There are some issues where conservatives are just ethically, logically and legally misguided, and the issue of exercising “religious conscience” in the course of performing specific duties and services is one of them.
Julea Ward was dismissed for failing to meet the requirements of her course when she refused to counsel a gay student while studying counseling at Eastern Michigan University. Ward later sued, saying that she told her supervisor at EMU she believes homosexuality is immoral and being gay is a choice, and that she could not in good conscience counsel a gay client. A federal court dismissed the case in July, but Ward’s lawyers have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District to step in. She claims that her right to worship as she pleases is being infringed.
Michigan’s attorney general Bill Schuette is a good conservative, apparently, but not a smart or ethically gifted one. He posted a statement on his website supporting Ward, saying…
“The religious freedoms enshrined in our Constitution do not evaporate when you step on campus.Unless these freedoms are vigorously defended, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens education for all students of faith. We must strongly defend and protect the rights of any citizen to ensure the rights of all citizens.”
None of which is an argument for allowing ward to pick and choose who she is going to help as part of her course of study. A Muslim cable guy who decides that his religion won’t let him install TV’s for infidels will get sacked, and deservedly so. A member of Fred Phelps’ church who works as a hospital orderly and refuses to care for gay patients will similarly be shown the door. A druggist whose religion teaches him that birth control is wrong must still fill that prescription for birth control pills. Schuette happens to like Ward’s religious beliefs and, I’m guessing, her choice of clients. But it is not hard to think of other religious beliefs that would cause havoc on campus.
The ACLU, which, for once, is on the right side of a school dispute, points out that “while counselors are certainly entitled to their own religious beliefs, EMU correctly took steps to prevent Ms. Ward from imposing those beliefs on her clients in the university’s training program. EMU would be remiss if it allowed counseling students to discriminate against clients for any reason, including sexual orientation.”
Bingo. Refuse to counsel gays today, refuse to counsel blacks tomorrow. Ward is entitled to her beliefs; she’s just not entitled to practice them while she’s engaged in a university program that requires her to counsel everybody, if her religious convictions dictate otherwise. The problem isn’t religion, it is simple ethics: if you accept a responsibility, you have a duty to fulfill it. Ward entered the program and then said that her religion prevented her from meeting her obligations to it. The school’s quite reasonable and indeed the only fair response is: “Bye-bye! Hope you find a profession where you can accommodate all of your religious beliefs, but it’s sure not here.”
That was easy. The tougher question: how does someone with the bad judgment and reasoning ability of Bill Schuette get to be a state attorney general?
Ethics Alarms 
Countdown to comment from SMP that makes the same error Schuette did…
You think? I’m counting, but my guess is that you’re underestimating SP on this one. Even taking an anti-gay, pro-religious position, conscience opt-outs are flat out wrong. No lawyer should have taken the case….except, of course, that the previous administration endorsed them.
I agree with the wrongness, but disagree that that matters. I know a number of people who don’t seem to understand that a pharmacy tech deciding not to dispense birth control is violating both the law and basic human compassion. However horrible it is, it’s a mainstream position. I think people confuse it with concientious objectors to the war.
I also have not yet seen a depth that SMP will not go in support of his gay=evil position. Each comment seems worse than the last. Of course, since he can read this discussion, he can factor it into his choice. Do you think he posts counter my expectations just to mess with my head? That would be excellent, but, unfortunately, wholly unprovable.
“That way madness lies.”
The real analogy, as far as war goes, would be a conscientious objector doctor who refused to provide medical attention to soldiers.
But fun madness. Once the shared knowledge becomes common knowledge, the whole world changes.
The real analogy, as far as war goes, would be a conscientious objector doctor who refused to provide medical attention to soldiers.
Exactly, but that’s not the way people think. Historically, being able to find patterns in nature was a huge benefit towards living and reproducing. (Gator…dead friend. Gator…dead friend. Gator! RUN!) Mix that with a low cost of false positives, and we’re wired to match situations quickly, but not accurately.
Julea Ward’s refusal to counsel a gay student is despicable on many levels. What if the student’s life had been threatened and he went to counseling to get some advice? How can anyone not act to help a person in that kind of situation or others we can think of that may or may not have anything to do with being gay? By refusing to counsel the gay student, Ward failed miserably not only to meet the requirements of the course but to act as a human being with compassion for another.
Yes…terrific point, and ineptly missed in my piece. The comment of the day, Steve–thank-you.
As has been pointed out already here (but is still worth being reminded of), Desmond Doss showed how a conscientious objector reconciles religious faith with national duties. He was a CO who refused to shoot or even carry a gun, but he served in battle during WWII anyhow. As a member of the Medical Corps attached to the 77th Infantry Division, he rescued and cared for dozens of wounded soldiers during a fierce gun battle, receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. Unlike Doss, the protesting counselors and pharmacists under discussion here were not impressed into their jobs by a national emergency; they entered and followed them voluntarily, knowing full well what they were going to be required to do — which was to help fellow human beings in trouble. Acting on a religious belief that prevents such actions may make the believer feel better, but isn’t it rather hard to make someone else suffer or die because of a tenet of faith that is yours but not his? We all know where that leads.