Anti-Gay Bigot Jennifer Keeton Gets Another Judicial Smack Down

It's been a while since I wrote about Jennifer Keeton (pictured at right) - the former student at Augusta State University in Georgia who was kicked out of that university's Counselor Education Program because she refused to participate in counseling sessions with gay patients. Gays, you see, purportedly are offensive to Keeton's Christian faith.   Not surprisingly, Keeton advocates that gays subject themselves to reparative therapy - a form of therapy condemned by every legitimate medical and mental health association in America.  

Following her dismissal, Ms. Keeton quickly became the darling of Christofascists and filed a federal lawsuit alleging that she was suffering from discrimination because of her religious beliefs.  This week a federal court handed down its ruling that dismissed all of Keeton's claims.  That's right, every one of them.  The full 65 page opinion can be viewed here.  Keeton's case is but one of many examples of far right Christians demanding special rights that would allow them to trample of the civil rights of those they dislike be they gay, non-Christian, etc.  Fortunately, the Court saw her claims to be unadulterated bullshit and bigotry.  Here are some highlight's from the Court's ruling:

The central issue before the Court, though by no means simple, is straightforward - that is, whether, according to Keeton's allegations, the actions of ASU faculty and officials and the policies they relied upon trespassed boundaries set by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the prevailing law to the facts alleged, the Court concludes that they did not.

Keeton contends that the challenged policies are overbroad and operate to chill protected speech by discouraging her and other students from exercising First Amendment expressive rights for fear of penalty. The Court disagrees.

On their face the challenged policies target only professional conduct, not expressive activity as such. To illustrate, each of the challenged provisions under the ACA and ASCA Codes targets professional personnel, either "counselors" or "the professional school counselor."  .  .  .  .  Because neither the text of the challenged policies nor the factual allegations put forth by Keeton give rise to a realistic and substantial threat to protected speech, her First Amendment overbreadth claim is DISMISSED.

The imposition of a counselor's personal values in the context of the counseling profession, particularly within the bounds of the counselor-client relationship, is antithetical to the primary responsibilities of the counselor as set out in both the ACA and ASCA Codes (and incorporated into the Counselor Program Handbook),
and this conduct is expressly and plainly forbidden.  .   .  .  the Court merely holds that the language of the challenged policies is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Keeton's conduct, and therefore her facial due process challenge to those policies fails as a matter of law and must be DISMISSED.

Keeton first claims that she was discriminated against because her speech was issued from a Christian viewpoint. In support of this position, she maintains that the remediation plan "limited the viewpoints she could express, denigrated her religiously-based views, and punished her for comments she made" to faculty members. .  .  .  .  When read as a whole, Keeton's allegations show only that "the remediation plan was imposed because she expressed an intent to impose her personal religious views on her clients, in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics, and that the objective of the remediation plan was to teach her how to effectively counsel GLTBQ clients in accordance with the ACA Code of Ethics."

Keeton's conflation of personal and professional values, or at least her difficulty in discerning the difference, appears to have been rooted in her opinion that the immorality of homosexual relations is a matter of objective and absolute moral truth. The policies which govern the ethical conduct of counselors, however, with their focus on client welfare and self-determination, make clear that the counselor's professional environs are not intended to be a crucible for counselors to test metaphysical or moral propositions.  .   .  .  .  the Court concludes that the remediation plan is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to ASU's legitimate pedagogical interests. The claim of viewpoint discrimination is therefore DISMISSED.

Keeton's allegations do not show that imposition of the remediation plan was substantially motivated by her personal religious views. The plan was instead imposed "because she was unwilling to comply with the ACA Code of Ethics." Keeton, 664 F.3d at 878. As a result, the retaliation claim is DISMISSED.

"Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates," and "[wihen someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements."  .   .  .  For the above reasons, Keeton's compelled speech claim is DISMISSED.

