Gay rights case with a difference
p2pnet view Freedom | P2P:- The people listed below are all members of the board of regents at the Augusta State University >>>
MARY JANE ANDERSON-WILEY, Associate Professor, Augusta State University; PAULETTE SCHENCK, Assistant Professor; RICHARD DEANER, Assistant Professor; WAYNE LORD, Chairman of Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling, and Special Education; GORDON EISENMAN, Deanof the College of Education; WILLIAM A. BLOODWORTH, JR., President of Augusta StateUniversity; ROBERT F. HATCHER, Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia; WILLIS J. POTTS, JR., Vice-Chairman of the Board of Regents; and KENNETH R. BERNARD, JR., JAMES A. BISHOP, FREDERICK E. COOPER, LARRY R. ELLIS, C. THOMAS HOPKINS, JR., FELTON JENKINS, W. MANSFIELD JENNINGS, JR., JAMES R. JOLLY, DONALD M. LEEBERN, JR., WILLIAM H. NESMITH, JR., DOREEN STILES POITEVINT, WANDA YANCEY RODWELL, KESSEL STELLING, JR., BENJAMIN J. TARBUTTON, III, RICHARD L. TUCKER, and LARRY WALKER.
They’re also the defendants in an unusual gay rights case brought against them by Jennifer Keeton (right), a graduate student in school counseling.
She argues her views, “which hold that homosexual behavior is immoral and that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle”, wouldn’t interfere with her ability “to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians”, says the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Faculty members and administrators “have violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion by threatening with her expulsion if she does not fufill requirements contained in a remediation plan intended to get her to change her beliefs opposing homosexuality”, she says in the story.
The lawsuit “accuses the university of being ‘ideologically heavy-handed’ in imposing the requirements on her ’simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity’,” it says.
Acting for Keeton are Alliance Defense Fund lawyers.
ADF attorneys “filed the complain and a motion for preliminary injunction in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley with the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia”, says the ADF, adding it’s “currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University and successfully resolved a case at Missouri State University.
“Also in litigation is a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.”
Stay tuned.
… and identi.ca
Chronicle of Higher Education – Augusta State U. Is Accused of Requiring a Counseling Student to Accept Homosexuality, July 22, 2010
ADF – Augusta State Univ. to counseling student: change your beliefs or get out, July 22, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 am
This woman argues that her views on homosexuality will not get in the way of her ability to counsel members of the LGBTQ community — but she can’t keep her mouth shut about how abominable she thinks homosexuality is.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed article quotes the lawsuit, in which her lawyers explain that “she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity.”
You want to know the best way to not let your prejudices get in the way of your ability to engage with others effectively? It involves not talking about your prejudices to others — to people who presumably didn’t ask and didn’t really care.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Anyone who acts likes this against people who are homosexual must be screaming because they want to cover-up the gay in themselves.
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Man, anytime a gay student sues his/her school board for discrimination, the ACLU is all over it. But when it comes to defending a person’s right to free speech, free thought and religious beliefs, everyone turns a blind eye, dismissing the plaintiff as a “bigot” or “homophobe”. Everyone is entitled to their first amendment rights, even if their beliefs are controversial. It’s not like she’s inciting hatred against gays; she simply disapproves of their lifestyle. A Sikh is allowed to carry a concealed dagger to school despite the school board’s zero-tolerance policy on weapons, but a Christian is persecuted for voicing her honest opinion on what she considers to be immoral behavior? Fucking hypocrites.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Why does everyone turn a blind eye? Wow, wonder why. Perhaps the problem lies in the endless, endless insistence that “gay = choice,” as this woman clearly states in her “opposition to homosexuality.” I might as well go around and start bashing blonds for being stupid, based on stereotypes which have no scientific basis whatsoever. People *will* continue to turn a blind eye, not caring at all about her travails — because it is unacceptable, period, to hate based on immutable characteristics, and orientation is immutable, period. Until everyone gets this through their heads, there will be great puzzlement as to why this woman is so scorned and dismissed for her “beliefs.” It is shockingly unconscionable and senseless that millions of gays worldwide say they were born that way; that science and psychology back them up; and that those who hate them continually and obsessively claim that there must be some worldwide plot/agenda and they must all be lying, all those millions of people, worldwide. These so-called “christians” are, indeed, the grandest and most immutable haters of all. It is laughable that they would blanch at any thought of racial prejudice, but that they deem this excusable. It’s never, never, never going to be, ever. Thank you.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
She can believe what she wants and say what she wants and she can even try to sue the school; however, being credentialed as a counselor is not a right. She has to qualify to be a counselor. The code of ethics for professional counselors condemns discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. She chooses not to practice these ethical standards, so she is not qualified to be a counselor.
