i can see this turning ugly

[blu]

The school is punishing her for being religious. That is the problem here.

Also, she is not performing the job yet. She is in an institute of higher learning, well actually this institution appears to dissuade higher learning by squelching independent thought. It is not up to this institution to decide how well she will perform the duties of her chosen profession. It is up to them the gauge whether or not she understands the material presented to her and it seems to me that if she passes the tests then she fulfills that part of the requirements.

Immie

nothing to do with religion, an atheist with her views on homosexuals would get the same treatment

That is your opinion, but I see no proof that you are correct.

All of this stems from her religious beliefs. Maybe if you can show that they prevented an atheist from getting a degree for such beliefs, but I highly doubt you can find such a case.

Immie

yes in her instance it stems from her religious beliefs, but one does not have to be chrstian or even religion to have the same views she does about gays

 

[blu]

Why do I suspect that there is a little more to this than the "christianpost" is reporting.

My money is on her regarding her chosen job as a professional counselor as an excuse to proselytize to people about her religion.

I doubt this merely boils down to her personal beliefs.

And I bet you think she is close minded and bigoted.

I have no idea. The article is so one sided that it's pretty hard to establish a decent fact pattern.

Since I am not going to wade through 24 pages of insults, does anyone have a link that gives the school's side of the story?

there are actually very few insults and an umber of posts have links to otehr versions of the story

 

[blu]

And the even bigger point...our government and schools NEVER get to deny anything to anyone based on religion.

Ever.

why are you so dense? its not based on her religion, but her beliefs about homosexuals

 

[Oscar Wao]

So how long would you have to be in prison before you felt homosexual desire, Allie?

I'm guessing she would probably avoid the chance altogether, and stay out of prison.

But here's a more relevant question.


If people are just born gay, how do some just choose after being heterosexual to be gay, how do some gays go straight? What about bisexual people?

It's called "playing the game."

I don't like science class, but since it's a required gen ed, I'm taking it over a 7-Saturday course this summer. I'm pretending to "enjoy" the course, as a matter of courtesy. After the final exam next Saturday, the "real" me comes back: the science hater.

 

[blu]

No one says her religious beliefs get to trump the standards of the profession, but, it is up to the licensing body to decide whether or not she is qualified and willing to abide by their code of ethics, not the school.

And according to her, she would not let her beliefs interfere with her job.

Are you claiming that all doctors have to believe the exact same things or they cannot practice medicine? If that is your claim, then how do you expect medicine to advance?

If all scientists had to believe the same thing, then we would still believe that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

Ms. Keeton's belief that homosexuality is not genetic (although, I for one think she may very well be wrong with that belief) is not a crime and believing such does not make her an evil person. Nor does it mean that she would harm any student deliberately or otherwise.

Apparently, these professors want to force her to be something she is not. That is wrong and quite frankly, evil of them.

Immie

You are just wrong. It is up to the school do decide if she meets the standard for a degree that would allow her to be licensed.

That is absolutely the school's prerogative.

The issue here isn't Ms. Keeton's personal belief. It's Ms. Keeton's insistence that her personal beliefs be included into her professional academic work.

That's the difference.

Plenty of Doctors think abortion is wrong. Only a wingnut Dr. who believed that would berate a patient for having an abortion or editorialize to them about what they personally think.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't imagine that's what her attorney says.

But keep chirping.

 

[blu]

No one says her religious beliefs get to trump the standards of the profession, but, it is up to the licensing body to decide whether or not she is qualified and willing to abide by their code of ethics, not the school.

And according to her, she would not let her beliefs interfere with her job.

Are you claiming that all doctors have to believe the exact same things or they cannot practice medicine? If that is your claim, then how do you expect medicine to advance?

If all scientists had to believe the same thing, then we would still believe that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

Ms. Keeton's belief that homosexuality is not genetic (although, I for one think she may very well be wrong with that belief) is not a crime and believing such does not make her an evil person. Nor does it mean that she would harm any student deliberately or otherwise.

