‘Ex-gay’ ministry sues, cites religious freedom

[kweerwolf]

Love In Action, a Memphis ministry that runs group homes intended to turn gay people straight, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee in federal court alleging that the state is harassing the group because of its religion-based views on homosexuality.

Love In Action, founded in 1973 and operating in Memphis since 1994, has been the subject of three separate investigations by the state since June.

Early this summer, 16-year-old Zach Stark posted Love In Action’s rules for clients on his blog and expressed dismay about his parents’ plan to send him there for treatment intended to alter his sexual orientation.

As the posting made its way through various blogs and later into the media, gay psychologist Paul Chirumbulo of Los Angeles contacted the state and reported that sexual reorientation treatment constituted child abuse. A Department of Children’s Services investigation followed but did not find child abuse.

http://www.washblade.com/2005/10-7/news/national/lia.cfm

[bluedawg12]

1. The answer to hate mongers will come from litigation

not legislation.

Pro-gay attorney's will have to hit them where it hurts them- their wallets- not their conscience.

There may be a case made that some of the anti-gay speech is damaging to a group or class of people, such as gay parents who are often pulicy bashed and denigrated as parents and called sub-optimal and imlied to be unfit.

Send in the lawyers and sue them as individuals and as organizations.

[kweerwolf]

3. I've often wondered about the possibility of lawsuits ...

... against the fundies who go around proclaiming being gay is a "choice." There was a letter in the local newspaper just a couple of days ago that pissed me of with the assertion that gays and lesbians make a conscious decision to be gay.

It would be nice to take some of these assholes to court and tell them, "OK, douchebag ... prove your case."

[donco6]

4. An attorney cannot sue alone.

He has to have a claimant who can demonstrate harm or loss of rights. We need to get one of the kids to sue, but they can't on their own either, unless they're emancipated.

[Maat]

7. I agree, Donco6.

But I believe that someone will come forward (a victim) who DOES have standing; yes, he will need the cooperation of his/her parents - but I believe that will eventually happen.

And when a victim of this horsehockey does sue, I will be rooting for them!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Interesting about their contention of "anti-Christian bias"

because they can't have more than one mentally ill person there at a time without a license, which I assumes means someone would be there who would know what to do if there was a crisis. Their argument is a bit bogus, I think. It would be like having a Christian Science center that took on critically or chronically ill people yet wouldn't provide for a nurse or medicines because their faith requires that illness be overcome via prayer alone.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. They are not acting as a church

They are acting as an unlicensed psychotherapy treatment center. And it should be regulated as such.

[Maat]

8. I agree.

And it is my understanding that the State has plenty of evidence to back that up.

[Maat]

6. I was one of the ones who advocated investigating the program ..

for lack of a license.

I'm a retired social worker, and a J.D. (law degree). They are trying to argue that this is a ministry, but, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck ... it's a duck. From all appearances, they were convincing parents that they could cure something they viewed as a mental disorder ... and they did not have licensed mental health professionals in these homes in which the kids were staying. They had no mental health professionals with experience in dealing with either psychosis or suicidality.

I urged the groups advocating for these kids to check out if this Love In Action was violating the Code.

I'll bet that they are going to lose their legal argument. This is why: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that while a law may not be aimed at harassing a particualr religion, communities MAY regulate behaviors globally - including operating what is essentially a group home (addressing mental health issues) without the proper license.

If this was JUST a ministry - i.e. religious services - their argument might succeed. And, they have probably scrubbed their literative and website of anything to the contrary. But .. that is NOT what they were attempting when Zach entered ... and people have the materials to prove that.

I, for one, would love to see Love-in-Action/Refuge (the 'ministry' for minors) shut down.

Heck, this PFLAGer would love to see Love in Action shut down. What a disgusting effort.