Axxman

Ya know Joe...I don't really disagree with your assessments here. I personally don't think they apply to this situation. There is simply no evidence of discrimination on this young lady because of her Christianity. However, this young lady did use her Christianity to discriminate against someone else who came to her for help. Again, there are two separate stories in the media about this right now. If you making these comments in the other thread, about the other girl from Georgia, I would say your comments are dead-on and apply very much to her situation. I look at the two women in very similar situations and how they both handled the situation, and how they were both treated...and one is a very clear example of persecution...this one with Julea Ward is not. So, I agree with you. Persecution is real. The bible foretells it. I just think we need to be careful of the instances in which we attempt to draw attention to such persecutions or we may wind up like the boy who cried wolf.

I can't even begin to tell you what an encouragement you are to me! thank you......

How was she set up? Do you really believe she was naive enough to think that she would be a counselor at a secular university and never have to deal with issues like homosexuality? Au contraire..this was an issue that was discussed often in her classes. This fact was pointed out in court. So you agree with me then? She had no business trying to get a degree at a secular university. This woman entered into a financial agreement with a worldly entity, to try and gain secular credentials, in order to get something that is freely given by God through his Holy Spirit. Talk about unequally yoked.

So, you would rather her not counsel the client and thereby possibly expose a situation to free this person from their sinful lifestyle? How could that have possibly created a worst situation than the one she is in? Homosexuality is a sin. Lots of people live in sin. Yet, she has a particular bias against ONE sin and refuses to counsel people who are affected by it. What kind of counselor is that?? Counseling is not about fulfilling the desires, or values, of the counselor in the clients life. Thats just not what counseling is.

I was thinking about this issue this morning. It dawned on me that maybe the reason none of you care to read the court documents is because what actually happened wouldn't matter. Maybe our disagreement isn't in the facts of what happened. Maybe we are not seeing eye to eye on this because we are not agreeing on what being a counselor actual is. And, maybe we all want different things from counseling. If you think counselors are there to actually solve all your problems and tell you what to do...then I guess I could see why the counselors opinions and biases are very important. I'm not certain that is the role of a counselor (Christian or secular). I can assure you that after reading the entire ACA Code of Ethics that is not how they view counseling.

Okay Joe...but no one, especially congress, was asking her to be ashamed, neither were they trying to make a law establishing religion...or prohibiting her free speech. She exercised her free speech all the way through this class and received straight A's. All they wanted her to do was to see clients and be willing to counsel them no matter what her own biases are. Shouldn't that be expected of a counselor?

I love the pic at the link showing Mr. Stan Braxton praying with Lola. A completely humble gesture.

When a tree is wrong...somebody has to tell it! OUR sister's testimony is clear...she refused to see the client because she read in his file that he was homosexual. The fact that you used the word "probably" speaks volumes. It means you clearly haven't read her testimony, nor the evidence presented to court. There is NO probably. She definitely refused to see a depressed client because she had read that the client was homosexual. She asked her supervisor to cancel the appointment within 2 hours of the scheduled appearance...and the supervisor did. Not once, in any way, was she asked to affirm homosexuality or to change her beliefs. She was told she needs remedial training because she allowed her personal bias to interfere with her job. The school has repeatedly asserted that she has a right to her beliefs and that she is not being challenged on that front...and the court agreed citing evidence that the school was giving her straight A's. She got in trouble because a counselor should be able to see past personal bias and help people to the best of their abilities. A counselor who has a list of people they refuse to help...shouldn't be a counselor. Just to clarify...I totally agree with Christian counseling. I have made use of the counselors in my church. <---- See, we can agree on stuff...lol

At least I got you to quit claiming that she didn't refuse to see the client. Which WAS my point. In order for this to be religious persecution you would have to prove that others are routinely allowed to refuse clients for personal reasons. There is no evidence that has happened. She was terminated because she allowed her personal bias to get in the way of helping someone. The university is allowed to have standards. If she wanted to get a degree that would allow her to pick and choose what kinds of people she could help...she should have chosen to go to a school with different standards. Now...onto your religious freedom. I assume then that you are okay with Muslims getting medical degrees even if they refuse to participate in industry standardized pre-op wash-up techniques. Female muslim students refused to wash their arms and hands past their wrists before surgical proceedures, and then refused to wear gloves past their wrists. They were removed from their classes...but according to you they have the religious freedom to refuse proper surgical cleaning routines and it is NOT up to you , or I, or the University to decide their conscience in this regard...and they cannot be forced by the court to abandon their inalienable right to Freedom of religion. I think thats ludicrous. This woman may believe whatever she wants. You could be a Zen Buddist who believes that the sky is not blue, and that the only reason we associate the color blue with the sky is because we are told that blue is the sky's color...Buddists can believe that all day long...I wouldn't want them certified to teach kindergarden to my kids if they would insist on teaching my kids that the sky is not blue. This lady was unable to see past her own hang-ups and help someone who was coming to her for help...thats a bad counselor. If you can't counsel alcoholics because you are an alcoholic...you have no business trying to be a counselor. My personal opinion is that counseling is a gift. It is not something learned in the secular arena of the world. Either you have it, or you don't. Attempting to learn, or divine that gift at the hands of a University, or seeking their approval is a step in the wrong direction. I would NEVER go outside of my church or my family for counseling.