Apparently, these professors want to force her to be something she is not. That is wrong and quite frankly, evil of them.

Immie

You are just wrong. It is up to the school do decide if she meets the standard for a degree that would allow her to be licensed.

That is absolutely the school's prerogative.

The issue here isn't Ms. Keeton's personal belief. It's Ms. Keeton's insistence that her personal beliefs be included into her professional academic work.

That's the difference.

Plenty of Doctors think abortion is wrong. Only a wingnut Dr. who believed that would berate a patient for having an abortion or editorialize to them about what they personally think.

Wrong. They cannot determine she doesn't meet the standard based on her stated religion. That is against the law. Period.

its based on her beliefs not her religion for the 1000th time. your constant use of the victim card is hilarious and shows you have no real argument

 

[blu]

Christians are retaded to a comical state. And I want to say thanks. Giving a bible answer and getting rightfully failed is failing for being wrong. Lofl

keep this crap out of the thread. it has nothing to do with her religion or chrstiians at all

 

[AllieBaba]

You are just wrong. It is up to the school do decide if she meets the standard for a degree that would allow her to be licensed.

That is absolutely the school's prerogative.

The issue here isn't Ms. Keeton's personal belief. It's Ms. Keeton's insistence that her personal beliefs be included into her professional academic work.

That's the difference.

Plenty of Doctors think abortion is wrong. Only a wingnut Dr. who believed that would berate a patient for having an abortion or editorialize to them about what they personally think.

Wrong. They cannot determine she doesn't meet the standard based on her stated religion. That is against the law. Period.

its based on her beliefs not her religion for the 1000th time. your constant use of the victim card is hilarious and shows you have no real argument

The fact that you deny she's a victim is hilarious and shows you as a fascist.

The school cannot violate the civil rights of students. If they require re-programming of students and withhold degrees based on the students' stated religious preferences, they're in trouble.

 

[Madeline]

You are correct, Allie. If a public university withheld degrees based upon a student's religious beliefs, they'd have a civil rights problem. But that is not what is happening. The school has asked this student to take diversity training, etc. because of her outspoken views on homosexuals and the manner in which her views will impact her performance as a counselor.

 

[blu]

Wrong. They cannot determine she doesn't meet the standard based on her stated religion. That is against the law. Period.

its based on her beliefs not her religion for the 1000th time. your constant use of the victim card is hilarious and shows you have no real argument

The fact that you deny she's a victim is hilarious and shows you as a fascist.

The school cannot violate the civil rights of students. If they require re-programming of students and withhold degrees based on the students' stated religious preferences, they're in trouble.

again, for the 1000th time, her religious beliefs do not coincide with the private organization in which she wishes to join. the group shouldn't have to and won't change its views to accommodate every religion so shes either going to have to change her views during work hours or find another profession.

 

[topspin]

Blu are u retarded?

 

[blu]

Blu are u retarded?

what would make you think that?

 

[ConHog]

You are just wrong. It is up to the school do decide if she meets the standard for a degree that would allow her to be licensed.

That is absolutely the school's prerogative.

The issue here isn't Ms. Keeton's personal belief. It's Ms. Keeton's insistence that her personal beliefs be included into her professional academic work.

That's the difference.

Plenty of Doctors think abortion is wrong. Only a wingnut Dr. who believed that would berate a patient for having an abortion or editorialize to them about what they personally think.

Wrong. They cannot determine she doesn't meet the standard based on her stated religion. That is against the law. Period.

its based on her beliefs not her religion for the 1000th time. your constant use of the victim card is hilarious and shows you have no real argument

Blu, how can you seriously argue that? You know without doubt that her beliefs are based on her religious beliefs. Is that always the case? No, of course you are correct, plenty of people object to homosexuality for reasons other than religion, but a court won't take what other people might object to it for, they would ONLY consider whether THIS woman was denied something based on her religious beliefs.

