3 ms·
Personally, I think this sort of ideological vetting in this case is justified. This girl is planning to be a school counselor somewhere, and chances are she w
by georgecmu 16y ago
Personally, I think this sort of ideological vetting in this case is justified.
This girl is planning to be a school counselor somewhere, and chances are she would have to counsel LGBT kids. She made it clear that she would not accept their sexual identities, would consider them sinners destined for hell, and, chances are, would treat them accordingly. If her beliefs were truly personal and there would be reasonable doubt that they would not interfere with her work and duty toward the kids, this would be a non-issue. However, as it stands, she is likely to incur a lot of emotional damage to kids from the most vulnerable segment of school population.
- _delirium 16y agoI could buy that as a job requirement. I'm mostly uncomfortable how it's couched in language about determinism, as if believing in genetic/environmental determinism is now a prerequisite to get degrees. I'd actually be much more okay with an openly ideological test, like: a prerequisite to get this degree is a belief that LGBT kids are not immoral/etc. and ought to be treated respectfully [etc. etc.].
- hga 16y agoWhile I'm not familiar with the tenets of other Christian faiths, the Roman Catholic belief is that being LGBT is not immoral per se, but engaging in homosexual acts is. Which brings us to the issue of premarital/underage sex: it hardly matters whether it's hetro or homosexual now, does it? Should all Christians be removed from this field? Or should we consider that those who say "Hate the sin, love the sinner" just might be sincere? In which case "an openly ideological test" to simply treat people with respect is not so ideological after all. Whereas the grounds they are pushing, echoing my 1984 riff, ought to require frequent testing as the true ideology de jour changes.