It strikes me that Paul's comments tie in well with the recent discussion about
the Fifth Circuit's Arocha decision overturning the school district ban on
wearing long hair. As I recall in those discussions, Doug Laycock raised the
legitimate question about whether a ban on wearing long hair
Perhaps there are facts not reported in the article, but it's not clear to me
how she has refused to implement the standards of her profession unless the
standards of the profession require her not to believe what she does about
homosexuality or, if she does, never to express those beliefs.
I agree with Paul's concerns about watering down professional standards. This
is where accommodation hits the wall of the public good. Professionals are
valuable in the marketplace because they represent a specified and approved
body of knowledge and principles. Those who reject key
I think Marci misses the point of my example regarding medical schools and
de-selection of certain groups. The point has to do with the way in which the
standards are set and whether conscientous objection exemptions are necessary
(or required) in order to not have an adverse impact upon
First Amendment doctrine does not require such accommodation to neutral,
generally applicable rules. That is why the public school hair length case
had to be instituted under the Texas RFRA. In fact, Will's reasoning is an
attack on all accreditation standards that might have some
Marci's post is inconsistent with what we know of the case. Facts matter and
the facts in this case call into question whether this is a neutral and
generally applicable rule. The University is telling Jen Keeton that she can't
believe what she believes. She must reject the notion that her
If the student is committed to fulfilling her professional responsibilities,
notwithstanding her religious beliefs, as Richard Esenberg suggests, I would
think the university's position is hard to defend. There may be some beliefs
that are so intrinsically in conflict with the competent
How can someone with that belief be capable of providing competent
psychological counseling to anyone other than a fellow believer? It is
particularly troubling that someone would defend the right of a person to be a
psychological counselor if one believes that others should act in
I did not see that she was saying that people should act according to
her beliefs; she said she would work with the person to work their
issues out themselves, but that IF ASKED, she would not lie about what
she believed.
BTW, are the school authorities not saying that all its counselors must
presumably there is a difference between cooking food and practicing medicine
and presumably there is snot a national standard for culinary schools; I find
Will's example here to be not exactly on point.
There are good reasons why professionals in the health field (and law and some
other
I am not suggesting Christians can't go to medical school just that they cannot
impose their religious doctrines on their patients and they should not be
graduated if they will not do that. Again, Will, are you going to graduate med
students who insist on being surgeons but will not use blood
Dear Paul,
What do you say to Will's question about requiring would-be doctors to perform
(elective) abortions? Doesn't your note, below, leave open hard questions
about what, in fact, is necessarily entailed in a particular job? And, so long
as one's scruples are disclosed, why, exactly,
Folks: A reminder -- if you try to post, and get a message
saying that you can't post from this address, then you need to unsubscribe from
your old address, and subscribe from the one from which your messages now come.
The Web page for unsubscribing and resubscribing is pointed
I agree that the medical schools case is probably not apt. (Any experts in how
the medical school at Loma Linda University works with state and federal
jurisdiction?).
There are differing, overlapping and interlocking regulation schemes, involving
state licensing boards, national
Perhaps the analogy should be a Jew or follower of Islam applying for a job in
a pork abattoir. Such a job applicant may not insist, as a matter of religious
right, that the factory be shut down, but would instead be pointed toward a
different employer who does not process pork, or another
Has anyone looked at the Ward case (brought against Eastern Michigan
University)? If there has been discussion of this case, I missed it and I
apologize. See
http://chronicle.com/article/Judge-Upholds-Dismissal-of/123704/?sid=atutm_source=atutm_medium=en
Here's the grant of summary judgment
It seems to me Ed's hypothetical about the Jew applying for work in the pork
store cuts to the heart of the matter. Some see refusing to approve of
homosexuality while counseling (or refusing to sell the morning after pill
while being a pharmacist; or refusing to perform abortions while being
17 matches
Mail list logo
