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.
No comments:
Post a Comment