The college argued in favor of her expulsion that her conduct violated the American Association’s “Code of Ethics” and school policies. Conversely, David Frech, senior counsel for the ADF contended, “Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs. To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court, uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”
Judge Steeh clarified his ruling stating: ““Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values… In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”
The claims of Ms. Ward’s freedom of speech being violated are bogus. She is free to state her conscious and practice her religion. However, when the requirements of a job or academic requirement necessitates as part of its fulfillment, performing specific tasks the organization is professionally expected to deliver, it is unacceptable for students or employees to pick and choose what parts of their assigned duties they will or will not perform particularly if the institution is a state agency or is involved in providing for the public health.
If the requirements of a job or program require certain specific behaviors, one applying to join cannot pick and choose what parts of the assignment he or she will or will not do. The job requirements should be clearly defined and upon accepting admittance or employment, the candidate must understand it is that person’s responsibility to execute those tasks the candidate is assigned.
State agencies serve all citizens regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. The same holds true for the public practice of medicine and psychology. There have been cases in the past, for instance, where pharmacists have refused to fill patients’ prescriptions such as birth control pills or Viagra because they claim doing so forces them to violate their religious beliefs. For such pharmacists to refuse to provide that which a doctor has determined proper treatment for a patient simply is not a domain where a pharmacist’s judgment or values may interfere unless obvious cases if for instance a prescribed drug would have negative interactions with another drug the patient is using.
The logic behind the law suit against the University of Michigan would be compatible with situations like a Muslim refusing to teach Christian or Jewish students because they are infidels. Or grocery store clerks refusing to ring up sales for meat products because their new age spirituality indicates they should be vegetarians. There have already been cases of Islamic grocery clerks refusing to handle bacon since pork is forbidden by Sharia law.
The message to folks who don’t like situations like that of Ms. Ward, the pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions, or Muslim who refuses to handle pork products, if those things are part of their job or school training and they cannot bring themselves to put their feelings aside for the sake of professionalism, they should seek other employment.
The first amendment freedom of religion states “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free expression thereof…” is not carte blanche for one to use religious beliefs as grounds to not do what is required of them professionally. No one is forced to do a particular job. In one’s private and social life, one is free to do a lot of things that are not acceptable on the job. How many jobs would allow a person to wear a tank top and baggy shorts to the office?
Homosexuality might be the last frontier of civil rights and some issues are still being debated such as same-sex marriages when marriage sanctifies the special relationship between a man and woman as the foundation of the family and assurance of two parents being responsible partners in procreation. While that issue remains unresolved, it is clear what a person does in his private life is nobody’s business but his own. The sexual preferences and desires of two consenting adults is nobody’s business except for those of the participants.
While there are passages within the Bible which would appear to condemn homosexuality, for the whole history of Christianity, Christian societies have found it appropriate to define certain aspects of scripture as they see fit. Additionally, the Bible is the product of reporting events that happened over 2000 years ago when so much of human knowledge about the workings of the laws of chemistry, physic, and biology were not known. The Bible has historically been used as justification to subjugate women and support racism. Those notions are rejected today. Regardless of where one stands on homosexuality, how many Christians today would support the bigotry and intolerance of the Westboro Baptist Church?
In the real world, all people are faced with challenges reconciling their faith with day-to-day demands of the material world. If one’s understanding of his or her faith is not consistent with the requirements of a desired profession, it is that individual’s responsibility to find a vocation which can be practiced without threatening one’s faith. Since issues like Ms. Ward’s are not a problem for most people, maybe she needs to reevaluate her faith and perhaps look at her beliefs from a broader prism.
No comments:
Post a Comment