• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a Christian counselor be allowed to refuse to counsel gay couples?

Should counselors be allowed to refuse treatment that violate their morals?

  • Absolutely not! This is flagrant discrimination!

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • They should attend diversity and tolerance seminars to educate them

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Patients should chose the counselor who suits them

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • They should be required to refer the patient to the appropriate colleague

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • They should refuse any patient they don't want to treat!

    Votes: 7 33.3%

  • Total voters
    21

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
A Christian counselor in Britain got sacked because he refused to counsel a gay couple regarding their sex life. Do you think this should be allowed? Should insurance agencies, or the government, force counselors to provide mental health services that violate their individual religious and/or moral codes?

Christian counsellor who refused to offer sex advice to gay couples fails in religious discrimination claim | Mail Online

A Christian relationship counsellor who lost his job after refusing to provide sex therapy to gay couples has failed in a further attempt to prove religious discrimination by his former employers.

Gary McFarlane, 48, a former elder in a church in Hanham, Bristol, lost his fight at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in London to prove discrimination by the relationship charity Relate.

His appeal was launched after an employment tribunal ruled in January that he had been wrongfully dismissed by Relate in March last year but had not been a victim of religious discrimination or unfair dismissal.

Read more: Christian counsellor who refused to offer sex advice to gay couples fails in religious discrimination claim | Mail Online
 
A Christian counselor in Britain got sacked because he refused to counsel a gay couple regarding their sex life. Do you think this should be allowed? Should insurance agencies, or the government, force counselors to provide mental health services that violate their individual religious and/or moral codes?

Christian counsellor who refused to offer sex advice to gay couples fails in religious discrimination claim | Mail Online

No. The government has no business interfering in the religious beliefs of others.
 
My concern here is, will the introduction of a more universal, government sponsored healthcare in the United States lead to this type of infringement of individual rights here?
 
A Christian counselor in Britain got sacked because he refused to counsel a gay couple regarding their sex life. Do you think this should be allowed? Should insurance agencies, or the government, force counselors to provide mental health services that violate their individual religious and/or moral codes?

Christian counsellor who refused to offer sex advice to gay couples fails in religious discrimination claim | Mail Online

First of all, who goes to a christian sex counselor? I mean seriously wtf is that? Further, what gay couple goes to a christian counselor? Wtf did you expect to hear other than "well of course you're having trouble in bed homosexuality is a disorder/sin/etc".

Secondly, yeah, let professionals of every kind give a referral to someone who will give the service if they'd rather.
 
Last edited:
First of all, who goes to a christian sex counselor? I mean seriously wtf is that? Further, what gay couple goes to a christian counselor? Wtf did you expect to hear other than "well of course you're having trouble in bed homosexuality is a disorder/sin/etc".

Secondly, yeah, let professionals of every kind give a referral to someone who will give the service if they'd rather.

This is in the United Kingdom under the NHS. The government has a big say in all health services.
 
Companies should have the right to conduct their business as they see fit for the most part.

If someone is in the business is to run counseling for couples (regardless of the sexual make-up of the relationship), then the employer should be free to fire somebody who is insubordinate to the company philosophy.


Now this is a charity. It really doesn't matter though...


This man's case makes about as much sense as a Satanist working for a church charity who refuses to do work on behalf of the Lord & takes issue with their termination for failure to comply.
 
I'm wondering why, with the diversity of humans, that there aren't enough counselors of varying philosophical approaches to match the needs of various clients? Why not make a bit of extra effort to accommodate everyone?
 
A Christian relationship counsellor who lost his job after refusing to provide sex therapy to gay couples has failed in a further attempt to prove religious discrimination by his former employers.

A Christian counselor in Britain got sacked because he refused to counsel a gay couple regarding their sex life. Do you think this should be allowed?

Why shouldn't it be allowed?
I'd fire him too.
He has been hired as a relationship counsellor and he failed to carry out what he was paid to do because of his own prejudiced views.
 
Last edited:
Does the individual counselor have the right to refuse seeing clients for whatever reason? Yes, he sure does. And the government has no business butting in. But does the counselor's employer have the right to fire him if his personal standards conflict with the employer's standards and the image they want to project? Yes, they do.

