So EMU is government run then? Or is it privately run? I presumed the latter as that is usually the case.
That being said, I personally don't agree with /any/ discrimination. Be that religious folks against LGBTs or LGBT's against religious folks. I don't personally agree with PA laws in non-government run business; I say let the market decide a private businesses fate, but that's neither here nor there in the argument presented by either of us.
More to the point though, you peaked my interest. Your article was about a student studying to become a counselor, and as noted in your article, upon review “the school charged Ward with violating two provisions of the American Counseling Association's (ACA) code ethics: one against imposing values on clients "inconsistent with counseling goals" and one against discrimination based on sexual orientation. EMU expelled her.”
I went ahead and looked up the ACA Code of Ethics (
http://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/2014-aca-code-of-ethics.pdf?sfvrsn=4) and right off the bat I can see a number of potential conflicts with this woman's approach to counseling as a whole. That aside though she /clearly/ violated the following;
A.11.b. “Councilors refrain from referring prospective and current clients based solely on the counselor’s personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors Councilors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants, and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.”
Now, I didn’t read too deep further than that because the point is that she violated the ACA Code of Ethics and therefore could /not/ qualify for ACA certification, but I will say that the title of B.1.a. is titled “Multicultural/Diversity Considerations” and section C is all about the “Professional Responsibilities” of the councilor and notes in the first sentences of the introduction that “Councilors facilitate access to counseling services, and they practice in a nondiscriminatory manner” which is clearly not the case here.
The biggest snarl comes in when I read the actual case from the Sixth in 2012 because it appears the school had a "blanket rule" that practicum students /cannot/ refer any clients to other councilors, which she alleges she wasn't told about by her professors. That is what the Sixth case was centered on, more so than your proposed argument that "the LGBT activist school discriminated against her due to her religious beliefs," which her lawyers merely cite as a "plausible reason" for why she allegedly wasn't told about the no-referral rule. To wit:
"Based on the professors’ and Ward’s statements [re ACA Code of Ethics referral procedures], a reasonable jury could conclude that practicum students were required to follow the written code of ethics [which allows referrals], not an unwritten (yet-to-be-enforced) no-referrals policy. The epitome of a pretextual explanation for a student’s expulsion is a reason never expressed or invoked before."
AKA the Sixth agrees that Ward has a valid legal point on that and they reversed the lower courts ruling. I agree, a school should not have an unwritten and un-conveyed policy of curricular practice by which they can expel students. On that basis she should not have been expelled and I am positive that the district court would have to agree it is not a "fair" policy to enforce upon reassessment.
However, it seems that Ward decided to push the "religious discrimination" angle to pursue "monitory damages" , instead of simply using the law to win the case and move on with her life.
As a note, the premise that Ward was discriminated against due to her religion is based on statements made by the [second, formal] review panel consisting of 2 faculty members, one faculty member for the education leadership program, and a student representative - to paraphrase the review process, they essentially asked her if her religious beliefs caused her to be unable to properly council LGBT's and she basically said yes if they wanted to talk about their relationships. (aka she would ask that the client be referred to a different councilor.) On it's face, she would be complying to ACA Code of Ethics if she requested a referral, but that Ward would have to prove religious discrimination to be entitled to money-damages.
So what we actually have here is either a) a /religious/ activist or b) someone who wanted money. What we do not have here is an LGBT activist, anywhere.
The Sixth reversed and remanded to the district court, however, the school chose to settle (which makes sense because of they expelled her on an unwritten policy,) so unfortunately we do not have any ruling on if it was religious discrimination or not. If they'd gone to court, then we might have a proven case of religious discrimination.