July 24th, 2010 at 12:04 am
As long as she keeps her own personal agenda separate from her career, there should be no problem whatsoever. However, this is not what the school is demanding of her. Rather, they are trying to force her to change her beliefs entirely; thus, they are violating her first amendment rights. It’s one thing to tell her to keep her views on homosexuality to herself; it’s quite another to tell her to get rid of them altogether. The school board is literally forcing her to choose between her faith and her career.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:04 am
If you read her actual complaint, her own words make it apparent that she is not willing to put aside her own beliefs in order to counsel by professional standards. She is quite adamant that her take on the bible is the one truth and should be everyone’s truth. She has argued with teachers and turned in papers stating that gays choose to be gay and, by extension, could chose to be straight. She believes in conversion therapy. She wants to be a school counselor. Can you really see her counseling a gay youth that it is okay that he is gay? This is not about religious or academic freedom. If she was capable and willing to put her religious beliefs aside and be professional, then she would do so and follow the remediation plan. No one is asking her to change her religious beliefs. She is merely being asked to demonstrate that she can set aside her own beliefs and feelings as professional counselors must do. She is showing us that she can’t. Counseling is about the client, not the counselor.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:04 am
Why is it that gay right activists always claim they have absolutely no choice? It’s not unreasonable to assume that a gay person can form a heterosexual family and lead their life accordingly. Indeed, if one is completely incapable of making such a choice then they clearly lack the basic impulse control of a 5 years old. Humanity somehow managed to go for thousands of years without widely spread homosexuality, and we know for certain that it isn’t a recent development.
The US and their new religion they call “political correctness” is becoming more and more ridiculous every day. If you aren’t allow to speak out against something without having to face some kind of consequences, then there is no such thing as freedom of speech. They’ve perverted the word “discrimination” to a point where a mere thought is enough to prosecute someone because they can’t stand anyone who slightly shakes their comfort zone.
So long as the woman in question doesn’t start personally attacking anyone based on her beliefs, she isn’t harming anyone. Not unless you are willing to criminalize “thoughtcrimes”, that is.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
To Reader’s Write Your reply to Anonymous started of good if some what inadequate and then dissolved in to the right’s talking point. First of all as you pointed out Gay people have always existed. However it is a common misconception to assume that gay people have always been forced to follow your 1,2,3, rules. Gay relationships were widely accepted by the ancients (and no Rome did not fall because of Gay people if anything one could argue that Rome fell because it became Christian) In Japan the tradition of Shudo was prevalent from the medieval period till the late 1800’s. In Ming dynasty China people would contractually bind themselves to same sex partners. Legal contracts from France during the late medieval period refer to affrerement when unrelated men pledged to live together sharing “un pan, un vin, un bourse” (one bread, one wine, one purse) Like marriage contracts these had to be sworn before a notary and witnessed. Similar contracts existed through out Mediterranean europe. Even the bible gives the examples of Jonathan and David and Ruth and Naomi.
