She was given the option of "remedial training" or being fired, because she chose not to comply with university policies. She then chose to be fired.

I don't think, in this case anyway, it was a question of skill or knowledge. It was a question of willingness to do the job she was assigned, willingness she did not have and gave no indication that she would ever have it.

To use your mechanic analogy, this would be more like having a shop full of equally qualified mechanics, but with one mechanic who refuses to do oil changes because he might get greasy.

She was given 3 options
(1) completing a "remediation program" directed;
(2) voluntarily leaving the Counseling Program;
(3) requesting a formal hearing.

She chose the formal hearing.

Based on the testimony that I read, she did not articulate a valid reason as to why she should be exempt from following university and American Counseling Association guidelines and indicated that she was inflexible on the matter.

What else was the school to do?

I'm curious as to what the remediation program was all about. I would think it would be something that would reinforce ACA guidelines.

This one's complicated for sure. I doubt the actions taken against the student were only about reassigning the client. She's a student in practicum, and her supervisor recommended the reassignment. They can say it was a bad decision, but ultimately that falls on the supervisor.

That said, if she kept on refusing to take on homosexual clients, she was violating the ethical standards of the American Counseling Association, which it sounds like she was required to adhere to if she wanted to stay in school. Sounds like the wrong career choice for her, for sure.

Mine was the Readers' Digest Condensed Books version. Sue me.*



*If you'd like, I can put you in touch with the Alliance Defense Fund...

I want to know if she flat out refused to ever work with them or just asked what to do if she held a different belief and didn't think she could work properly with the patient. These are vastly different responses to the matter and the two parties seem to give these extreme views on the situation. I am guessing it was somewhere in the middle.

Let's face it, no one is capable of no discrimination whatsoever. We all have biases, but it's how we approach those biases that can make it discrimination or just finding a more appropriate counselor on the matter. If she approached this from a "I am not qualified, can we find someone who is" approach to a "I flatout refuse to ever work with homosexuals, cause they are bad" approach would make a world of a difference.

Most professionals shouldnt be giving any kind of advice anyway.

She deserved to be fired. What a turd.

I believe one of the links posted above said that she stated she would counsel homosexuals on anything except their sexual relationship.

She "objected to counseling homosexual clients on their same-sex relationships." I didn't get the feeling it was limited to sexual activity.

Regardless, as long as she's part of a program that requires her to abide by the ACA's code of ethics, she doesn't have a choice. She has an obligation to set aside her own beliefs and work within the value system of the client.