Okay...you keep repeating this and I think its completely false. I have read the court documents from her lawyers and the judges decision. They are all quite clear...she was reviewing the clients file and discovered that he was homosexual. She then immediately moved to cancel the appointment. The appointment was canceled within 2 hours of the scheduled appointment. She refused to see him. There is absolutely NO evidence that her punishment came because of her Christian beliefs about homosexuals...this also came out in court. She was vocal about her bias in her classwork and yet the allegedly unchristian school was givng her A's anyway. From the judge's ruling: "Prior to the events instigating this litigation, plaintiff openly shared her view of homosexuality as being morally wrong during classroom discussion and in her coursework. For example, plaintiff turned in a paper for a class involving the potential for religion-based values conflicts with clients for which she received a perfect score. Specifically, she wrote,

I pretty much agree with you here... Problem is, she went into an Italian restaurant and is demanding mexican food. She is training to be an Italian chef, and wants to work in an Italian restaurant...and refuses to cook Italian food. She has every right to have her opinions and she can refuse to counsel anybody she wants. Unfortunately, she chose a school that is accredited by the ACA and follows those national standards and she isn't qualified by those standards to receive a degree from that school. It is a free country...but she has no more right to demand the school change their accredation standards than you do of going into a McDonalds and demanding a Whopper...they'll tell you to go where Whoppers are made. Its pretty interesting really...there are two separate "christian counselor" stories out there right now. One refused to do her job and counsel a homosexual...the other wanted to counsel them and was not allowed. I stand by the young lady who wanted to do her job, wanted to counsel her client. That story is far more compelling to me as a Christian being persecuted, than the story of a woman who refused to even see the client.

You said "She wasn't refusing to treat them she was refusing to treat them the way that that profession demands..." That is not true. 1) She did refuse to treat them. 2) The profession was giving her A's in her class even though she was plainly espousing her views (part of the judges comments.) Her views aren't the issue. She is supposed to counsel people according to ACA standards no matter what her personal beliefs are...and she REFUSED to even see the client! If anything...she persecuted the client by allowing her personal biases cloud her obligation to help the client. That flies in the face of ANY counseling...christian, secular, personal, or professional. If a gay person attempted to set aside some time with you for counseling...would you refuse to speak with them? What other type of sinners are we to refuse to talk to?

Yeah, this is an interesting case actually. Unlike the other highly publicized ADL lawsuit this week (the Christian counselor at a Michigan University)...this woman seems to be in an altogether different situation. She has not refused to help or counsel anyone...instead it seems the University doesn't want her to because of her beliefs. Now granted, we are only hearing one side of this story...but so far it seems pretty outrageous. Especially the parts where they are trying to force her to participate in the gay community. The only statement the University has made indicates that she was violating ACA standards...we'll have to see. I'm still a little bit put off about the idea of going to a secular university and studying a secularized topic, and expecting Godly outcomes. I do support suing the school based on the info given so far...it is a public school funded by tax dollars.

Did you even read the article? She wasn't refusing to treat them she was refusing to treat them the way that that profession demands, as if there were othing wrong with it and it wasn't a sin. peace, dave LOL...ummmm...yeah, and i've read it again. It doesn't say what you claim. It says specifically..."She was removed from the school

Well, the idea that a Christian thinks they need to go to college in order to be an effective counselor is pretty off-base to begin with. Not to mention that some churches nowadays require their counselors to have degrees. People who want to go college to become couselors, but don't want to counsel people who have serious sexual deviancy issues is kinda strange to begin with. It would be like going to school to become a psychiatrist and refusing to treat the mentally ill. Anyone remember the big brouhaha in the UK when Muslim medical students didn't wanna wash their hands before doing medical proceedures because of their beliefs?

Maybe they took their idea from the MSM. I swear I have seen the same picture, of the same oil covered bird, from about 100 different angles. The MSM is misrepresenting this story as bad (or worse) than anybody...the people on the Gulf Coast are practically begging people to stop listening to the media's over-dramatizations. ...but hey, lets focus on a couple PR pics.

