Victory for Christian Counselor; Court Says Tolerance a "Two-Way Street"

Teresa Neumann : Feb 1, 2012
Jody Brown, Charlie Butts, and Bob Kellogg - One News Now

"The court went on to further recognize that it was really the university here that had a problem with Julea Ward's beliefs and who were trying to impose their own views on Julia." -Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defense Fund Attorney

(Washington, DC)—Three years ago Julea Ward was expelled from Eastern Michigan University for refusing to violate her religious beliefs while in the school's counseling program.

The moral issue facing Ward was that of a potential client who was seeking approval of their homosexuality and when Ward chose to refer the person to someone else, she was disciplined by being ordered to go through a remediation program to "see the error of her ways."

In refusing to do so, Ward was dismissed. Ward filed suit against the university and, subsequently, a district federal court ruled against her, in favor of the University.

But now, as reported in One News Now, that ruling has just been reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court.

The Sixth Court decision reads, in part:

"A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree... 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."