Studies on the claims of harassment in Prop 8 have show that the vast majority were things like having campaign signs torn down or defaced. As any politician will tell you that is common occurrence in a campaign. Not saying that it is right, just that it hardly counts as harassment. As far as boycotts go, it’s rather humorous that the right, who have a long history of boycotting companies like Disney, Coke and many others for having Gay friendly policies, cry foul when Gay groups do the same thing. We won’t even go into how many Gay people lose their jobs, are beaten and murdered every year in America, for being Gay. FBI statistics show that anti-gay attacks are the second largest group after race every year. You give one instance of a car being sprayed with bigots live here. One does not have to read the papers in this country for very long with out seeing an article about some gay group or person having there office or home spray painted with f….t. I’m not really sure how you can claim that the NOM, who are working to deprive a class of people of due process is not spreading hate, and prejudice. Yes some of the responses of a few of the Gay people are over-the-top, however the world has a long history of oppressed people rising up to over throw their oppressors. Usually a lot more violently than Gay people are doing. There are no guillotines being used by Gay people.
July 24th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Why is it anti-gays always claim that gays choose their sexual orientation? Science tells us that sexual orientation is determined prenatally. Why should gays deny themselves and try to act like someone they are not? If you belief being gay sex is a sin, then don’t do it. But don’t demand that others live by your beliefs. Other people have rights too!
This is not about political correctness. We have religious freedom and freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean we can say whatever we want whenever we want. One can believe in creationism, but one can’t teach it in science class. One can belief gays chose their orientation, but if one is going to advocate that view in a college class, one needs to back it up with peer reviewed research and academic reasoning. The bible says this, or the bible says that is not a legitimate argument in a science based discussion. If she can’t set her religious views aside in the classroom, then she should select a major that does not conflict with her beliefs.
July 24th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
It is great this is being talked about here. Kudos.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Try looking at it this way. I am autistic. Autism is a neurological condition. Very few people will argue against this fact. It also means that I am a social outcast. What if a large enough group of autistic people banded together to protest and lobby for anti-discrimination bills? What if enough of us came together and got affirmative action “laws” passed that mandated the we be given preference when applying positions in public entertainment industry. What if we got “laws” passed that mandated potential partners be required to date us if one of us politely asks them to. If this sounds ridiculous, that is because it is. Would you want to listen to the monotone voice of a newscaster? Many of us do not mind if the content is good, however, for neurotypical (normal) people, this is not the case. However, if such laws were passed, it would infringe upon the rights of neurotypical people. It would make neurotypical people do what they do not want to do (dating autistic people, listening to their newscasts, etc).
Now, apply this to homosexual as well as christian people. The action of the university infringes upon the rights of the Christian woman. She is being forced to do something that she does not want to do in deference to the desires of (pro) homosexual people. What is happening is the fact that her right to be offended by the actions of “gay” people are trounced. The woman should be allowed to get her degree so that she can exercise her RIGHT to practice her occupation. Is the woman a bigot? Maybe, or maybe not. However, there is no law that says that gay people must use her as a counselor. There is no law that says a company must hire this woman as a counselor. Both gays and companies can choose not to hire or do business with this woman. I would be against any mandate telling gay people that they would have to use this woman as a counselor just as I would be against any mandate telling women that they must date me if I ask them.
It is amazing that all the folks that claim they are for diversity will argue against someone who expresses a diverse (different) opinion from their own. This is exactly what is happening in the case of this Christian woman. Let her practice her faith and finish her degree. If someone does not like how she lives, then they need to stay away from her. If she comes into a gay couple’s bedroom and starts beating them, then the couple has every right to shoot her in self defense. If I like a woman and ask her out and she agree to go out on a date with me, that’s great. If I ask a woman out and she says no, and I kidnap and rape her, then it is me who needs to be shot. In other words, live and let live.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
I agree with cyberscan 100%, but i would add that I have Asperges, i was born that it. it doesn’t mean however that there is nothing wrong with me, Asperges causes me many problems in my everyday life. there are people who are born without any empathy for others, who could kill you as easily as look at you and not care either way. just because you are born a certain way doesn’t mean that it is not a problem or there is nothing wrong with it. That said i have no problem with gay people as long as they don’t try and force their views on me. i have actually met and interacted with gay people and had no problem with it. if they are happy with their life then good for them. but i don’t believe they should be allowed to try and force people to believe that there is nothing wrong with it.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
This woman cannot be a counselor for the same reason a creationist cannot be a biology teacher. If you are a creationist, it is your inalienable right to believe this unscientific hoax. However, if you refuse to follow state education requirements and accurately teach evolution, then you are a failure at you job, and are doing a disservice to your students.
