Tennessee House Bill Would Let Therapists Refuse to Treat Atheists, Gay People, and Other Sinners

Representative [Jason] Zachary tells Local 8 News the bill is aiming to reinforce the First Amendment by protecting the religious rights of counselors, allowing them to refer a patient elsewhere. He also expressed that the bill protects patients and helps them to get better care, not denying care.

… age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital/partnership status, language preference, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or any basis proscribed by law.
The association sent an email out to mental health professionals on March 24, reminding counselors that, “The needs of the client are always a top priority, according to universally taught principles in counselor education, rather than the personally held beliefs of the counselor. This tenet is a civic and professional responsibility for those who are professional counselors.”

Raggamuffin wrote:There's not much point in a counselor dealing with issues they feel unable to advise on. I think there's too much spin to this story.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's not much point in a counselor dealing with issues they feel unable to advise on. I think there's too much spin to this story.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's not much point in a counselor dealing with issues they feel unable to advise on. I think there's too much spin to this story.

When you say "too much spin on this story,"  what do you mean?  Too much left?  Or too much right?  Simply too much emphasis?  From what point of view?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When you say "too much spin on this story,"  what do you mean?  Too much left?  Or too much right?  Simply too much emphasis?  From what point of view?

It's just the tone of it Quill. It's from an atheist blog, so it's to be expected I guess. I think it's common sense for a counseler to refer someone if they feel they can't advise on the issue themselves. All that talk about "sinners", bedpans, and the general hostile tone was a bit silly IMO.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's just the tone of it Quill. It's from an atheist blog, so it's to be expected I guess. I think it's common sense for a counseler to refer someone if they feel they can't advise on the issue themselves. All that talk about "sinners", bedpans, and the general hostile tone was a bit silly IMO.

But they are referring or they will be allow to refer them not based off what is wrong but by being allowed to discriminate against them based off beliefs.

As I asked you before, how would they feel they are unable to advise.

Are you saying they are specifically incompetent suddenly based on who the person is or their belief or non-beliefs?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

But they are referring or they will be allow to refer them not based off what is wrong but by being allowed to discriminate against them based off beliefs.

As I asked you before, how would they feel they are unable to advise.

Are you saying they are specifically incompetent suddenly based on who the person is or their belief or non-beliefs?

They're not necessarily discriminating, they may well just be saying they're not equipped to deal with particular issues and cannot be impartial. That could happen to anyone - including a counselor who is a militant atheist and who was asked to counsel someone who was perhaps having issues with their religious faith. They wouldn't really be impartial would they?

Raggamuffin wrote:They're not necessarily discriminating, they may well just be saying they're not equipped to deal with particular issues and cannot be impartial. That could happen to anyone - including a counselor who is a militant atheist and who was asked to counsel someone who was perhaps having issues with their religious faith. They wouldn't really be impartial would they?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They're not necessarily discriminating, they may well just be saying they're not equipped to deal with particular issues and cannot be impartial. That could happen to anyone - including a counselor who is a militant atheist and who was asked to counsel someone who was perhaps having issues with their religious faith. They wouldn't really be impartial would they?

But that raises the question of competency, and whether the practitioners should not surrender their licenses if they can't serve the public over a given issue.  As a licensed professional myself, I am constantly bombarded by the State Bar Association and others about how my license is a privilege and how much I own back to the state and the public.  Usually it's in a plea for pro bono services, but the emphasis is always on the obligation as it runs from me to others.

You seem to be saying that it's all right if you are not "equipped" to do your job.  You just refer the patient to someone else.  My question is, how far does that go?  How many areas do you get to say you are not "equipped" for before the State has a right to take away your license for lack of professional competency?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But that raises the question of competency, and whether the practitioners should not surrender their licenses if they can't serve the public over a given issue.  As a licensed professional myself, I am constantly bombarded by the State Bar Association and others about how my license is a privilege and how much I own back to the state and the public.  Usually it's in a plea for pro bono services, but the emphasis is always on the obligation as it runs from me to others.

You seem to be saying that it's all right if you are not "equipped" to do your job.  You just refer the patient to someone else.  My question is, how far does that go?  How many areas do you get to say you are not "equipped" for before the State has a right to take away your license for lack of professional competency?

In the UK, doctors can refuse to carry out abortions or recommend one on the grounds of conscience, as long as they refer to the patient to another doctor. Would you say they were just incompetent?

If a GP can't make a diagnosis, they refer the patient. Is that GP incompetent?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the UK, doctors can refuse to carry out abortions or recommend one on the grounds of conscience, as long as they refer to the patient to another doctor. Would you say they were just incompetent?

If a GP can't make a diagnosis, they refer the patient. Is that GP incompetent?

Maybe you are right.  I just think it is a bit different when speaking of matters of opinion and conscience.  If I am a gastroenterologist and I say I cannot do a knee replacement, it's more a matter of technique and specialty.  But religion is all-encompassing and crosses all spheres of specialization.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maybe you are right.  I just think it is a bit different when speaking of matters of opinion and conscience.  If I am a gastroenterologist and I say I cannot do a knee replacement, it's more a matter of technique and specialty.  But religion is all-encompassing and crosses all spheres of specialization.

I think that a lot is asked of counselors. They're only human, and they can't be expected to advise on everything. I think it depends on why a gay person has gone to see a counselor really. If it's to do with them being gay, I would think that it was common sense to refer them to someone who has more experience or more understanding - perhaps a gay counselor. If it's not to do with being gay, I think it would be silly to refuse to counsel them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's just the tone of it Quill. It's from an atheist blog, so it's to be expected I guess. I think it's common sense for a counseler to refer someone if they feel they can't advise on the issue themselves. All that talk about "sinners", bedpans, and the general hostile tone was a bit silly IMO.

But they are referring or they will be allow to refer them not based off what is wrong but by being allowed to discriminate against them based off beliefs.

As I asked you before, how would they feel they are unable to advise.

Are you saying they are specifically incompetent suddenly based on who the person is or their belief or non-beliefs?

They're not necessarily discriminating, they may well just be saying they're not equipped to deal with particular issues and cannot be impartial. That could happen to anyone - including a counselor who is a militant atheist and who was asked to counsel someone who was perhaps having issues with their religious faith. They wouldn't really be impartial would they?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not necessarily discriminating, they may well just be saying they're not equipped to deal with particular issues and cannot be impartial. That could happen to anyone - including a counselor who is a militant atheist and who was asked to counsel someone who was perhaps having issues with their religious faith. They wouldn't really be impartial would they?

Would people tend to see a therapist for a crisis of faith? I'd think they'd see their pastor, rabbi, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not necessarily discriminating, they may well just be saying they're not equipped to deal with particular issues and cannot be impartial. That could happen to anyone - including a counselor who is a militant atheist and who was asked to counsel someone who was perhaps having issues with their religious faith. They wouldn't really be impartial would they?

Would people tend to see a therapist for a crisis of faith? I'd think they'd see their pastor, rabbi, etc.

Dunno. They might not have a pastor or a rabbi. In any case, if they went to a counselor, I see no problem with the counselor suggesting that they go and see someone like that.