In this case, Keeton's allegations fail to show that her faith motivated the faculty's imposition of the remediation plan.  .  .  .  .  the only inferences available are that the ACA and ASCA Codes were promulgated by field experts to ensure professional counselors respect the dignity and promote the self-determination and welfare of clients; that the Codes were incorporated into the Counselor Program in large part to secure and maintain the Program's accreditation; and that the remediation plan was imposed on Keeton because her conduct violated, or threatened to violate, a core principle of the Codes, namely separation of personal and professional values. .  .  .  .  Keeton has failed to present allegations reasonably suggesting that the remediation plan was selectively imposed upon her because of her religious beliefs; therefore, her free exercise claim is DISMISSED.

Finally, Keeton claims that faculty violated her equal protection rights by intentionally discriminating against her based on her religious speech and beliefs. .  .  .  .  In this case, Keeton has failed to state an equal protection violation.  .   .  .  .  Keeton's allegations do not show that the remediation plan was imposed on the basis of her religious views. Instead, the plan served as a pedagogical tool employed to facilitate her compliance with ethical codes governing the profession she sought to join.  .   .   .  .   Given its pedagogical duty to train future counseling professionals, ASU had a rational basis for imposing the plan to ensure compliance with professional standards of conduct

I hope I haven't bored readers, but as an attorney, I like to see a well reasoned opinion.  As for Keeton, perhaps she can take up basket weaving or some other mindless pursuit.  It would seem the best option given her apparent simple mindedness.

Judge Rules Against Anti-Gay Georgia Student, Jennifer Keeton

Readers likely remember Jennifer Keeton (at left), the anti-gay Augusta State University student who sued the school earlier in the year claiming that the university had violated her First Amendment rights by forcing her to work with and take training to accept homosexuality in her professional endeavors in order to graduate from her counselor education program. Well, the Carrie Prejean wanna be martyr's case has gone down in flames and a judge has upheld the university's dismissal of Keeton from her counseling program. As I noted previously, if someone like Keeton is unable to separate her personal beliefs from the requirements of professional counseling, she and they need to find a different career. She represents yet another instance where a Christianist wants to be granted special rights not afforded to others. Here are highlights from the Augusta Chronicle:
*
Augusta State University's requirement that a graduate student read material about counseling gays and increase her exposure to that community after she objected to counseling homosexual clients was "academically legitimate," a federal court judge ruled Friday.
*
U.S. District Judge Randal Hall's decision enables university officials to expel Jennifer Keeton if she does not follow the remediation plan, which professors designed to "address issues of multicultural competence and develop understanding and empathy."
*
Hall said the case is not about "pitting Christianity against homosexuality," but rather the constitutionality of the school's requirement.
*
In an Aug. 11 hearing, ASU professors testified that the plan was not a punishment for voicing her beliefs, but a tool to teach Keeton how to counsel clients while not imposing her views.
*
"All three professors testified that they never told (Keeton) that she was required to change her religious beliefs in order to stay in the counseling program," Hall wrote.
*
Hall said Keeton's unwillingness to adhere to the school's viewpoint-neutral code of ethics set by the American Counseling Association constitutes a refusal to complete the curriculum.

Federal Judge Upholds Dismissal of Counseling Student Who Refused to Counsel Gay Clients

