You might have been following the case of Jennifer Keeton, who was a counseling student at Augusta State University in Georgia. If not, the long and short of the story is that Keeton told her teachers that, if faced with a gay client, she would tell that client that he or she could be cured of their "identity confusion." In complete violation of professional ethics, she claimed that she would advocate for reparative therapy for those who made what she called the "immoral personal choice" to be gay. Clearly justifiably, the school said "nuh uh" and required Keeton to take part in diversity sensitivity workshops. When she refused, she was rightfully expelled from her program.
And then the persecution complex reared its ugly, desperate head. The school violated her First Amendment rights, Keeton claimed. She filed a completely bogus lawsuit. The 11th Circuit sided with the school and rejected her request for a preliminary injunction, stating that "counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients." What a concept, huh? Undeterred, Keetan pressed forward.
Well, today, federal judge J. Randal Hall, who was appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that Keeton should STFU and GTFO. Okay, he didn't say that. But he did rule that her rights were not in any way, shape, or form violated. Follow me below the fold for the best parts of the ruling.
From the ruling (PDF version of the full ruling here):
Keeton’s conflation of personal and professional values, or at least her difficulty in discerning the difference, appears to have been rooted in her opinion that the immorality of homosexual relations is a matter of objective and absolute moral truth.
The policies which govern the ethical conduct of counselors, however, with their focus on client welfare and self-determination, make clear that the counselor’s professional environs are not intended to be a crucible for counselors to test metaphysical or moral propositions. Plato’s Academy or a seminary the Counselor Program is not; that Keeton’s opinions were couched in absolute or ontological terms does not give her constitutional license to make it otherwise.
[…]
Keeton’s allegations do not show that imposition of the remediation plan was substantially motivated by her personal religious views. The plan was instead imposed “because she was unwilling to comply with the ACA Code of Ethics.”
And then there's this:
One conspicuous and abiding theme of the American story is that individuals like Jennifer Keeton are free to choose their own spiritual path, and need brook no government trespass thereon. The Constitution guarantees that the heart may pulse to meters of its own design, deaf to public cadence. But when affairs of the conscience ripen into action – either speech or conduct – government is granted leave to regulate in behalf of certain public interests, including education and professional fitness. Boundaries drawn through decades of case law establish the whither and when of such regulation, and, after carefully considering the factual content of Keeton’s allegations, the Court concludes that Defendants acted within those bounds – there is no room to reasonably infer otherwise.
Judge Hall nailed it, of course. Nobody was asking Keeton to change her beliefs--she was simply asked to abide by completely reasonable professional ethics. Which she was clearly not willing to do.
Not that this will silence Keeton, who will undoubtedly continue to screech that her constitutional right as a fundamentalist theocrat to trample on the livelihoods of gay and lesbian clients was violated. And now the damn liberal activist judge George W. Bush appointed is in the throes of the Homosexual Agenda™. Poor, poor Keeton. And the fundies will eat it up and proclaim this asshat a martyr.
Similarly, Julea Ward of Eastern Michigan University had her lawsuit dismissed by a federal judge after she, too, was denied the "right" to treat her gay and lesbian clients like nineteenth-century sexology patients. The batshit crazy Michigan legislature has even proposed a bill called the Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act that would allow college students to refuse to provide counseling that violates their religious beliefs. It was passed by the House.
Judge Hall's words in his ruling couldn't be truer:
...when someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements.
Nobody has a constitutional right to abuse and deny proper counseling to a client due to archaic religious beliefs. Period.