(An Eastern Michigan University student counselor has sued the University, claiming her dismissal for refusing to counsel gay and lesbian patients was a violation of her religious beliefs.)
A counselor should not be allowed to claim a religious exemption from treating people whose sexual activities he or she objects to, any more than a counselor should be allowed to refuse to treat people because she objects to their politics, their gender, their race, or their physical appearance. It’s all discriminatory.
But what if your religion requires you to discriminate? That’s your choice, but religions which preach discrimination (regardless of what they call it or how they justify it) cannot be allowed to take advantage of laws which are designed to protect people from religious discrimination, or to claim that they are being discriminated against because of their discrimination against others. That makes no sense. And one cannot make comparisons to religious dietary laws, for example, since neither eating pork nor refusing to eat pork can be considered discriminatory in any way (except perhaps against pigs). The counselor in this example can be compared to a Jewish restaurant worker who refuses to serve non-kosher food to patrons because his or her religion prohibits it.
Just as a fitness instructor who is afraid of going outdoors will probably have to modify his or her activities because of that fear, a counselor who does not accept a certain class of people because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation could argue that her own fear of homosexuals hampers her from doing her job, rather than claiming a valid religious exemption. In that case, both the exercise instructor and the counselor should probably consider other careers, or may be forced to quit because of a lack of proper qualifications. The exercise instructor might want to get a job working at an indoor facility, and the counselor might want to get a job counseling ONLY people of her own faith, not just her own sexual orientation. (There are probably a lot of straight people who might object to receiving counseling from a homophobe!) But it must be clear that the problem is with the employee, not with the employer.
No thoughtful court is going to side with the plaintiff in this case, because making this kind of exemption to laws against discrimination sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to a flood of other related and similarly invalid complaints. Can a police officer who is a religious pacifist refuse to carry a weapon? Can a Muslim model who wears a head scarf in public claim discrimination because she was passed over for a job working in a shampoo commercial? Can an Amish department store sales clerk sue for discrimination because he was fired for refusing to demonstrate to a customer how to use a cell phone? You can see where this sort of thing can lead.
Very well articulated!