I get what you're saying, but I can't help but see the hypocrisy from the media. Just because the Boston Herald dug this group out from under a rock should in no way impune the literal hundreds of honest, hardworking, non-racist people that are donating their time and money to assist in keeping our border secure. ...and besides all that...this is the situation in Arizona...we have armed drug cartels on one-side invading our borders and killing people, and on the other side we have armed neo-nazi's guarding the border. What no one in the media wants to admit is, that it is 100% the gov'ts fault that we are in that situtaion!!! Its unfortuante that a small group of neo-nazi's are grabbing the spotlight (as a diversion from the real issues).

I agree but do we have to drag up the name of one who has passed on? He can no longer defend himself, Axx. Neither can Hitler, but I'm not quite ready to forget what he represented. Besides, my point wasn't really about Byrds racism, but more about the democrat establishment that supported the man for 50yrs...and then has the temerity to act like only people who support conservative points of view are racists.

That neo-nazi group has a right to be on the border...which is more than can be said for the illegals who are crossing the border. There are hundreds of good, honest, hardworking people who are volunteering time and money to help patrol the border...and the Boston Herald digs up a neo-nazi group with a few members (they dont even have a name) to write about to get their liberal blogger friends in a fit of rage. This is more sheer madness coming from the party of Robert Byrd

Hiya Ladypeartree... I doubt you have anything to worry about. First, I'd be willing to bet that the host that provides our servers is not some free and unmonitored outift that caters to illegal activity. The host in question that got shut down was a newer web host and by his own admission hadn't set up any security or monitoring of the 70,000+ blogs he hosted. He is literally taking the "ignorance" excuse and basically hiding behind "I didn't know what was on my own server." Thats not gonna fly when illegal activity is involved. Second, I seriously doubt that Worthy Boards has any associations with outside sources that would get us in trouble. There is a HUGE difference in being associated with legit operations like Facebook and Google...who have tons of safeguards and tons of staff (including lawyers) dedicated to protecting their investments and making sure that they are in compliance with the law. Also, operations like that have standard proceedures in place for working with the Federal gov't in these types of situations. We are talking about a guy who set up a free hosting service (within the last year) and had no safeguards in place. He basically waited for someone else to find illegal activity on his servers and issue him a cease and desist order before he dealt with it. It is highly likely that someone posted something very illegal (hacker script; kiddie porn?) on his servers that got the feds involved...then the server providers just said "enough is enough" and shut him down. Worthy Boards, thanks to our great leadership at the top, is NOTHING like this Blogetry site...and has NOTHING to worry about.

I know its fun to assume the worst everytime something happens, but sometimes you have to just go with common sense. This isn't about the 70,000+ blogs...its about the host of those blogs not monitoring activity close enough and providing a system that allows for illegal activity. The host also clearly admits to having numerous legal issues with the site by admitting "to handling many copyright-related cease and desists in the past." It is the responsibilty of the host to make sure he is not providing a platform for illegal activity and this was clearly an issue for the host if he is handling alot of C&D issues. Lastly, it didn't even require law enforcement to shut this host down since BurstNET had the right to shut this down on their own. Chances are that BurstNET was informed of an investigation and because of the "many copyright related issues" in dealing with this host...they were perfectly within their rights to shut it down: From BurstNET TOS -- "Your use of the Internet is subject to all applicable local, state, national, and international laws and regulations, Without limiting the other rights available to BurstNET

SO they expect us to believe that cutting our taxes a bit (certainly not all of our taxes) is the problem, and not their spending? They really do think we are stoopid!! Until they stop spending we will ALWAYS be in debt...no matter how much they tax us. If the American citizens, by some miracle, could pay off the deficit today and bring us all the way to $0.00....we would be $3-4 billion in debt by tomorrow...and so on, and so on, and so on. Because they NEVER stop spending!!! The only way to effectively lower the deficit is to stop spending more than you are bringing in. Also, there is a big difference between the Lord "wanting" something to be done...and the Lord allowing it to be done. I do not believe that the Lord wants the suffering and oppression of people that Obama's policies are sure to bring...but He would allow it.

Personally...I'm shocked! A religion that was inspired by Satan himself, with a bible that was penned by the devil's own hand...misrepresents and malign's Jesus Christ and makes him appear to be the anti-christ. Who knew???...

In my opinion, Sheriff Babeu is an American Hero. The work he has done in Pinal County is amazing...and not just on the border either. I really admire the man. I will be praying for him and his family. I cannot imagine the stress his family must be living under trying to keep America safe and secure. If any harm comes to him or his family it should be considered an act of war!