When you are a counselor, it doesn’t matter what your personal convictions are. While you are on the clock, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is your only Bible. And homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV in the ’70s. If she can put her religion behind her in order to effectively counsel her clients based on scientifically-verified methods, than sure, she can be a licenced counselor. The women’s beliefs aren’t in question here. Her OBJECTIVITY, he ability to put her beliefs aside during the work day, is.
Also, the autism analogy here is inaccurate. Autism Spectrum Disorder, is just that, a disorder, and counselors, like this woman hopes to be, are supposed to treat it as such. Homosexuality and bisexuality are not disorders (I just mentioned that it was removed from the DSM-IV above.) If this woman treats homosexuality as a disorder, she is failing at her job.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Lexy, you are completely wrong. This woman may or may not make a great counselor just the same as a teacher who is a creationist may or may not make a great biology teacher. Lexy, what you suffer from is worldview bias. this means that that you cannot accept other peoples’ worldviews unless they match with yours. The only form of evolution as it relates to life is scientifically proven is that of micro-evolution. You can assume that life started as a single cell organism and evolved to all the diverse file forms that are now present, but that is your ASSUMPTION. There is no scientific PROOF that this is the case. It has NOT been demonstrated in an objective lab experiment.
Macro-evolution is a theory that is held by many scientists, and yet it is simply a theory. However, if a person can demonstrate and teach the process of mutation, DNA transfer, and the inner workings of a cell, then yes, the person has proper scientific knowledge to teach this aspect. The Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders Version 4 is simply a work produced by the American Psychiatric Association that is used to classify what that organization considers to be mental disorders. In other words, this manual is based on the opinion of the people who compose the organization. Other people outside of this organization may have differing opinions.
One reason why many people frequent this site is due to the fact that they believe that “Intellectual Property” legislation in force today is incorrect. They believe that intellectual property legislation favors large corporations rather than the creators or consumers of intellectual works. What is accepted as standard today whether it relates to intellectual property, psychology, or other endeavors is based upon the OPINIONS of the powerful. Those who are powerful are the ones that set the standards, and in many cases, greed, compassion as well as the quest for power and prestige are involved in setting standards. One example of this is the battle of the video tape standards, VHS was chosen over Betamax even though Betamax was a better choice in many cases.
If this woman succeeds in making life better and more meaningful for the patients she treats, then she is doing her job. If she does this for the highest percentage of her patients than others in her field, then she is more successful. I have received bad service from some certified mechanics and good service from some “shade tree” mechanics. This does not mean that the certified mechanics are any worse or better than a shade tree mechanic or vice versa. Many psychologist think a serial killer is not “evil” but they suffer from certain combination of conditions. Other psychologists would say that serial killers are “evil.” Evilness is not in the DSM-IV, but at least one renown psychologist is working on a scale to measure evil based upon his knowledge. Will he come up with a way to stop or transform killers so that they are no longer dangerous? Maybe, and maybe not. Will this woman be able to transform her patients’ live for the better? We will never know unless her freedom is respected and she is given the chance to excel in her profession.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Why was my comment deleted?