The man is not being fired due to his religious beliefs, but because he refuses to conform to their standards and practices. The fact that his refusal is based on his religious beliefs is irrelevant.
 
A Christian counselor in Britain got sacked because he refused to counsel a gay couple regarding their sex life. Do you think this should be allowed?
Definitely. In fact he should have been sued, not just fired.

Should insurance agencies, or the government, force counselors to provide mental health services that violate their individual religious and/or moral codes?
Not if my "moral codes" (or lack thereof in this guy's case) violate the requirements of my workplace. If that's a problem with me, then I'll just have to find another job.

What if a Muslim man thinks he should have a "right" to an extra break time each day just to pray to Mecca (which other employees don't get)?

What if an Amish person takes a job at Pizza Hut and thinks he has a "right" to deliver pizza in a horse and buggy because "it's his religion"?

What if a transgendered person thinks he should have a "right" to violate company dresscode and dress up like a woman on the clock because "it's my individual rights!"

What if a Muslim woman thinks she has a "right" to wear a veil on her drivers' license photo or employee ID badge because "it's my religion"?

What if a devout Catholic joins the military, but refuses to deploy to Afganistan because he believes his religion commands him not to kill and cites his deployment as "violating his religious' rights"?

etc etc...


Justice is served. Morals are prevailing while religious insanity is deteriorating. All good to me. :cool:

My concern here is, will the introduction of a more universal, government sponsored healthcare in the United States lead to this type of infringement of individual rights here?
...uh not that I'm aware of, unless the govt healthcare system hires a bunch of fundie Christian counselors. I don't think you'll have to worry about more guys like this wacko getting jobs. If anything, they'll be less likely to seek govt. jobs.
 
Last edited:
If they work for the government, the government has every right to tell them to conform to industry standards concerning homosexuality-- and counsel who they're told to counsel, no backchat.

If they work for a private practice, their boss has every right to tell them whether or not they're allowed to counsel homosexual couples, and the right to fire them for breaking policy in either direction.

If they work for themselves, the couple in question can bitch about it to other gay couples who will boycott the counselor-- and both sides will be happier.
 
This question is being posed in a weird way. The article is about a case of an employee trying to get the government to force his employer to allow him to refuse clients based on his personal prejudice against them, but in the OP you are asking the opposite thing- should the government force councilors to provide mental health services that violate their individual religious and/or moral codes.

Certainly it would be ridiculous for the government to force companies to allow their employees to discriminate against their customers... That is just insane, and that's what this guy was requesting.

On the question of whether the government should prohibit councilors from refusing to treat gay couples... That's a tougher one. My gut instinct is that the idea of forcing a church councilor, for example, to treat gay couples seems wrong... But at the same time, certainly a business should not be allowed to refuse to sell their products to people based on their sexual orientation. So I dunno. Maybe an exception needs to be made for churches, but businesses should be prohibited from discrimination? Not sure how to handle it.
 
If they work for the government, the government has every right to tell them to conform to industry standards concerning homosexuality-- and counsel who they're told to counsel, no backchat.

If they work for a private practice, their boss has every right to tell them whether or not they're allowed to counsel homosexual couples, and the right to fire them for breaking policy in either direction.

If they work for themselves, the couple in question can bitch about it to other gay couples who will boycott the counselor-- and both sides will be happier.

My position precisely. This is not an issue of whether or not the counselor should counsel the couple or not. It is an issue of employment practices. If it is in his contract that he needs to take cases assigned to him, regardless, either he does, or he leaves/is fired. If he works for himself, he can decide whether or not he takes the case. This has nothing to do with discrimination.
 
Makes you wonder who the Hell is stupid enough to think they can benefit from seeing a counselor who's treating them at gunpoint.

And yeah, the counselor in question should be fired, both for refusing to do his job and for trying to get the government to force his employer to allow him not to do his job. Honestly, I'm on the fence about whether or not he needs reeducation-- but there's no legal framework under which to try him.
 
Makes you wonder who the Hell is stupid enough to think they can benefit from seeing a counselor who's treating them at gunpoint.

