 |
|---|
| Home |
| Magazine |
| Interviews |
| Policy Papers |
| Donate |
| Story |
|
Sixth Circuit Defends Religious Liberty The case involves a lawsuit brought against EMU by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) on behalf of former student, Julea Ward, who argued that the university violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dismissing her from the counseling program because of her refusal to violate her religious beliefs and affirm the sexual relationships of homosexual clients she was asked to counsel. The case began in 2009 when Ward was asked to counsel a homosexual client as part of the counseling program. Rather than violate her religious beliefs about homosexuality, Ward referred the client to another counselor, as directed by her supervisor. EMU then initiated a disciplinary process against Ward as a result of her decision to refer the client, and gave her two options: withdraw from the program or undergo a formal review. She chose the formal review, and during that process, according to ADF, “EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian views and asked several intrusive questions about her religious beliefs.” She was then expelled from the counseling program. A district court ruled in favor of the university, and ADF appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and sent the case back for trial. In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit asked, “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 appeals court also noted that, “Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual 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.” In a press release applauding the Sixth Circuit’s decision, Jeremy Tedesco, ADF Legal Counsel, said, “Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree. The court rightly understood this and ruled appropriately. 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.”Related Resources: Copyright © 2012. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.
|
