesn’t come up until therapy is well underway and a great deal of time, effort, money, and pain has been invested. That’s why passing a client off to another therapist is not a workable, practical, or acceptable solution: it would mean the counselor would either abruptly say “Ah, you said the ‘H’ word, so I’m unable to continue treating you; I’ll refer you to another therapist, g’bye and good luck” or would say “Homosexuality is a sin and a bad choice; let’s work on turning you away from it.” In either case, the damage to the client would be significant and substantial — to say nothing of the cost.
Various self-proclaimed “Christians” (invariably very unChristlike) and self-proclaimed “conservatives” (who advocate small government leaving people alone except when it comes to their right to be inflict their prejudices on others) run around publishing “research” consisting of nothing but tarted-up sermons based on what they think they understand of the Bible. This is not science. It is not research. It is religious dogma spoken with a fake scientific accent. The legitimate, reputable, genuine science on homosexuality is clear and robust: it is an integral part of the personality. It is not a lifestyle choice or a behavioral choice. Attempts to “cure” homosexuality don’t work, and cause damage.
Religious belief, on the other hand, is a lifestyle and behavioral choice. Each individual is free to choose his or her religious beliefs — but not to inflict them upon others in any way, shape, or form. That is the ideal, and while its realization is taking longer than it should, that’s the direction things are headed. And that is good, and it is appropriate, and it is in accord with the principles according to which the United States of America was founded. Of course, it’s predictable that those who for years have had carte blanche to enforce their beliefs upon others will whine and bleat about oppression they’ve never actually known as that undeserved privilege is gradually seen for what it is and cancelled. Too bad.
The protestation of those who do not tolerate intolerance evinces a sad feeblemindedness. The attempt to equate actual, real homophobic bigotry with nonexistent discrimination against Christians is an utter failure — no matter how hard they jam their fingers in their ears, no matter how loudly they holler “IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!”.
Yours in Christ,
-Stan

This may be precinct to kick out Christians from more programs than you think. How about a creationist in the sciences- biology, nursing, medical, etc. Clearly they are starting to be purged from social sciences like sociology and psychology since re-education programs are in place.
From a philosophical perceptive the ACA ethics regarding homosexuality is arbitrary. No one knows if it is nature or nurture. Essentially the ACA is choosing nature. In addition counselors can refuse clients for any number of reasons no matter what the diversity pledge says- it happens all the time.

I was gonna weigh in on this, but you two stated my case perfectly.

Next thing Wahaabist Muslim men are going to sue counseling for their “right” to believe women are inferior and should be forced into submission. Where does the freedom to be hateful and discriminatory stop? And why would a student knowingly study for a degree in a profession that would immediately label her as an extremist?

from NCREGISTER – M. Warner:
The judge said this in defense of his decision:
“The university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.”
Well if you aren’t imposing your own beliefs or your own values….whose values are you imposing? And why are you allowed to impose those? But not your own?
See, in this case, the leaders at Eastern Michigan were allowed to impose their own personal values. And the judge seemed to be alright imposing his own personal values as well. The only person that couldn’t impose their own personal values in all of this was the Christian who listened to her more correctly formed conscience.
It’s all a ruse. People who make such arguments are playing tricks where they make an imaginary distinction between values that are okay to impose (like abortions and homosexual activity are healthy choices) and those that are not okay to impose (like anything that disagrees with them). And they try to portray the things that disagree with their agenda as just your “personal values” that simply can not be imposed on others in a pluralistic society. And on the flip side they implicitly portray their own agenda (their own personal values) as objective, reasonable rules to the playground – not their own personal values of course.
In the end, all judgments we make are personal judgments informed by our personal values. There is no escaping it. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fraud. We’re really in sad shape now that we have federal judges making these kinds of arguments. Particularly while overlooking the individual rights of the student in question and her freedom to respect her own conscience.

This post isn’t signed. Why doesn’t the person get some opinions from both sides and why doesn’t he or she sign its column? And why isn’t this labeled as a conservative opinion piece?

I’m just curious… what would happen if a gay counselor (or student) referred an anti-gay client to another counselor? Would there be the same argument as is going on now? Or would it be accepted? Somehow I think, unless the client were to file suit, we’d never hear anything about it. The smartest thing I’ve read in all the comments on all the articles I’ve read concerning this, so far, is “It will always be lunancy to make tolerance the core of an argument which uses intolerance to make its debate.” The intolerance is accepted as long as you’re on the side of those being intolerant– in this case, as long as you’re on the side of the university and judge.
It’s really sad that Christians are the ones who get labeled as being intolerant when we are, essentially, the most tolerant of any group of people. Sure there are those who use religion and Christianity to spew their hatred, but those who truly know the Bible know that those people are false prophets. They do not represent Christians as a whole. But society chooses to believe that’s what Christians are all about.
And when a Christian stands on his or her moral beliefs, the beliefs that are those of the very One who created ALL of mankind– all that we know– he or she is labeled as being discriminatory or intolerant. It is just one more way of pushing through an immoral agenda and further burying everything that Creation stands for.
I am a Christian, and I stand firm in my beliefs. However, I do not force my beliefs on anyone and I do not stand in judgment of anyone’s lifestyle choice. I also do not expect ANYONE to expect me to put my beliefs aside to appease another. Ms. Ward shouldn’t be expect to either.

I would like to exchange links with your site blog.beliefnet.com
Is this possible?

This student has a right to express her views; however I’m not sure why she would not provide counseling to everyone, including homosexual clients. Could a doctor refuse medical treatment to a patient for the same reasons? Of course not, because it’s their job to care for all of their patients. I feel that this only weakens her argument.