Over the last two days I have commented on the (in my view, frivolous) lawsuit brought in Georgia by Jennifer Keeton, an apparent Christianist Kool-Aid drinker who believes her rights trump all else and who seems Hell bent to become a self-made Christian martyr. Who knows, maybe she's angling for speaking fees before various Uber-Christian group where she can decry the supposed persecution of Christians. Thus, it is ironic that today a federal court in Michigan basically drop kicked Julea Ward, a would be Christian martyr at Eastern Michigan University, who had played the same persecuted victim card now being played by Ms. Keeton. The U.S. District Court in Detroit upheld the university's expulsion of Julea Ward, a student in a high school counseling program, who refused to participate in a course practicum in a university operated clinic where she had to among other things counsel a gay client. What is truly amazing - and indicative of the self-centeredness of such supposed Christians like Ward and Keeton - is that the student who Ward refused to counsel was suicidal. Yet Ward - whose goal, again, was to counsel high school students where she might have done untold damage - refused to do anything to affirm the gay client or address his depression.
*
Apparently, a gay suicide was preferable to Ward than treating the gay student like a human being. As I stated in prior posts, if individuals like Ward and Keeton want to pursue education careers yet refuse to abide by applicable professional ethical rules, they deserve to be expelled. Ward was represented in the lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund, a parasitic organization, that uses cases like Ward's and Keeton's to wring money from the ignorant and gullible. Here are highlights from The Chronicle of Higher Education:
*
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Eastern Michigan University by a student who was kicked out of its graduate program in school counseling last year for refusing, on religious grounds, to affirm homosexual behavior in serving clients.
*
In an order granting summary judgment to the university on Monday, Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court in Detroit held that the university's requirement that the student be willing to serve people who are homosexual was reasonable, and did not amount to an infringement of the Christian student's constitutional rights to free speech and free expression of religion.
*
The university "had a right and duty to enforce compliance" with professional ethics rules barring counselors from being intolerant or engaging in discrimination, and no reasonable person could conclude that a counseling program's requirement that students comply with such rules "conveys a message endorsing or disapproving of religion," Judge Steeh wrote.
*
To maintain accreditation through the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, the program that Ms. Ward was in is required to familiarize its students with the ethics codes set forth by the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association. In refusing to affirm the homosexual behavior of clients, Ms. Ward was accused of violating various provisions of the groups' ethics codes, including prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation and an American Counseling Association rule holding that its members should not demonstrate "an inability to tolerate different points of view."
*
Judge Steeh's ruling held that the policy at issue was not a speech code but "an integral part of the curriculum," and that Ms. Ward's dismissal from the program "was entirely due" to her "refusal to change her behavior," rather than her beliefs.
*
The ruling said that "instead of exploring options that might allow her to counsel homosexuals about their relationships," Ms. Ward "stated that she would not engage in gay-affirming counseling, which she viewed as helping a homosexual client engage in an immoral lifestyle." The ruling said, "Her refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program."

*

I hope the Court hearing Keeton's case in Georgia will be equally logical and make it clear that certain careers require adherence to professional codes and that self-centered students who refuse to comply deserve to be expelled. The Christianists' demand for special rights needs to be defeated.

Wingnuts Slam Funding for for Gay Domestic Violence Counseling

I have written before about domestic abuse and violence in same sex relations - in fact I was once in a relationship that eventual progressed to physical violence before I ended it. No one should have to live in fear in their own home and those who use violence against purported loved ones do indeed need counseling. The City of Alexandria, Virginia - one of the most progressive in Virginia in contrast to places like Martinsville, Virginia where an anti-gay Neanderthal mentality still flourishes - recognized the reality of domestic violence in LGBT relationships and wisely allocated money to support a Gay domestic violence program. Needless to say, this prompted gay haters to foam at the mouth and do what they do best: make hate filled anti-gay statements and act as if LGBT individuals are not citizens like everyone else. Here are some from The Edge on the matter (NOTE: abuse need not be physical):

*

Federal dollars continue to be earmarked for a wide array of uses in an ongoing attempt to jump-start the economy. But political pundits on the right have been eager to point to federal dollars going to controversial arts programs or, in the case of a domestic violence program in Alexandria, Virginia, services that benefit GLBT Americans. Right-wing news outlet CNS.com reported in an Aug. 6 article that the city of Alexandria--where CNS News is based--would receive federal stimulus money to "train staff who work with sexual/domestic violence victims who identify themselves as member of the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community."

*

The sum of lucre in question to be used for a service that might save lives? Less than $37,000--out of nearly $42 million total that the city is slated to receive, a sum that includes nearly a quarter of a million dollars for dental services for the poor and more than $800,000 for new public transit buses.