Analogy. Let's say a black man goes into a restaurant and is refused service. He sues and the man who refused service to him claims that race had nothing to do with why he didn't serve him, he just didn't like the guy. Do you find him guilty of racism? I probably do, and I don't even agree with that part of the Civil Right Bill, but the law is the law.

 

[ConHog]

Blu are u retarded?

what would make you think that?

Blu, pay no attention to topspin, in another thread he claims that the National Guard is for retard wannabes and that he is my intellectual superior.

 

[ConHog]

its based on her beliefs not her religion for the 1000th time. your constant use of the victim card is hilarious and shows you have no real argument

The fact that you deny she's a victim is hilarious and shows you as a fascist.

The school cannot violate the civil rights of students. If they require re-programming of students and withhold degrees based on the students' stated religious preferences, they're in trouble.

again, for the 1000th time, her religious beliefs do not coincide with the private organization in which she wishes to join. the group shouldn't have to and won't change its views to accommodate every religion so shes either going to have to change her views during work hours or find another profession.

Blu, question. and I really don't remember if you were even in the thread, but how did you feel about the gays that wanted to join the Boy Scouts?

 

[topspin]

A dog catcher is your superior. Religion as an answer in college = F

 

[AllieBaba]

Wrong. They cannot determine she doesn't meet the standard based on her stated religion. That is against the law. Period.

its based on her beliefs not her religion for the 1000th time. your constant use of the victim card is hilarious and shows you have no real argument

Blu, how can you seriously argue that? You know without doubt that her beliefs are based on her religious beliefs. Is that always the case? No, of course you are correct, plenty of people object to homosexuality for reasons other than religion, but a court won't take what other people might object to it for, they would ONLY consider whether THIS woman was denied something based on her religious beliefs.

Analogy. Let's say a black man goes into a restaurant and is refused service. He sues and the man who refused service to him claims that race had nothing to do with why he didn't serve him, he just didn't like the guy. Do you find him guilty of racism? I probably do, and I don't even agree with that part of the Civil Right Bill, but the law is the law.

blu can say that because, as a fascist, he lies about things to make them appear other than what they actually are. In that way he is able to oppress and take a stand against freedom and civil, and human, rights without actually coming out and saying that's what he's doing.

PS, I know what fascism is, dear.

 

[blu]

but a court won't take what other people might object to it for, they would ONLY consider whether THIS woman was denied something based on her religious beliefs.

a private organization is not going to have to change its ethics and guidelines and admit people into the group who don't agree with them. you also aren't going to be able to suit every religion even if you tried as they all conflict each other. As I stated before, she *should* get the degree but then go through a very strict interrogation before being licensed and if the stuff in the affidavit is all true she shouldn't be licensed.

Analogy. Let's say a black man goes into a restaurant and is refused service. He sues and the man who refused service to him claims that race had nothing to do with why he didn't serve him, he just didn't like the guy. Do you find him guilty of racism? I probably do, and I don't even agree with that part of the Civil Right Bill, but the law is the law.

i don't think you can refuse service for those reasons. if the black person broke a stated rule of the restaraunt, then sure they can be denied. its not like fine dining places are going to have to start taking people in rags just to treat everyone equal

 

[blu]

The fact that you deny she's a victim is hilarious and shows you as a fascist.

The school cannot violate the civil rights of students. If they require re-programming of students and withhold degrees based on the students' stated religious preferences, they're in trouble.

again, for the 1000th time, her religious beliefs do not coincide with the private organization in which she wishes to join. the group shouldn't have to and won't change its views to accommodate every religion so shes either going to have to change her views during work hours or find another profession.

Blu, question. and I really don't remember if you were even in the thread, but how did you feel about the gays that wanted to join the Boy Scouts?

I don't ever remember that thread or issue coming up... got a link?