July 26th, 2010 at 12:47 am
To Unreligious:
“Your reply to Anonymous started of good if some what inadequate and then dissolved in to the right’s talking point.” I apologize if it sounded that way; however, I tried to be as unbiased as possible, and treat both sides of the debate equally. I’m sorry if I offended you; God forbid I should say anything extremists like yourself don’t agree with. I really don’t see how your little history lesson is relevant to the issue here. Maybe I exaggerated things when I described the persecution that gays faced for thousands of years, but let’s simply agree that different societies have different views on the matter, and always have.
“Studies on the claims of harassment in Prop 8 have show that the vast majority were things like having campaign signs torn down or defaced.” Which is illegal. What’s your point?
“As far as boycotts go, it’s rather humorous that the right, who have a long history of boycotting companies like Disney, Coke and many others for having Gay friendly policies, cry foul when Gay groups do the same thing. We won’t even go into how many Gay people lose their jobs, are beaten and murdered every year in America, for being Gay. FBI statistics show that anti-gay attacks are the second largest group after race every year. You give one instance of a car being sprayed with bigots live here. One does not have to read the papers in this country for very long with out seeing an article about some gay group or person having there office or home spray painted with f….t.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I never said that this type of behavior is unique to liberals; I merely pointed out the fact that there exists a huge double standard on this issue. If it were an attack on the gay community, the perpetrator would be vilified and branded as a neo-nazi, as he deserves to be. But If a gay rights activist does the exact same thing to an anti-SSM individual or group, he/she is praised as a hero in his community. Tolerance is a two-way stream, everybody is entitled to the same rights and legal protections regardless of who they are or what they believe in, and nobody is above the law. Period.
“I’m not really sure how you can claim that the NOM, who are working to deprive a class of people of due process is not spreading hate, and prejudice.”
Keep drinking the kool-aid. The fact is that NOM is not out to destroy anyone’s rights. I don’t necessarily agree with their policy, but it has nothing to do with taking away gay people’s civil rights; it’s about preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of valid reasons for this that have absolutely nothing to do with bigotry or homophobia; in fact, many people who are against same sex marriage are totally in favor of civil unions that grant gay couples the exact same rights as a traditional marriage. And I’m sorry, it’s hard for me to take the gay community’s side on this issue when they’re resorting to violence, slander, vandalism and threats of physical harm.
“Yes some of the responses of a few of the Gay people are over-the-top, however the world has a long history of oppressed people rising up to over throw their oppressors. Usually a lot more violently than Gay people are doing. There are no guillotines being used by Gay people.”
Two words: Bash Back.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
@ RW: ‘Why was my comment deleted?”
Was that the one with the filthy reference in it?
Cheers!
July 26th, 2010 at 9:34 am
I’m sorry if referring to anal sex the way I did was offensive, but I don’t see that as justification to delete the entire comment. Besides, I’ve seen comments posted here containing much more vulgarity than mine did. I know you’re a busy man, but in future, could you maybe just censor the offensive parts of a comment and/or warn the commenter about it (as long as it’s not spam or a troll post with no legitimate talking points whatsoever) instead of deleting the entire post?
Thanks.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:12 am
@ RW: ‘I’m sorry if referring … ‘
I don’t remember your post very well, but I think it was also linked to a site and/or a service and if I’m correct, that’s why the entire post went.
Cheers!
July 26th, 2010 at 10:39 am
No it wasn’t. I never included a link for a third party service.
July 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@ RW: ‘No it wasn’t …’
As I said, I don’t remember. Anyhow, repost your comment, and this time keep it clean.
Cheers!
July 26th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Repost my comment? I don’t keep backup copies of everything I type, you know.
Whatever. In a nutshell, I simply refuted the claim that a person’s sexual orientation is a choice, talked about how it was nothing new, but rather people’s willingness to be about their sexual orientation in a tolerant society vs the oppressive ones that have existed for thousands of years, and then addressed the double standard when it comes to tolerance, and how the attack on Prop 8 supporters, as well as this woman’s license being on the line, are prime examples of gay rights supporters being liars and hypocrites.