*

Domestic violence is about one partner in an intimate relationship exerting control over the other in a variety of ways, some involving brute force and some relying on emotional or psychological manipulation. The nature of domestic violence and its dynamics are the same in mixed-gender and same-gender relationships, as an Aug. 3 report on the phenomenon at EDGE reported.

*

"Threats are often used to control behavior or denigrate a person’s identity. That makes it a particularly insidious form of violence" that extends the influence of the batterer into the personal sphere of the victim by seeking "control over who you can see, talk to, what you can wear; even what kind of medications you can take."The differences may be subtle, but they do exist, and a sensitivity to the needs of a battered partner reaching out for help is also worth honing, given that shame can be a batterer’s weapon of choice.

*

Religious-right Web site Culture Campaign reported on the CNS story in an Aug. 6 story that appeared under a headline reading, "Obama Stimulates Homosexual Violence Counseling." Elsewhere on the site, an article about Christian support for health care reform referred to people of faith who back the proposed overhaul as "Christians," in quotation marks.Both the CNS News and the Culture Campaign articles about the $37,000 set to use for the training noted that marriage equality is denied to gay and lesbian families in the state of Virginia.

*

It is a sad reality, but these Christianists and far right extremists in many cases believe that LGBT Americans deserve whatever abuse and misfortune befalls them. They are indeed NOT true Christians.

Ex-Gay Quacks Struggle to Counter Crackdowns on Their Fraudulent Programs

I posted yesterday concerning the new video series by Truth Wins Out that focus on the fraudulent ex-gay ministries that prey on gays and their families for ulterior political purposes and profit. Unfortunately, these “ministries” and those who promote them will not be closed down easily. For example, Warren Throckmorton, a professor at ultra-conservative Grove City College and others have formed the American Association of Christian Counselors (“AACC”) to (1) lend the appearance of legitimacy to their ex-gay “cure” programs and (2) resist efforts by legitimate mental health related associations to ban ex-gay reparative therapy programs.

One example of what Throckmorton – with whom I have had numerous e-mail debates for a number of years and who, in my opinion, is a religious fanatic – seeks to thwart is the Ethics Committee of the American Counseling Association’s (“ACA”) issuance of an opinion which directly questioned the ethical conduct of referring clients to therapists who work with their counselees to live according to a Christian view of sexuality. More specifically, the opinion designated a gay affirmative approach as the only correct ethical stance. What really got Throckmorton’s panties in a knot is this finding by the ACA Ethics Committee:

Conversion therapy as a practice is a religious, not psychologically-based, practice. The premise of the treatment is to change a client's sexual orientation. The treatment may include techniques based in Christian faith-based methods such as the use of "testimonials, mentoring, prayer, Bible readings, and Christian weekend workshops."

The American Psychological Association is considering taking a similar stand as that taken by the ACA. Obviously, this would drive Throckmorton, et al, out of a very lucrative business. Perhaps equally importantly, it would make it much more difficult for the Christianists to continue to claim that sexual orientation is a matter of choice which can be changed. Never mind that the ACA finding hits upon the true nature of these alleged cure programs. Christianists never let the truth get in the way of their true agenda.

As a result, Throckmorton is looking for current ACA members or credentialed and licensed mental health professionals to join him as he submits his formal letter of complaint (http://www.aacc.net/email/media/ACA_complaint.pdf) to the ACA. Worse yet, Throckmorton’s group is working with the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel, both extreme fundamentalist Christian legal organizations, to threaten and intimidate the ACA into backing down. Of course the irony is that in a June 2003 APA Journal article authored by Throckmorton it was conceded that a review of the various studies on ex-gay conversion programs failed to show proof that any of them actually worked.

As Wayne Besen has noted, “predictably, the signers of the letter are disingenuously claiming religious discrimination. They don't seem to realize that their professional rejection stems from the objective reasoning that their theories are illegitimate garbage.”