LOL. Yeah. I mean, in reality very few gay couples would choose to go to a couples counciler that was clearly uncomfortable with homosexuality. So it's probably one of those symbolic issues more than a practical issue. The possible exception is a church councilor... I can imagine a gay couple wanting to see the councilor from their church and not really having the option to shop around to find one that is happy to help them, but I'm not comfortable forcing church councilors to do anything whatsoever since it seems like it would violate the establishment clause, so that solves that one.
 
Most people seem to have got it, but "Relate", the employer, is not the NHS, but a national UK charity offering counselling and support through 2,500 counselors. A snippet from their homepage sets the scene.

"Relate offers advice, relationship counselling, sex therapy, workshops, mediation, consultations and support face-to-face, by phone and through this website."

Relate - the relationship people
 
Any employer should be allowed to require their employees to do their job, regardless of whether that employer is the government or a charity. The fact that the guy got fired is not discrimination, and hopefully the government throws out his case.
 
A Christian counselor in Britain got sacked because he refused to counsel a gay couple regarding their sex life. Do you think this should be allowed? Should insurance agencies, or the government, force counselors to provide mental health services that violate their individual religious and/or moral codes?

Christian counsellor who refused to offer sex advice to gay couples fails in religious discrimination claim | Mail Online
what is "Relate"? a church can certainly choose whom they counsel. but if he was employed in the gov't or private sector, no way.


that said, how could he possibly help a gay couple, anyway? ;-)
 
My concern here is, will the introduction of a more universal, government sponsored healthcare in the United States lead to this type of infringement of individual rights here?
is it an infringement when the counselor is employed in the gov't or private sector?
 
It depends. Was this counselor working for a church or a public firm? That's what really matters in this case. Once you work for someone else, you agree to follow their rules as a contingent for continued employment. You can't suddenly decide you don't want to do your job because it interferes with your religious beliefs. If there was a pre-existing agreement that said counselor wouldn't see gay couples, they might have a case. If not, and they work for a private employer or for the government, they're completely out of luck.

Religion does not *EVER* grant one permission to discriminate in public life.
 
I think that this scenario demonstrates the issue with government managed counseling services. Not all counselors are going to fit with all of those who request or need counseling services. There has to be room for counselors to state that they cannot serve a particular patient, and for patients, also, to search out a better fit. The problem with goverment mandates in these scenarios is that the consumer (and the service provider) have very little say in creating that relationship that makes these services work.

My children went through grief counseling after my divorce, and it took a while for us to find a good fit for my son. The first two people he saw were not helpful for him.
 
I think that this scenario demonstrates the issue with government managed counseling services. Not all counselors are going to fit with all of those who request or need counseling services. There has to be room for counselors to state that they cannot serve a particular patient, and for patients, also, to search out a better fit. The problem with goverment mandates in these scenarios is that the consumer (and the service provider) have very little say in creating that relationship that makes these services work.

My children went through grief counseling after my divorce, and it took a while for us to find a good fit for my son. The first two people he saw were not helpful for him.
as an at will employee, the counselor has no right to refuse to follow his employer's legal directive. that said, it would not be a good fit and the couple and the counselor should have discussed that, followed by a change in counselors.

easy peasy.
 
I think that this scenario demonstrates the issue with government managed counseling services. Not all counselors are going to fit with all of those who request or need counseling services. There has to be room for counselors to state that they cannot serve a particular patient, and for patients, also, to search out a better fit. The problem with goverment mandates in these scenarios is that the consumer (and the service provider) have very little say in creating that relationship that makes these services work.

My children went through grief counseling after my divorce, and it took a while for us to find a good fit for my son. The first two people he saw were not helpful for him.
Exactly my point. There is not a one size fits all approach. I really think there should be an individualized approach, with latitude for belief systems.

I voted that the counselor should be required to refer the patient to the appropriate colleague.
 
as an at will employee, the counselor has no right to refuse to follow his employer's legal directive.

His employer should know better than to issue such an absurd directive. Counseling works best when there are matching frameworks of beliefs to build upon between the counselor and the client. So, matching someone religiously is a true positive. Forcing a mismatch is simply bad policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom