So let’s say you go to your therapist to work out some issues, and a few sessions in, you mention going to synagogue.
“Well, there’s your problem right there,” he says. “You’re Jewish. Ugh, Jews. You guys are the worst. Get out.”
That’s pretty much what former counseling student Andrew Cash wanted to do, only for queers — to refuse to treat them because he considers them immoral. Missouri State University felt that this might not be a great way for a therapist to care for his clients, and so he was kicked out — and now, of course, he’s suing. Because he’s the victim here.
Specifically, Cash said that he could counsel gay people, but not a couple. He said that his style is based on his “core beliefs, values and Christian worldview.” Which is all fine and dandy, but that’s really not allowed — the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics specifically says that you’re not allowed to use your own personal baggage as an excuse to discriminate.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In fact, there’s a whole clause devoted to it:
A.11.b. Values Within Termination and Referral
Counselors refrain from referring prospective and current clients based solely on the counselor’s personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.
And that makes perfect sense. Imagine if other medical professionals were able to do the same: You go to a doctor to look at a suspicious mole, and he refuses to take your insurance because you have it through your same-sex spouse. Or you go to a dentist to get a root canal, and he tells you that he won’t use any anesthesia because he’s in a cult that worships pain. Or you need open-heart surgery, but the doctor’s a Jehovah’s Witness and might let you bleed to death because he doesn’t do blood transfusions.
You would of course be free to go to other doctors — and you probably should in all of those situations — but really those people shouldn’t be allowed to practice medicine in the first place. A medical license means something, and isn’t just handed out to anyone who wants to make up their own fancy imaginary treatments. If your invisible sky daddy is so important to you that you need to break the ethical rules of your chosen discipline, well, maybe theological school might be a better fit.
KJ
Who would want to receive services from such ilk, seeing you only because they had to? Apart from emergencies, I would much prefer that the law require them to post those they do not wish to see so I, and others, can avoid them.
Sansacro
@KJ: Read the comments on the Fox site, under the dude’s name above, and I think you may modify your view. Civil rights are important and need to be upheld. No one’s ideology should involve denying anyone his or her rights to social services, especially if someone lives in an area where Christian ideology dominates. Minorities–Jews, Muslims, atheists, GBLT, etc.–should not have to search for services that don’t reject them. They should be able to trust that services will serve them.
Nonetheless, another straw dog in this case. How many gay couples have thus far sought this therapy jesus out–none. How many will, even if he didn’t go public–very few or none. These christians just love playing the martyr game.
MacAdvisor
As a gay man and an attorney, I think professions who are going to establish an intimate relationship with a client need to reject clients with whom they may personal objections for the client’s sake. I think student here was right. If he knew his judgment would be affected by his personal beliefs, then I think he owes the patient that disclosure and to move the patient to a qualified fellow professional.
I medical doctor shouldn’t reject your insurance, which is merely a method of payment, because it is from your same-sex spouse, but I think he should have referred you to another doctor because of his views. The exception, of course, would be an emergency. You are having a heart attack, the doctor needs to treat you. You are actively considering suicide, the psychotherapist on call needs to speak with you. However, rarely do these emergency treatments result in long term client relationships. In my practice, I would not defend the civil right of a baker to not bake a cake for gay couple, but I would stand in at the bar should his lawyer need that.
These professional relationships are built on trust and the clear duty to put the client’s needs first. However much one tries, subconscious bias could injure a client one does not approve of. Where possible, therefore, such clients should be moved to more compatible professionals.
As for the dentist who is a member of a pain cult, he just needs to open Steve Martin’s practice from Little Shop of Horrors.
Scribe38
Mental health services are medical services. I cannot chose NOT to treat religious people or homophobic people when I clock in at my job as a nurse. I am bound treat them within my scope of practice, like every other patient. If he wants to be a professional in the medical field then he should act like it. You cannot pick and chose who you want to treat. I’ve taken care of prisoners, racists, and anti-gay patients. You swallow it up and act in the patient’s best interest like an adult.
Scribe38
Mental health services are medical services. I cannot chose NOT to treat religious people or homophobic people when I clock in at my job as a nurse. I am bound treat them within my scope of practice, like every other patient. If he wants to be a professional in the medical field then he should act like it. You cannot pick and chose who you want to treat. I’ve taken care of prisoners, r@cists, and anti-gay patients. You swallow it up and act in the patient’s best interest like an adult.
Mack
@MacAdvisor: I agree with you. While we may not want to search for who is “gay friendly” do any of us really want to go to someone that is “anti-gay”? To me that would detrimental to someone’s well being. You can’t deny someone the right to pursue their dreams of being something based on their bigotry. If he wants to pursue it, fine-just make sure you advertise you’re not “gay friendly”.
We can’t make people like us. We can and our family can refused to do business with them. I understand this situation more than most since I grew up in the South in the 40’s and 50’s where blacks wasn’t allowed in businesses because of their color. If someone wants to refuse service POST IT ON YOUR DAMN DOORS AND WINDOWS for the whole world to see that you’re a bigot and perhaps you’ll lose your business.
Stache
I guess it’s only fair because no way in hell would I seek council from someone that has a world view shaped by invisible sky beings. I prefer professionals grounded in reality.
Zekester
@MacAdvisor: I’ve said over and over that I’m glad that raging homophobes turn away gay clients who aren’t smart enough to not go to them in the first place. It sucks that they turn people away but they are doing a service to humanity every time they refuse to impose their hateful beliefs and bogus therapies upon vulnerable patients.
Brian
When you counsel someone, it’s very personal. I have some sympathy for Andrew Cash.
In any case, why would a gay couple seek counsel in this way? Just ask your friends at the gay bar. They’ll set you right in a minute.
James
He needs a psychiatrist.
DarkZephyr
@MacAdvisor: Are you kidding me? First of all, how the hell is the patient supposed to know what a homophobic douche bag his therapist is right off the bat? He says he accepts gay individuals, but what happens if at some point along the road you mention that you are in a relationship with somebody of the same sex and you want advice about the relationship? Do you have to suddenly get a new therapist? If he holds a notion that some of his patients are evil sinners, he has NO BUSINESS being a therapist. Point blank period.
nick458
He will probably win his lawsuit but once a gay person sees him and complains to the licensing board he will lose his license and no longer be allowed to practice so I see his suit as short sighted.
Chris
This suit is not a slam-dunk for him. First of all, he can’t become licensed through an APA-accredited or ACA-accredited program because of their nondiscrimination standards. And secondly, he must have failed those counseling courses where he had to demonstrate knowledge of how to counsel gay couples. Here’s hoping that MSU prevails.
jheryn
Mirroring what some have said above, I wouldn’t WANT to be counseled by such a person. In fact, I would rather have them tell me about their homophobic attitudes before I gave them my personal information and money.
I would much rather pay someone who had my and my partner’s best interest at heart.
This isn’t saying what he thinks is in any way right, but if I am looking for counsel, I want counsel not judgment.
MacAdvisor
@DarkZephyr:
I think the therapist has a duty and an obligation to explain at the outset any reservations he had about a particular patient. Thus, event though the psychotherapist might be willing to treat a gay person, but not a gay couple, that limit would have to be disclosed. Thus, the patient would have a clear understanding of the therapists position before commencing therapy. Personally, I think the therapist should should simply not accept as a patient someone whose issue he is not willing to deal with in full.
If I may, allow me to point to a real-life example. I have a close friend who lost his wife to suicide. After a patient not too long after his wife’s death also committed suicide, he began to refer out patients who were expressing suicidal idolization. He personally could not effective deal with the issue and didn’t want his personal problems to interfere with the patient receiving the proper and necessary treatments. I think this was a wise move for his patients. I think the same would be true for a therapist that had issues with gay people.
Again, unlike a baker or a florist, certain relationships are so personal and intimate that we need to allow the professional to draw whatever boundaries their practice requires to protect the clients.
Juanjo
@MacAdvisor:
As a gay man and an attorney I find that if you have issues with someone because you do not care for gay people, straight people, Black people or other such matters then you should not be engaged in a profession which provides personal services to the public. BTW as an attorney you do no that refusing to take a client based upon such criteria is against the rules of professional conduct.
Bauhaus
@MacAdvisor:
The example you give is very different from a moral objection to ones sexual orientation. It makes perfect sense to refer a client to someone better qualified in a particular field – if a gay client goes to a therapist specializing addiction issues and he only has coming out issues, it’s perfectly reasonable for the therapist to point out that he doesn’t have an LGBT background, and that the patient would be better served by a different therapist. It’s quite another thing for a therapist to reject a client based solely on a moral objection to the patients sexual orientation.
MacAdvisor
@Juanjo:
Juanjo:
I assume you refer to Rule 2-400, titled Prohibited Discriminatory Conduct in a Law Practice. It states:
(A) For purposes of this rule:
(1) “law practice” includes sole practices, law partnerships, law corporations, corporate and governmental legal departments, and other entities which employ members to practice law;
(2) “knowingly permit” means a failure to advocate corrective action where the member knows of a discriminatory policy or practice which results in the unlawful discrimination prohibited in paragraph (B); and
(3) “unlawfully” and “unlawful” shall be determined by reference to applicable state or federal statutes or decisions making unlawful discrimination in employment and in offering goods and services to the public.
(B) In the management or operation of a law practice, a member shall not unlawfully discriminate or knowingly permit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race , national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability in:
(1) hiring, promoting, discharging, or otherwise determining the conditions of employment of any person; or
(2) accepting or terminating representation of any client.
(C) No disciplinary investigation or proceeding may be initiated by the State Bar against a member under this rule unless and until a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, other than a disciplinary tribunal, shall have first adjudicated a complaint of alleged discrimination and found that unlawful conduct occurred. Upon such adjudication, the tribunal finding or verdict shall then be admissible evidence of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the alleged discrimination in any disciplinary proceeding initiated under this rule. In order for discipline to be imposed under this rule, however, the finding of unlawfulness must be upheld and final after appeal, the time for filing an appeal must have expired, or the appeal must have been dismissed.
Thus, to violate the Rule, an attorney must first be convicted of discriminatory conduct by essentially a court or commission. That is a hard first step. Every attorney I know rejects cases by clients all the time. One doesn’t say, “I won’t represent you because you are a neo-Nazi (that would be prohibited),” but. instead, one says, “I don’t believe I can establish the full and proper attorney-client trust necessary to pursue your case with the zealousness it deserves, so I am going to give you some names of attorneys I think would be more suitable (This is not prohibited).”
Bauhaus:
As Mr. Spock says, “a difference that makes no difference is no difference.” One can’t refuse to take on a client because they are gay (or some other prohibited category), but one can refuse to take a client because one believes there is a factor that would prohibit the formation of a proper and necessary bond between professional and client. There really isn’t a difference between saying, “I won’t take you as a client because you are gay” and “I have irrational issues dealing with gay people, so I don’t feel confident I can provide the proper professional service to you, so, therefore, I must, unfortunately, not take you as a client.” It is the same as saying, “I now have an irrational issue with something you are dealing with (i.e., suicidal thoughts), so I am going to refer you to someone who is a better fit.” The question is not whether the issue is socially acceptable or not, the question is if a proper bond can be created given all the factors. As an attorney, I won’t take divorce cases, not even for my own brother, because I hate divorce cases. I honored in the subject in law school, but absolutely hate the practice. I won’t take child custody cases either.
joeyty
If any of this report is even true.
Bauhaus
@MacAdvisor:
Sexual orientation is innate. Suicide, mental illness, divorce and child custody – not innate. It’s perfectly understandable for a therapist/professional to reject a client for any number of reasons, but rejecting an entire class of people based on sexual orientation is discrimination. I wouldn’t want to be served by a bigoted therapist/professional, but I would exercise every legal avenue to make sure they faced the consequences for their bigotry.
JAW
@Juanjo:
One of LGBT’s biggest fears about therapy is to find someone that screws them up more then helps them.
When someone is looking for counseling, they need to vet the therapist… find out their style, what their beliefs are, have they helped other LGBT couples.
A Therapist is allowed to have religious and non-religious beliefs… They can be democrat or republican They can be Pro life or pro abortion they can be Pro Gay or anti-gay. It is our job to find someone that has a belief system close to our own.
I can totally understand that someone would not want to counsel me… I would want to know that up front instead of direction away from say, being gay or married.